header-logo header-logo

Mastercard class action could end with claimant & funder at odds

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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll