Trending Now

All Articles

3387 Articles
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Class action lawsuit progresses in London against Visa and Mastercard to challenge card payment fees affecting UK businesses

A significant class action lawsuit against Visa and Mastercard has progressed at the UK’s specialist competition tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has set a date in April 2023 for a Collective Proceedings Order hearing, which will determine whether the claim – on behalf of a large number of businesses seeking damages for allegedly unlawful charges – can proceed to a full trial.  Harcus Parker, a UK-based commercial litigation law firm specialising in group litigation, competition litigation and class action lawsuits, has brought the corporate card claim at the CAT, the UK’s specialist judicial body for hearing competition cases. The class action seeks compensation for UK businesses, which were charged Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs) for accepting payments using corporate* credit cards, as well as for both credit and debit cards used by overseas visitors.  The CAT has published the claim on its website and has now agreed to hear the application for a Collective Proceedings Order.  Harcus Parker claims that Visa and Mastercard have forced banks to agree to a level of MIFs set by the two giants, which are “anti-competitive and unlawful”.  “We want to ensure businesses across the UK economy are properly compensated.  We are making a stand against unlawful interchange fees, which should be abolished. Both the UK Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the EU have condemned this practice for consumer credit and debit cards. The UK courts should now clamp down on commercial card fees and consumer card inter-regional fees,” said Jeremy Robinson, competition litigation partner at Harcus Parker.  Mr Robinson added: “UK businesses in the travel, hospitality, retail and luxury sectors are particularly hurt by Mastercard and Visa’s multilateral interchange fees and we are pleased that this important claim has been endorsed by a number of leading trade bodies including UKHospitality and ABTA.”  Multilateral Interchange Fees make up the greater part of the service charges levied by banks on businesses when customers pay by card.  Typically, for every £100 spent, up to £1.80 is charged on payments made by corporate cards, or cards used by overseas visitors – costs which are borne by companies throughout the UK.   Since 2015, EU law capped Multilateral Interchange Fees at 0.3 percent on consumer credit card transactions, and 0.2 percent for consumer debit cards. However, this cap did not apply to corporate cards or for consumer card inter-regional transactions.  These sales have continued to attract fees of up to 1.8 percent per transaction.  Harcus Parker accuses Mastercard and Visa of requiring banks to charge anti-competitive MIFs on businesses. These MIFs for corporate and inter-regional payments should be zero per cent, say Harcus Parker.  The class action is open to all businesses, including large international companies and local businesses, as well as some non-UK companies. Many of these businesses, particularly in the travel and hospitality sectors but also the luxury sector too, have been particularly hard hit by Brexit, Covid-19 and the current economic climate.  UK businesses are invited at this stage to register their interest online at www.commercialcardclaim.co.uk.  Those businesses with an annual pre-Covid turnover of £100 million or more will be invited to opt-in to the claim.  Businesses with a turnover under this threshold who have registered online will be automatically included unless they choose to opt out.  A number of trade bodies have endorsed the claim, including: 
  •     ABTA, which represents over 3,900 leading UK travel brands; 
  •     UK Hospitality, which represents 740 members representing many businesses across the UK; 
  •     UKinbound, which represents 330 businesses; 
  •     Tourism Alliance, which represents 65 associations and organisations, which in turn comprise thousands of potential claimants; 
  •     Advantage Travel Partnership, which represents 350 businesses with over £4.5billion annual turnover and which officially endorsed the case at its 2022 annual overseas conference. 
The CAT will hold a ‘certification hearing’ between 3-5 April 2023, when it will decide whether the case can go forward to trial, which is likely to take place in stages in 2024 and 2025.  The case is financed by a third party litigation funder, Bench Walk Advisers, and is fully insured.  *Corporate cards are a type of commercial card, sometimes known as a company or business card.  The served claims can be found on the Competition Appeal Tribunal website:  Harcus Parker is a commercial litigation firm.  It specialises in bringing and defending complex claims, often involving large groups of claimants.  Founded by Damon Parker in 2019, the firm is a recognised market leader in group litigation, case management and litigation funding. 
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

Contingency Capital Holds Final Closing of First Commingled Fund

Contingency Capital, a global asset management business focused on credit-oriented legal assets, has successfully completed the capital raise for its first commingled fund, with over $490 million in new discretionary capital across the fund and related managed accounts. The firm launched in November 2020 and has raised and deployed in excess of $700 million across a series of strategies and transactions. Its investor base includes university endowments, pension funds, family offices and consultants.

Brandon Baer, Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Contingency Capital, stated: “We are very grateful for the support our business has received from institutional investors in the United States and Europe. Since launch, we have continued to see strong interest from investors seeking diversifying strategies that are generally uncorrelated to the broader equity and fixed income markets. The asset class has evolved considerably in recent years, and our capital raise reflects a growing appetite for legal asset-related investments as well as the increasing institutionalization of the asset class more generally.”

Contingency has a multi-strategy approach, focusing on a broad spectrum of legal assets, including loans to law firms, portfolio financing and distressed and special situations investments where the primary driver is related to a legal, tax or regulatory process. The firm combines litigation expertise with a fundamental credit approach, building structured, diversified pools of legal assets to create sustainable, credit-like returns.

About Contingency Capital  

Contingency Capital is a global asset management business focused on credit-oriented legal assets. For further information on Contingency Capital please see www.contingencycapital.com.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Schulte Roth & Zabel Partners Criticize Key Recommendations in the Voss Report

Regulation will be a key industry focus in 2023, with the stage having been set by the Voss Report passed by the European Parliament in September. However, the report’s proposals have received significant criticism, and one law firm has offered careful analysis of issues posed by five of the Voss Report’s central recommendations. In an article for ThoughtLeaders4 Disputes, partners at law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, Polly O’Brien and Boris Ziser, have examined the following recommendations from the report: capital adequacy, adverse costs, fiduciary duty, a cap on fees, and disclosure of funding arrangements. O’Brien and Ziser note that it already benefits funders to ensure they have sufficient capital to finance activities, and question how a universal standard could be applied, whilst also questioning whether industries outside of litigation finance are held to such standards. Regarding the proposal to make funders liable for adverse costs, the authors highlight that this seems to sit at odds with the report’s stated aim to lower the costs of litigation and widen access to justice, as enforcing such a measure would increase the risk for funders and thereby necessitate higher fees. On the suggestion that funders should maintain a fiduciary duty to the claimant, O’Brien and Ziser observe that while such a duty appropriately exists for a funder to its investors, there seems to be no reason for this to exist for clients who have no need for financial recourse where a claim is unsuccessful. The recommendation for a cap on fees is highlighted as an idea that seems misguided in trying to use a one-size-fits-all approach to all cases, regardless of individual differences in risk and capital required, and would also lead to funders being hesitant to finance cases in the EU. Finally, the authors criticize the similarly blanket approach to disclosure by highlighting that the details of a funding arrangement should have no relevance to a claim’s merits, and that enforcing such detailed disclosure will only encourage defendants to prolong cases where they can see the financial burden will drain a claimant’s funding resources.
Case Developments Commercial

Judge Recommends Confirmation of $1.8 Million Award for Woodsford

\Despite the mutually beneficial partnership between litigation finance companies and lawyers, one ongoing dispute in U.S. federal court had placed a spotlight on a strained relationship between a funder and law firm. However, the dispute between Woodsford and Hosie Rice, which LFJ originally reported on in September, looks closer than ever to being resolved. A recent article by Bloomberg Law details the latest development in the case, after a recommendation was issued by US Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon, saying that the federal district court in Delaware should confirm a $1.8 million award to Woodsford. The judge found that Hosie Rice had not provided sufficient legal reasoning to overturn the award set by a panel of three arbitrators. This arbitration found that Woodsford was entitled to collect fees from Hosie’s case against Google, where the funder had provided $800,000 in funding. Woodsford’s chief executive officer, Steven Friel, reiterated the company’s position that the basis of the dispute was a “straightforward debt collection matter”, whilst the law firm said that it would continue to fight the award despite Judge Fallon’s recommendation. Both parties will now await the Delaware federal judge’s decision as to whether it will grant the award to Woodsford.
Commercial Deals

Shareholder Class Action against AVZ Minerals to be Funded by Omni Bridgeway

Shareholder-led class actions are on the rise, with investors seeking to hold corporations to account where they engage in misleading or deceptive statements, and litigation funders are increasingly eager to fund these actions. One of the latest examples was reported by the Australian Financial Review, covering a shareholder class action being brought against AVS Minerals, an exploration company based in Australia. Omni Bridgeway is funding the action which alleges that AVZ misled its investors over its ownership rights to a hard rock lithium deposit in the Democratic Republic of Congo, called the Manono Project. The claim alleges that AVZ failed to disclose relevant information related to its ownership of the project, which led to an increased valuation of AVZ’s shares on the stock market. Law firm Johnson Winter Slattery will be running the claim, and will represent investors who purchased shares during an almost year-long period between May 17 2021 and May 6 2022.
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

£110 million Comet Group judgement in favour of funded party largest ever claim successfully brought under the UK’s 1986 Insolvency Act

LitigationCapital Management Limited (AIM:LIT),an alternative asset manager specializing in dispute financing solutions internationally, is pleased to announce positive progress on two investments within its portfolio. Successful Judgment in investment in English court litigation As announced on 23 June 2021, LCM entered into an agreement to provide a finance facility to Geoffrey Carton-Kelly, a partner of FRP Advisory ("FRP"), additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Ltd (In Liquidation), formerly known as Comet Group Ltd ("Comet"). This investment forms part of LCM’s Fund I portfolio of investments. In November 2022, judgment in the High Court was awarded in favour of Mr Carton- Kelly (the funded party) for approximately £110m. This judgment is understood to represent the largest ever (by value) preference claim successfully brought under the UK’s 1986InsolvencyAct. The Defendant to the proceeding has obtained permission to appeal the judgment, which will delay the maturity of the investment, but will be paying the judgment amount into court. This investment has been significantly de-risked from both a merits and recovery risk perspective. The financial performance of this investment is protected against the passage of time by way of an increasing multiple of invested capital. The size of the investment made by LCM is within the median range for an investment within Fund I. Clarification of press report on an LCM investment Following recent press speculation, the Company is providing an update on a further Fund I investment involving claims against Poland under both the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which has now been heard by an Arbitral Tribunal. Following completion of the hearing, the Arbitral Tribunal will render an Award in due course. There is no specified date for an Award to be rendered and there is no certainty as to what the outcome of that Award will be. Revenue recognition In line with LCM’s revenue recognition, the Company will only recognise revenue associated with these matters at the point in time it has more certainty on the final outcome, including following any appeal where relevant, or when there is more clarity around the recovery of funds. We remain confident that with respect to the awards set out above these will generate returns in line with management expectations, notwithstanding that, the timing within which each award will be realised remains uncertain. The Company generally expects the duration of investments to increase to between 36 - 42 months. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “We are pleased with the significant progress on these key investments. The successful judgment in the High Court of England demonstrates LCM’s strength in project selection and we look forward to reporting further once each of these investments has reached a conclusion.” About LCM Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, whichoperatestwobusiness models. The first isdirectinvestments madefromLCM's permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its revenue from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management. LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered inSydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funder Argues Disclosure of Funding in International Arbitration Can Be Beneficial

Disclosure of litigation funding remains one of the most discussed industry topics as we head into the end of the year, with disclosure requirements and disputes occurring in jurisdictions around the world. In the realm of international arbitration, one funder argues that disclosure should not be viewed as a negative, but as a useful tool for strengthening the client’s claim. Outlined in a new piece of analysis by William Panlilio, an investment manager at Litigation Capital Management (LCM), the issue of disclosure in international arbitration is reframed to focus on its benefits for funders. Mr Panlilio points out that while there are no formal rules around disclosure in this area, it is generally accepted that both the presence as well as the identity of litigation funders in international arbitration should be discoverable. Panlilio argues that this should not be seen as undesirable, as the existence of a funding arrangement can act as a strong signal to all parties concerned that the claim is supported by a third-party who has assessed it as being substantial and likely to succeed. Additionally, it can dissuade the opposite party from engaging in stalling tactics in the hope of draining a claimant’s financial resources. Panlilio does specify that discoverability should not be exhaustive, as the details and exact nature of a funding arrangement should not play any role in a tribunal’s decision-making, nor is it relevant to the merits of a claim.
Commercial Deals

CASL Funds Class Action by Aboriginal Communities Against Australian Government

Litigation funding is perhaps at its most impactful when it can be used by individuals or groups of citizens to hold their government to account. A new class action in Australia is once again demonstrating this impact, as a leading funder is supporting a new action by Aboriginal communities against the regional authorities. Detailed in an article by National Indigenous Times, the Northern Territory’s public housing body is facing a class action suit brought by Aboriginal remote community residents who allege that the regional government has failed to ensure that local housing meets safety standards. The class action brought by residents of Gunbalanya is being funded by CASL, and takes aim at both the Territory and Commonwealth governments for failing to resolve tenant complaints about the quality of housing. Madeline White, a senior associate at law firm Phi Finney McDonald, which is leading the case, argued that this class action is not only about securing compensation for those residents involved in this lawsuit, but also for the wide array of remote Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. This is also not the first case of its kind, with similar lawsuits being brought in 2016 and 2019 by communities in Santa Teresa and Laramba.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Aussie Government to Roll Back Litigation Funding Restrictions

Regulatory developments are at the front of mind for funders around the world, with significant proposals being discussed to place restrictions on third-party funding in the European Union, whilst other jurisdictions look to open their legal systems to increased involvement from funders. In a welcome development for funders in Australia, the government has made good on its commitment to reverse litigation funding restrictions put in place by the prior administration. In an announcement by the Department of the Treasury, the Australian government announced that its plans to exempt funders from investment regulations have now come into force. This reversal of the previous government’s position, which LFJ reported on in September, means that funders will once again be exempt from regulations including the managed investment scheme and Australian financial services licensing, according to a release by the Australian Securities & Investment Commission. Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, said in the statement that litigation funders play a crucial role in the government’s broader aim to widen access to justice. He also stated that the Treasury would continue to evaluate the Australian Law Reform Commission’s wider recommendations, to ensure that the country’s class action regime would produce ‘fair and reasonable outcomes’.