In what is being described as an unprecedented action in French corporate law, nearly 800 shareholders have filed a civil liability claim against Deloitte & Associes and Grant Thornton, the former statutory auditors of Atos, the once-prominent French IT services company and former CAC 40 constituent.

As reported by Atos Audit Action, the claim targets the auditors for allegedly certifying consolidated financial statements that did not reflect the true financial and asset position of the Atos group across six consecutive fiscal years. Shareholders who purchased Atos shares between February 2018 and March 2024 are eligible to participate. The case has been filed with the Nanterre Commercial Court.

The plaintiffs, represented by law firm Vermeille & Co and supported by the Union for the Protection of Shareholders (UPRA), accuse the auditors of approving accounts containing overvalued assets, overly optimistic revenue recognition, and insufficiently provisioned risks. They further allege that the auditors failed to issue going concern warnings despite the company's deteriorating finances, which they argue had been compromised since the early 2020s. Atos shares collapsed from approximately 70 euros in April 2021 to under one euro by April 2024.

The litigation is backed by an unnamed litigation fund that covers all procedural costs in exchange for a commission on any recovery. The case marks the first time in France that a civil liability action has been brought directly against the auditors of a listed company, potentially setting a precedent for future shareholder claims in the French market.

A £480 million collective proceedings claim against chipmaker Qualcomm has been withdrawn in full after the UK consumer group Which? reassessed its position following trial evidence. The settlement, which requires Competition Appeal Tribunal approval, involves no payment from Qualcomm.

As reported by Non-Billable, the litigation-funded claim was originally filed in 2021 under the UK's collective proceedings framework. Backed by litigation funder Augusta Ventures, Which? alleged that Qualcomm's overcharging at the manufacturer level inflated retail mobile phone prices for millions of consumers. Quinn Emanuel and Norton Rose Fulbright represented Qualcomm in the defense.

According to Quinn Emanuel's statement, the class representative concluded that the tribunal would reject allegations that Qualcomm coerced Apple, chipset manufacturers, or Samsung into unfair licensing terms. The firm's partners Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla led the defense alongside Norton Rose Fulbright's Caroline Thomas, Helen Fairhead, Nuala Canavan, and US partner Rich Zembek. Hausfeld, led by managing partner Nicola Boyle, represented Which? with counsel from Monckton Chambers.

The withdrawal underscores the ongoing challenges facing the UK's developing competition class action regime, which has faced uncertainty since the Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR ruling on the enforceability of litigation funding agreements. For funders like Augusta Ventures, the outcome represents a significant loss on what was one of the higher-profile consumer class actions in the UK market.