Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Audio: Which? vs. Qualcomm is Shaping ATE Insurance Innovation 

By John Freund |

Simon Latham (Head of Competition at Augusta Ventures) was profiled by the Law Society discussing insurance-related concerns regarding Which? vs. Qualcomm. Specifically, Qualcomm’s approach of asking for a judge to approve a Which? ATE insurance scheme. 

Please log in to view membership only content
Log In Register

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Legal Finance SE Announces Plans to Fund Hundreds of Lawsuits Against Illegal Online Casinos

By Harry Moran |

The Frankfurt-based litigation financier Legal Finance SE, a subsidiary of listed company Nakiki SE (ISIN DE000WNDL300), is taking massive action against online casinos: According to current German legislation, most online casinos have been illegal since 2021 and must compensate players for all losses incurred in recent years. This means that injured parties can use Legal Finance to recover all the money they have lost through legal action.

Many players have lost hundreds of thousands of Euros playing online poker or sports betting in recent years. This is where Legal Finance comes in. Legal Finance funds lawsuits against casino operators in German courts and takes care of the entire legal process together with specialised consumer protection law firms.

The chances of success are high: German courts have already ordered several online casinos to pay refunds. In March of this year, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) agreed with Legal Finance's legal opinion that most online casinos are illegal and that gambling losses must be reimbursed to victims.

Legal Finance has a 40% success rate in each case. The average amount in dispute is between €30,000 and €50,000. Legal Finance initially plans to fund up to 100 cases per month and intends to increase this volume significantly.

Legal Finance acquires cases by working with law firms, and claimants can also contact Legal Finance directly via dedicated websites.

Case Developments Commercial

Lord Macdonald: Sub-Postmasters’ Rights to Claim Additional Compensation “Would Be Extinguished” by Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |
Following the UK government’s introduction of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill to the House of Lords, there was widespread approval from litigation funders. However, it appears we are seeing the first signs of opposition to the proposed legal changes from members of the House of Lords, with the Post Office case once again coming to the forefront of the debate around the role of litigation funding. An article from The Telegraph, shared by Yahoo Finance, reveals that the government’s plan to reform rules affecting litigation funding agreements is receiving pushback, as one senior legal professional cautions that new legislation could harm any attempt by the sub-postmasters to reclaim additional compensation from Therium Capital Management, which funded the case.  The Telegraph’s article details a forthcoming letter, penned by Lord Macdonald KC, which cautions that the proposed rule change “removes the right” for the sub-postmasters to challenge the terms of the funding agreement. It is unclear whether this opinion is supported by other legal professionals in the House of Lords, but with the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill being debated in the chamber today, we may soon learn more about the wider attitude of lawmakers towards the legislation.  In contrast to the position of Lord Macdonald KC, the article highlights comments from Therium’s Neil Purslow, who points out that there has “there has never been any attempt by the sub-postmasters to revisit the funding arrangement,” and that the suggestion “this Bill will end a bid to do so is disingenuous at best.” A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice is quoted, saying: “The proposed legislation will ensure that litigation funding agreements affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment will remain enforceable, while also making sure claimants can continue to bring cases against larger and better-resourced corporations.”
Case Developments Commercial

£25M Settlement Agreement Reached in South Western Trains ‘Boundary Fares’ Claim

By John Freund |
As LFJ reported last year, several UK train operators have become the target of collective proceedings over claims that the rail companies failed to offer customers with lower-cost ‘boundary fares,’ and instead sold them more expensive tickets from central London. In a significant milestone, the claim brought against one of these operators appears to be approaching a conclusion, as the parties announced they have reached a settlement agreement. In a press release issued earlier this week, Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited (SSWT) and class representative Justin Guttman announced that they had reached a settlement agreement to end the claim brought against the train operating company. As part of the settlement agreement, the train operating company said that it would pay up to £25 million to eligible class members, describing it as “the largest settlement in the history of the collective proceedings regime in the UK”. The claim was brought against SSWT in 2019 over allegations that the train operator “had not made 'boundary fares' sufficiently available for Travelcard holders to purchase.” The claimants were represented by Charles Lyndon, whilst the proceedings were financed by Woodsford Group Limited. The announcement stated that the law firm and funder were “pleased to have been able to secure this outcome for class members without the necessity for the Parties to pursue the matter to trial.” The settlement agreement, which was published on the Boundary Fares claim website, states that the train companies deny “the existence of a dominant position and also any conduct which could amount to an alleged abuse of a dominant position” or that the class members “have suffered any loss or damages as a result of any of the conduct” that the proceedings alleged. However, it says that in order to end the legal proceedings “and avoid unnecessary legal and other costs”, all the parties have agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement. As emphasised in the settlement notice, “the Proposed Settlement relates to SSWT only and does not settle the claim against the other Defendant, First MTR South Western Trains Limited.” The first trial for the claim brought against the latter defendant is set to be heard on 17 June 2024. The settlement agreement will now be considered by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with a hearing listed for 29 April 2024.