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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll