The English High Court offers limited routes to bring “opt-out” group claims but, in recent years, funded claimants have attempted to bring representative actions under CPR 19.8 at a notable rate. The rule has been available,...more
With the rise of litigation funding of group actions, there has been an increasing use of representative actions by Claimants in recent years. In turn, Defendants are challenging this and the Courts are scrutinising cases in...more
As we have explored in our Class Actions series, the popularity of mass claims in the English courts continues to grow. Such claims represent a substantial threat to financial institutions but, at the same time, we are also...more
In the first certification decision since the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR, the CAT has held that a litigation funding agreement (LFA) revised in light of PACCAR was not a damages-based agreement (DBA) and it was...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) (Appellants) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 28 has caused a stir in the legal industry, leaving a number of...more
Key Takeaways - The United Kingdom’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) recently granted the U.K.’s first ever Collective Proceeding Order (CPO), on an “opt-out” basis, in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated &...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The increasingly common practice of third-party funding of class actions, which provides tax incentives to plaintiffs’ attorneys and third-party funders alike, may no longer be protected under...more