The class representative in the Merricks v Mastercard collective claim has urged a London court to reject litigation funder Innsworth Advisors' judicial review of the £200 million settlement distribution, in what observers describe as the first substantive test of a Competition Appeal Tribunal settlement decision.

As reported by Law360, Walter Merricks's legal team told the High Court on Wednesday that Innsworth has already received an adequate return from the CAT-approved settlement and that its challenge should be dismissed. Innsworth argued earlier in the week that the distribution scheme is "illogical" and "flawed," contending that the tribunal failed to properly assess the funder's recovery.

The CAT had divided the settlement into three pots. Pot 1, totalling £100 million, is ring-fenced for class members. Pot 2, approximately £45 million, covers Innsworth's litigation costs. Pot 3, approximately £55 million, allocates roughly £23 million to Innsworth as the profit element of its return, bringing its total recovery to around £68 million. Innsworth contends that this amounts to only a 0.5x return on more than £45 million invested, and disputes the methodology used to set the figure.

The case has drawn close attention from the UK funding sector. A judicial review of a CAT-sanctioned distribution could establish important parameters around how courts assess funder returns in collective proceedings, particularly at a moment when the tribunal has signaled heightened scrutiny of certification and take-up in entrepreneurial class actions.

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's Federal Court of Justice, has issued a closely watched judgment in the long-running Trucks Cartel litigation that upholds the use of collective claims vehicles in principle but sets significant guardrails around third-party litigation funding and claim aggregation.

As reported by Leaders League, the May 12, 2026 ruling addressed claims arising from the European Commission's 2016 cartel decision, brought on behalf of more than 3,000 entities across 21 jurisdictions and seeking approximately US$590 million. The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may be collectively aggregated and enforced by registered claims collection entities, reinforcing collective redress mechanisms in German private antitrust litigation.

The court imposed two material limits. First, third-party funders cannot exercise control that compromises the claims vehicle's obligation to act exclusively in the interests of the assignors, a conflict-of-interest standard that goes to funder governance rights. Second, claims aggregation cannot obstruct effective judicial review; excessive volume or complexity that renders proper assessment "impracticable" may violate the German Legal Services Act and result in dismissal for procedural abuse.

The BGH overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter, directing the lower court to examine whether the funding structure created incompatible conflicts and, if the assignments survive, to divide claims within six months. The decision is expected to shape the architecture of funded collective antitrust actions across Europe, particularly in jurisdictions modelling Germany's claims-collection framework.