Trending Now
Commercial Deals

Multibillion Pound Claim Filed Against Sony Group

By John Freund |

A claim against Sony Group was filed on 19 August 2022 in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim is being brought on behalf of UK-based PlayStation users who have purchased digital games and/or add-on content from the PlayStation Store since 19 August 2016. The claim is being funded by Woodsford, the UK’s leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business.

It’s alleged that Sony is breaching UK and EU competition law by abusing its dominant position resulting in consumers paying inflated prices for digital PlayStation games and add-on content.

This standalone collective action is brought on behalf of an estimated 9 million potential class members. An application has been made to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings Order which if ordered will result in a single class representative representing all potential class members on an opt-out basis.

The proposed class representative is consumer champion Alex Neill, Chief Executive of Resolver.co.uk. Alex’s team, funded by Woodsford, includes the law firm Milberg London LLP, economics experts at Berkeley Research Group LLC and barristers from Monckton Chambers.

Woodsford’s Chief Executive Officer, Steven Friel, commented: “Woodsford’s ESG team is dedicated to holding big business to account when corporate wrongdoing causes loss to consumers and other stakeholders. We are proud to support Alex Neill’s case, helping deliver access to justice for millions of gamers. Our significant financial and professional resource is already backing UK class actions against train companies accused of overcharging, and shippers whose cartel behaviour is alleged to have inflated the price of cars. With the launch of this claim against Sony, and with more landmark cases being worked up, Woodsford is now clearly established as the most successful ESG and litigation finance business in this area of UK collective redress.”

Further information on the claim and updates on its progress can be found at www.playstationyouoweus.com.

About Woodsford

Founded in 2010 and with a presence in London, New York, Brisbane, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, Woodsford is a leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business.

Whether it is helping consumers achieve collective redress, ensuring that investors and universities are properly compensated when Big Tech infringes intellectual property rights, or helping shareholders in collaborative, escalated engagement up to and including litigation with listed companies, Woodsford is committed to ensuring the highest ESG standards while providing access to justice.

Working globally with many of the world’s leading law firms, our legal experience, investment, business and technical expertise, in tandem with our significant financial muscle, makes us a powerful partner and a formidable adversary.

Woodsford is a founder member of both the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and the Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales (ALF), and a member of the International Corporate Governance Network.

Woodsford continues to grow, and we welcome approaches from experienced litigation lawyers and other professionals who are interested in joining our team.

For more information visit www.woodsford.com

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Australian Federal Court Approves $24.5M Funder’s Commission for Galactic 

By John Freund |

Reporting by Lawyer’s Weekly covers a major development in two Australian class actions, where litigation funder Galactic obtained a favourable ruling from the full Federal Court to double its commission from its funding of lawsuits brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank. Justices Craig Colvin, Bernard Murphy and Michael Lee, overturned a 2023 judgement by Justice O’Callaghan that refused to make Galactic’s CFO order. As a result, Galactic’s commission from the class actions will drastically rise from $12 million, to a total $24.5 million.

The Federal Court’s ruling on 2 May found that Justice O’Callaghan had been wrong to refuse making the CFO order on the basis that the court did not have the power to do so. The three Justices wrote that Galactic’s $24.5 million commission “is commercially realistic and properly reflects the costs and risks Galactic took on by funding the proceedings.”

The class actions brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank focused on allegations that the fuel and convenience store chain’s standard Franchise Agreement had ‘unfair contractual terms’ that violated consumer law. ANZ Bank were targeted by the second class action over claims that it had failed to meet its obligations under Australia’s Code of Banking Practice, ‘by lending to buy into the franchise system, often up to 100 per cent of the franchise license.’

Case Developments Commercial

London’s Black-Cab Drivers Bring £250M Claim Against Uber

By John Freund |

An article The Financial Times covers legal actions being brought against Uber on behalf of London’s black-cab drivers, centred on allegations that Uber misled Transport for London (TfL) to obtain its license. Specifically, the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Uber misled TfL around its booking model, and that the company allowed its drivers to receive direct bookings from customers rather than through a central system.

The claim is being brought in the High Court by RGL Management and is representing more than 10,500 black-cab drivers, who argue that they were harmed by unfair competition and are seeking up to £25,000 in compensation per driver. The claimants are represented by Mishcon de Reya and Katch Investment group are providing the litigation funding for the claim, with the total value of the group litigation reaching £250 million.

In a statement, Uber continued to deny the allegations and said that the claims “are completely unfounded”, maintaining its position that the ride-hailing company “operates lawfully in London, fully licensed by TfL.”

More information about the group litigation can be found on RGL Management’s ‘Black Cabs v Uber Litigation 2021’ (BULit21) website.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Read More