Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

Securities Litigation: A Growing Space in Scandinavia

By Mats Geijer |

The following article was contributed by Mats Geijer, Counsel Scandinavia of Deminor.

In the complex world of securities trading, disputes and violations can arise, leading to legal actions that seek to hold wrongdoers accountable and provide recourse for affected parties.

In recent years we have seen an increase in actions from investors towards listed companies, shareholders vs the so-called issuers in the region. Notable cases are OW Bunker, Danske bank in Denmark and more recently Ericsson in Sweden.

Securities litigation serves several important purposes in the financial ecosystem, namely:

  1. Protecting Investors: Securities litigation helps investors in their fiduciary responsibility to seek financial compensation for losses resulting from securities fraud or misconduct. By holding wrongdoers accountable, it deters fraudulent activities and promotes market integrity. 
  2. Enforcing Compliance: Securities litigation enforces compliance with securities laws and regulations, ensuring that companies and individuals adhere to disclosure requirements and ethical standards in their financial dealings.
  3. Promoting Transparency: Securities litigation can uncover hidden risks, misrepresentations, or conflicts of interest that may impact investors’ decisions. This transparency is essential for maintaining trust in the financial markets.
  4. Enhancing Corporate Governance: Securities litigation can target corporate governance failures, such as breaches of fiduciary duty or conflicts of interest among corporate insiders. Holding company officers and directors accountable can lead to improved governance practices.

Securities litigation in Sweden can be done in various ways, through class/group actions, derivative actions, or regulatory enforcement actions (by authorities). Case law in the sphere of private enforcement is historically scarce but will now hopefully start to emerge. A historic reason is probably that Sweden as a civil law country lacks statutory rules regulating civil liability in relation to improper securities activities.

In the Ericsson case, 37 institutions are claiming roughly $200 million from the issuer in the district court of Solna, Sweden. The claimants state they have suffered investment losses since Ericsson withheld information about potential bribes paid to the terrorist organisation ISIS in Iraq, that caused the share price to fall. The claimants are all large (non-Swedish) institutional investors, and the case is funded by a third-party funder (not Deminor). The case will be tried in the first instance court in 2025.

The legal community expects to see an increase in litigation related to securities in the coming years, to paint a picture in 2021 there where was one (1) initial public offering every second day (157 in total). In 2022-23 there were only a handful of initial public offerings each year. Sweden has a disproportionate number of listed companies compared to other EU countries and it is considered a national sport to invest in the stock market. A majority of listed shares are held by local and foreign sovereign wealth funds, they seldom engage in litigation locally but often participate in international cases in the US and elsewhere. The economy is currently in a recession which has historically always led to an increase in the number of disputes.

Deminor is the only international funder with a local presence that focuses on securities litigation. On paper there are plenty of opportunities in Scandinavia, but in practical terms cases are often too “small” meaning the quantum of the potential loss the investor has suffered is not sufficient to initiate the litigation. Or which is more often the situation, the investors that do hold a significant part of the shares (the loss) are not willing to engage in litigation for various reasons. The claimants that are willing to lead the way in terms of creating the much-needed case law is the types we see in the Ericsson case, foreign institutional investors.

We could summarize the situation with a phrase coined by the advertising industry for when there was a minute of silence before the next add was supposed to run – watch this space!

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

LPF Group Appoints Former High Court Judge as Director

By Harry Moran |

In an announcement released earlier this week by LPF Group, the New Zealand litigation funder revealed that it had strengthened its board with the appointment of Judge Robert Dobson KC as a director. Mr Dobson brings a wealth of experience as both a commercial lawyer and judge, having served on the High Court from 2007 to 2020. Mr Dobson briefling returned to the bench as an acting judge on the Court of Appeal in 2022, before returning to his arbitration and mediation practice at Stout Street Chambers.

Phil Newland, founder and director of LPF, said “LPF is delighted to have Mr Dobson, a proven jurist with substantial legal and judicial experience join the board at such an important time for the development of class action law in New Zealand.”

Commenting on his new role, Mr Dobson stated: “Having observed LPF’s role from a different perspective for many years I now look forward to playing a part in continuing the development of litigation funding and assisting access to justice. I am very much looking forward to joining LPF in helping meritorious cases attract funding in the pursuit of justice.”

In addition to the appointment of Mr Dobson, LPF also stated that the company’s current Chairman, Bill Wilson KC, will be moving to the position of Emeritus Chair to provide continuing support to the funder’s board. Newland praised Wilson’s work during his time at LPF by saying “With Bill’s strong support LPF has assisted many thousands of New Zealanders to achieve redress, including in leading cases such as Mainzeal, Kiwifruit and in the recent CBL and Intueri shareholder class actions.”

Commercial Regulatory Issues

CAT Chairman: “Funding is Essential” for Collective Proceedings Success

By Harry Moran |

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s interim report on litigation funding, industry leaders and experts have opined on the future direction of UK’s funding market. At a recent industry conference, attendees were treated to the views of the head of one of the country’s most important judicial bodies when it comes to litigation funding.

Reporting by CDR covers remarks delivered by Andrew Lenon KC, chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) at the Global Class Actions Symposium. The keynote speech on the second day of the symposium saw Lenon discuss the current state of the CAT and the involvement of third-party funding, which he described as “essential to the success of the collective proceedings regime.”

Lenon noted that despite the period of uncertainty in the initial aftermath of the PACCAR decision, he suggested that “it seems likely that the UK market for litigation funding and collective proceedings will continue to grow.” Furthermore, Lenon argued that in this growth environment, the result would be the emergence of a “fully functioning competitive market for litigation funding.”

The CAT’s chairman emphasised the tribunal’s role “to clarify the legal principles relating to funding arrangements”, with a focus on ensuring that “collective proceedings do not become a cash cow to funders and lawyers, with minimal returns to class members.” However, in a welcome nod to funders and lawyers alike, Lenon assured that the CAT “will be slow to interfere with funding arrangements freely negotiated between funders and class representatives.”

Whilst he acknowledged that the CAT must keep a close eye to ensure that funder’s fees and legal costs do not spiral out of control, Lenon agreed that it was “entirely legitimate for funders to seek a return on their investment.” In summarising the CAT’s position on interfering with litigation funding agreements, Lenon said that “the tribunal should therefore be slow to second guess.”

Case Developments Commercial

Which? Files £3 Billion Cloud Claim Against Apple, Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

The growth of multinational technology corporations has provided years of product innovation and a mass availability of affordable consumer electronics. However, the resulting monopolies that have risen to dominate these markets have also created space for the potential for anti-competitive behaviour that harms consumers. In this environment, it is unsurprising we are seeing more and more claims being brought against these tech giants, with the legal proceedings supported by third-party litigation funders.

An article in TechCrunch covers the announcement of a new collective action being brought against Apple by the UK consumer rights group Which?, representing up to 40 million consumers over allegations that Apple breached competition law by overcharging users of the iCloud service. The opt-out proceedings, valued at approximately £3 billion, claims that Apple abused its monopoly position to favour iCloud over competing cloud storage providers and locking in customers to the iCloud services, thereby preventing them from switching to a competitor and enabling Apple to charge increasingly higher fees.

The application for certification was filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 November 2024, with the claim seeking to represent any UK consumer who used an iOS device or iCloud services from 1 October 2025 onwards. This nine year time period is particularly relevant as it follows the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act from that date. The claims is being funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), with litigation risk insurance having been secured to cover Apple’s legal costs if the claim is not successful

More information about the collective proceedings can be found on the Cloud Claim website.

In response to this new legal action being brought, Apple spokesperson Tom Parker provided the following statement: “Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible — whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”