In a post on LinkedIn, Pogust Goodhead announced that Harris Pogust has retired from his role as Chairman of the global law firm, following his move to step back from being actively involved in UK cases in March of this year. The announcement explained that Mr Pogust will continue working with his US law firm and as President of the non-profit organisation Trial Lawyers For A Better Tomorrow, which works to raise money to help children and support access to education.

Mr Pogust provided the following comment on his departure: “Over the past six years we have built Pogust Goodhead into the world’s premier group litigation firm. We have helped defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves against the misdeeds of big business. 

At this time in my life, I want to devote more time and energy to my philanthropic endeavours including a charitable organization we have just launched to assist children all over the world reach their fullest potential, their hopes and their dreams. Throughout my career I have been lucky enough to visit communities and make friends all over the world. I have increasingly felt pulled to focus my search for justice and fairness on helping children who are disadvantaged and lack the basic resources to access education.

I look forward to watching Tom lead the firm for many more years and obtain success on behalf of millions of people who would otherwise not have access to justice.”

Thomas Goodhead, global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead, also provided the following statement celebrating Mr Pogust’s contribution to the firm: “Without Harris, founding this firm would never have been possible. He has played a fundamental part in getting us to where we are today. I cannot thank Harris enough for everything he has done for me personally, for the firm and for our clients.

Harris’ generosity of spirit, his constant encouragement and support to myself and everyone in the team have been invaluable. Thanks to him we are taking on some of the biggest companies in the world to make a difference to the lives of millions of people. Harris has had an extraordinary career and while he is retiring from his role as Chairman, we know he will continue to use any means necessary to help improve real people’s lives through his new charitable foundation and his US law firm.”

The announcement did not state who would replace Mr Pogust as chairman of the firm.

Whilst industry commentators noted that litigation funding would likely not rank highly among the new government’s priorities following this year’s general election, there has been renewed interest in the government’s approach to third-party funding as the Civil Justice Council (CJC) continues its review of the sector.

In a speech to the Civil Justice Council’s 13th National Forum, Heidi Alexander MP highlighted the ongoing work of the CJC’s review of litigation funding and reinforced the government’s message to the third-party funding industry. In a speech that covered a wide range of issues under the new government’s approach to civil justice, Ms Alexander highlighted the CJC’s recently published interim report and its working group, which she described as “expertly chaired by Mr Justice Simon picken and Dr John Sorabji.”

She once again laid out the government’s position, saying that “third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in enabling access to justice and as a government we want to make sure it’s fair for all.” Acknowledging that there was some disappointment they had not picked up the previous parliament’s legislation to solve the PACCAR judgment, Ms Alexander said that “we want to consider this issue carefully and holistically.”

Before moving onto other issues, she highlighted the ongoing review of third-party funding as “incredibly valuable”, and encouraged interested parties to engage with the consultation before it closes at the end of January.

The recording of all the forum’s speakers, including the minister’s remarks, can be found on YouTube.

Among the global tech giants facing the most scrutiny from regulatory bodies, Microsoft has increasingly come under the spotlight in both Europe and America for potential breaches of antitrust rules by its cloud computing business. A lawsuit filed today suggests that these external pressures may be ramping up, as a £1 billion claim is targeting the company for allegedly overcharging its UK customers.

Reporting by TechCrunch covers the news that a new antitrust lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft, which alleges that the company has been overcharging customers of its cloud computing competitors to license Windows Server software. The claim, which was filed today in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), is being brought on an opt-out basis, representing any companies or organisations who purchased a license to use Windows Server from either AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud from December 2018. The lawsuit is seeking around £1 billion in compensation with Litigation Capital Management (LCM) providing funding through its British office, LCM Funding UK Limited.

Dr. Maria Luisa Stasi, the Proposed Class Representative (PCR), said that the claim “aims to challenge Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour, push them to reveal exactly how much businesses in the UK have been illegally penalised, and return the money to organisations that have been unfairly overcharged.” Dr Stasi has instructed Scott+Scott UK LLP as solicitors for the litigation, with the law firm working with barristers from Brick Court Chambers and One Essex Court Chambers. 

In a separate post, Exton Advisors announced that it had advised Dr Stasi on securing third-party funding from LCM, with Managing Director John Astill stating: “This is another example of holding large corporates to account and ensuring fair entry to consumer markets by smaller players. Competition laws exist to protect both individuals and companies, and it is only with the benefit of third-party funding that these claims can ultimately succeed. Exton Advisors are delighted to play our part in ensuring claims like these are funded in a timely, efficient, and transparent manner.”

James Hain-Cole, partner at Scott+Scott, said: “Litigation Funding Agreements have changed a lot since the collective action regime was implemented and it was helpful to obtain advice on market standard from Exton, who have seen a lot of LFAs and have great visibility of the funding market.”

More information about the lawsuit can be found on the UK Cloud Licensing Claim website.

Australia continues to be a lucrative jurisdiction for the funding of high-value class actions, as demonstrated this week by the approval of a $271.8 million settlement which will see the litigation funder receive 30 percent of the total sum.

Yesterday, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered its judgment in the case of Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others, approving a $271.8 million settlement to end the group proceedings against the ride-sharing company. The proceedings, which were first brought by Maurice Blackburn in 2019, alleged that the group members had suffered losses and damage due to Uber ride-sharing services operating contrary to regulations between 2014 and 2017. The group proceedings received third-party litigation funding from Harbour Fund III, L.P.

The Court approved the settlement agreement, finding that it was ‘fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members’, with Uber paying the $271.8 million without admission of liability. In its judgment, the Court also ordered the following deductions from the overall settlement sum: $38.7 million to Maurice Blackburn for legal costs and disbursements, $81.5 million to Harbour as its funding commission, and a total of $220,000 to the plaintiffs and sample group members, as compensation for the work undertaken by them in the proceedings.

In her written judgment, Justice Patricia Matthews addressed the scale of the funder’s commission and acknowledged that whilst the 30 percent proportion is ‘toward the higher end of such commissions’, she emphasised that it is ‘reasonable in the context of such complex litigation with a risk profile quite distinct from, for example, a shareholder class action.’ Justice Matthews also highlighted the crucial role Harbour had played in ensuring that these proceedings were even viable in the first place, declaring that ‘without the involvement of Harbour, there may not have been any compensation available for group members at all.’

The full settlement approval order can be read here.

Whilst large group claims can attract headlines with staggeringly large amounts of compensation, for the law firms who specialise in such cases, the costs of running these claims take a heavy toll given the prolonged case durations.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette reveals that Pogust Goodhead is undertaking staff cuts potentially resulting in around 40 to 50 job losses in its London office, with employees being let go from both business operations and legal departments. These cuts represent a 20% staff reduction, with the Gazette reporting that the law firm was also exploring letting go around 100 employees in Brazil, with most of these working as call centre staff.

Analysing the reasons behind these staff cuts, the article notes that despite being well-known for its high-value class action claims, Pogust Goodhead does not see consistent income from these lawsuits whilst they are ongoing. As a result, the law firm is reliant on capital provided by outside litigation funding, such as the landmark £450 million investment partnership with Gramercy Funds Management.

A spokesperson from Pogust Goodhead provided the following comment to the Gazette: “We were established with the ambitious goal of providing justice for millions of people who have been wronged by multinational companies. It is well known these companies have infinite resources. While it is an incredibly difficult decision, it is only right that as we move forward, we position our firm strongly to provide access to justice for clients, both, existing and those in the future. We will be running a formal consultation with staff through a staff representative group over the coming weeks before finalising how many people will be affected.”