However, Adina Thorn Lawyers has allegedly been contacted by a number of people who claimed to have been experiencing weather-tightness issues in properties built with Shadowclad.
In 2014 a Fair Go investigation also found 24 people were believed to have been supplied with faulty or sub-standard Shadowclad material.
Principal lawyer Adina Thorn believed there could be a number of other property owners out there in the same boat.
A spokesman for Carter Holt Harvey said the Herald's call was the first he knew of the proposed class action, but said the company was unlikely to make public comment on the matter.
Thorn said Shadowclad had been used in many homes and baches around the country since 1980.
"Due to its natural timber appearance it is often used on coastal properties and in large architectural homes."
Because companies weren't required to disclose sales figures, she said it was difficult to ascertain exactly how many may have been affected - but she believed it was significant.
"There's huge costs to this issue and a lot of people, if not most, cannot afford to bring actions on their own."
Thorn said the class action was free for anyone to join, as external funders would bear the cost.
However, they still needed a few more people to get on board in order for it to be able to go ahead.
Media spokesman for the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors Nick Gaites said it wasn't clear whether the alleged issue with Shadowclad was a product issue or an installation issue.
"It's a wait and see whether manufacturers have liability or if it's workmanship issues."
However, Gaites, also the director of Reveal Building Consultants, had heard of some issues with the material, including instances where the glue had failed and caused the plywood to come apart.
He'd also heard of it being substituted with something sub-standard.
Thorn said if the suit went ahead the firm planned to claim against CHH for the "complete repair cost and possible loss of value".
"We would be seeking monetary compensation for those owners for the cost to fix - or loss on sale - and for the health impacts, such as from mould and fungi.
The case would be run in tandem with legal action currently underway against the James Hardie Group of companies.
The Hardie action, estimated to be worth more than $250m, involved 1000 owners of 365 buildings including 29 large Body Corporate complexes for the use of "non-performing" cladding materials including Harditex, Monotek and Titan Board.
She believed the costs for the claim against CHH would be slightly smaller than this as Shadowclad's usage was not as widespread - but it could be within the realm of $100m.
A Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spokesperson said it was aware of the concerns with Shadowclad's use in school buildings and of the subsequent legal proceedings.
While it hadn't been alerted to any concerns around the material's use in residential buildings it said any failures should be referred "in the first instance" to the builder and the supplier.
"There are implied warranties in the Building Act to protect consumers and suppliers also have obligations under consumer legislation."
The spokesperson said anyone with concerns around a product's use could also let MBIE know so that it could monitor the issue.
Otherwise, the Commerce Commission could also be advised as it had the ability to prosecute a supplier in case of a breach of the Fair Trading Act.
Such breaches could include making a "false, misleading or unsubstantiated claim" about a product.
