Whilst last week saw a flurry of activity in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as trials began in multiple collective proceedings, this week has seen the Tribunal hand down a ruling in a carriage dispute between two claims both targeting Amazon for allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.

A press release from Geradin Partners highlights the judgment from the CAT in a carriage dispute, which saw the Tribunal find in favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in collective proceedings being brought against Amazon. The carriage dispute related to the parallel claims brought by Professor Stephan and by the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA), over allegations that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed third-party sellers on the online marketplace. Professor Stephan’s proceedings had instructed Geradin Partners and secured litigation funding from Innsworth, whilst BIRA had instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher and agreed to funding from Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

In its ruling, the CAT found that whilst BIRA had an advantage in its suitability to act as the class representative, “this was clearly outweighed by the factors which favour Prof Stephan”, which it identified as “the scope of the claims and the expert methodology.” Although the CAT highlighted that the breadth of Professor Stephan’s claims “would no doubt enlarge the scope of a trial and therefore make it more complicated”, the ruling cited case law in emphasising that his claims “more consistent with the goals of access to justice by capturing more viable claims”.

The published judgment also shed light on the details of the funding arrangements in the claims. Professor Stephan’s litigation funding agreement (LFA) with Innsworth committed a maximum of £32.9 million to cover costs and expenses, with an additional commitment “to pay adverse costs of £5 million until the grant or refusal of a CPO and of £20 million thereafter.” As to the returns outlined in the funding agreement, Professor Stephan’s LFA with Innsworth “provides for a total multiple rising from 4 up to 10 (if the recovery is after the commencement of the substantive trial).” The CAT noted that the returns from Professor Stephan’s LFA were higher than for the funder in the BIRA claim, in the conclusion of its examination the Tribunal noted that “the funding arrangements of the two applications are a neutral factor in choosing between them.”

The CAT’s full judgment in the carriage dispute can be read here.

Additional analysis of the CAT’s ruling and its implications for future carriage disputes for funded proceedings can be found in a LinkedIn post from Matthew Lo, director at Exton Advisors.

Ayse Yazir has started a new position as Managing Director at Bench Walk Advisors. This latest promotion comes in the seventh year of Yazir’s tenure at the market-leading litigation funder, having joined the firm in 2018 as a Vice President and most recently having served as Global Head of Origination.

In a post on LinkedIn, Yazir reveals that her work at Bench Walk Advisors incorporates a wide range of matters across the litigation funding industry including international and commercial arbitration, insolvency, class actions and global litigation matters as well as law firm and corporate portfolio arrangements and defense funding.

Yazir also expressed her delight at starting the new role and thanked her fellow Bench Walk Advisors’ managing directors Stuart Grant and Adrian Chopin for the opportunity.

As we enter yet another year in the story of the $16.1 billion award in the case funded by Burford Capital against the YPF oil and gas company, a US judge has ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information about the country’s financial assets to the funder as part of its efforts to collect on the award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald provides an update on the ongoing fight to recover the $16.1 billion award in the YPF lawsuit, as a New York judge ordered Argentina to comply with a discovery request for information around the Argentine Central Bank’s gold reserves. The order handed down by Judge Loretta Preska followed the request made by Burford Capital in October of last year, with the litigation funder citing media reports that Argentina’s Central Bank had moved a portion of its gold reserves overseas.

Lawyers for Argentina’s government had submitted a letter last week arguing against the discovery request on the grounds that the Argentine Republic and Central Bank are legally separate entities, and that any such gold reserves have “special protection from execution under [United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] and UK law.” Responding to these arguments in her order, Judge Preska stated plainly that “regardless of whether the gold reserves are held by [the Central Bank], the Republic shall produce its own documents concerning the reserves.”

Judge Preska also ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information concerning its SWIFT data on its overseas accounts and for documents from another lawsuit brought against the Republic, saying that all this information could “lead to other executable assets.”

When looking for those jurisdiction most amenable to class actions supported by litigation funders, the Netherlands remains at the top of the list, as has been demonstrated once again today by a court’s approval of a privacy claim brought under the WAMCA regime.

An article on DutchNews covers the news that an Amsterdam court has approved the approach of a Dutch foundation to bring a claim against Google over allegations that the tech company violated the privacy of Android phone users. The court ruled that the Stichting Massaschade & Consument meets the admissibility requirements of the Act on Collective Damages in Class Actions (WAMCA). The court’s approval of the foundation’s structure and its involvement of a litigation funder means that the parties can now move forward with the class action which has reportedly registered over 100,000 consumers since 2023.

According to the foundation’s website, the class action is being financed by Eaton Hall Funding LLC, with the agreement allowing for the funder to receive 17.5% of the proceeds after costs, if the claim reaches a settlement or favourable ruling. Rubicon Impact & Litigation, an Amsterdam-based law firm, is providing legal representation for the claimants.

Frank Peters, co-founder and head of impact & litigation at Rubicon, emphasised the importance of working with a litigation funder on the case, stating that “you need very deep pockets to expose what Big Tech is trying to hide.” He explained that working with this funder, “our client was able to expose what information Google takes from Android phones, even when you are careful with your privacy settings”, and that the court’s ruling “makes clear that it is perfectly fine that  class actions come about like this.”More information about the claim can be found on the foundation’s website.

When it comes to funded class actions, most attention is paid to those proceedings underway in the UK, US and Australia. However, a recent ruling from New Zealand’s highest court has once again highlighted its position as a welcoming jurisdiction for funders and plaintiffs pursuing these group proceedings.

In an article on Lexology written by Nina Blomfield, James Caird, Jania Baigent, and Alice Poole from Simpson Grierson, these litigators analyse the impact of a recent decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court to reject a challenge to common fund orders (CFOs) in class actions. The ruling handed down at the end of 2024 saw the Supreme Court deny ANZ and ASB’s application for leave to appeal a lower court’s decision, which had reaffirmed the courts’ ability to allow CFOs to be made at an early stage of proceedings.

The origin of this appeal came from a 2022 High Court ruling, which confirmed the court had the jurisdiction to make a CFO in a class action but also ruled that it was too early to make a CFO prior to the conclusion of the stage 1 hearing. Two years later, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision on jurisdiction and went a step further in ruling that CFOs being made at an early stage of the litigation was beneficial in furthering access to justice.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found that both lower courts had ruled correctly, and when it came to the issue of timing re-emphasised the importance of access to justice. The justices highlighted the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that “access to justice is best achieved through a CFO being made as early as possible in a proceeding”, which in turn “gives the litigation funder a degree of assurance in relation to its return on its investment”.

The authors describe this decision as “a significant win for litigation funders and class action plaintiffs” and highlight the courts’ repeated “strong focus on access to justice in representative proceedings.”

The Supreme Court’s full judgment on the application for leave to appeal can be read here.