header-logo header-logo

11 December 2024
Issue: 8098 / Categories: Legal News , Collective action , Competition , Compensation , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail

Mastercard class action could end with claimant & funder at odds

Former financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks’ class action against Mastercard has entered unprecedented territory after the litigation funder opposed a potential settlement.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) will decide whether to approve the settlement, which allows Mastercard customers to recover £40-£50 each, at a short hearing either before the end of this month or in early 2025.

Merricks was acting as class representative on behalf of 46 million customers in a claim previously valued at more than £16bn against Mastercard over multilateral interchange fees. He said he believes the settlement ‘will deliver meaningful compensation to class members’.

However, funder Innsworth Capital said last week it will challenge the settlement, which it says was struck without its agreement and is ‘both too low and premature’. In a statement, it accused Merricks and his solicitor, Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Boris Bronfentrinker, of having rushed to settle for a reported £200m.

Bronfentrinker, representing Merricks, retorted that Innsworth’s accusation was ‘frankly absurd’.

‘To the contrary, based on the actual evidence that has now come to light and that was not previously publicly available, the realistic value of the claim has now become much clearer,’ he said.

‘This will all be set out in the application and supporting evidence that will be filed with the tribunal.’ Bronfentrinker accused Innsworth of wanting Merricks to ‘continue with risky litigation that could result in UK consumers recovering significantly less, or even nothing—simply because Innsworth is unhappy that the settlement that has now been agreed may not allow it to recover the hundreds of millions it considers it should receive.’

Since its launch in 2016, the mammoth claim has involved numerous hearings before the CAT, multiple appeals before the Court of Appeal, and a visit to the Supreme Court. It was the first to be granted an ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings order, in 2021.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll