Disclosure in the Spotlight for Patent Cases with Third-Party Funding

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct by the law firm entrusted with a funder's financial resources.

An article in Reuters covers the approval of a settlement between MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates) and two litigation funders, which will see the bankrupt law firm sell more than 6,000 cases to repay debts owed to the funders. Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund had sued MMA in Texas state court, and under the new settlement will receive a minimum of $18 million from the sale of the cases. The settlement brings the dispute between the funders and law firm to a close, following years of court battles over MMA’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent.

The settlement, which was approved by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez, requires that 75% of the proceeds from the sales go to the two funders, with the remaining percentage of proceeds distributed to MMA’s other creditors. The $18 million figure set as a minimum return for the funders under the settlement is still significant below the nearly $38 million that they claim to be owed by MMA. The mass tort cases include claims related to pharmaceutical drug, a weed killer, and a baby formula.

The troubles facing MMA go back several years, with LFJ reporting back in 2023 on a petition lodged by the same two funders in a Louisiana court over MMA’s improper filing of claims on behalf of property owners who suffered damage to their properties from hurricanes. The law firm and its founder, Zach Moseley, were reported to be under investigation by the FBI over these filings of claims but there is currently no update as to the status of that investigation. 

The settlement also allows MMA and Moseley to continue working on other cases on its books, on the condition that the latter does not receive any form of salary increase or bonus before the funders have been repaid.