{"id":251514,"date":"2025-02-20T17:23:57","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T17:23:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=251514"},"modified":"2025-02-20T17:23:57","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T17:23:57","slug":"competition-appeal-tribunal-urged-to-approve-200m-mastercard-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/competition-appeal-tribunal-urged-to-approve-200m-mastercard-settlement\/","title":{"rendered":"Competition Appeal Tribunal urged to approve \u00a3200m Mastercard settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Judges should approve the \u2018reasonable\u2019 \u00a3200m settlement agreed between class representative Walter Merricks CBE and Mastercard, the Competitions Appeal Tribunal was told today \u2013 in a claim originally seeking more than \u00a314bn in damages.<\/p>\n

The collective action, brought by Merricks, followed the European Commission\u2019s 2007 finding that, between 1992 and 2007, Mastercard\u2019s \u2018multilateral interchange fees\u2019 breached Article 101 of the EU Treaty which bars direct or indirect fixing of prices or trading conditions.\u00a0The claim\u00a0was brought on behalf of around 44 million individuals. None has objected to the settlement agreement, Mastercard said.<\/p>\n

Mark Brealey KC, for Merricks, said: \u2018Both Mr Merricks and Mastercard consider the sum of \u00a3200m was in a range that was fair and reasonable.\u2019<\/p>\n

Litigation funder Innsworth Capital has joined proceedings as an intervener. It argues the settlement agreed is not reasonable and opposes the collective settlement approval order\u00a0(CSAO) being made.\u00a0Brealey said: \u2018The funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings\u2026Mr Merricks views have to be given weight.\u2019<\/p>\n

Sonia Tolaney KC, for Mastercard, told the court that both Merricks and Mastercard had served \u2018extensive evidence\u2019 of how the settlement was reached.\u00a0She added: \u2018There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].\u00a0Each side negotiated with the benefit of its careful and considered assessment of the amounts Mr Merricks could reasonably believe to recover, weighing this with the costs\u2026of litigation.<\/p>\n

\u2018Mr Merricks has acted in the best interests of the class, as he very clearly states. Mr Merricks trained as a solicitor and is a very experienced class representative involved in this litigation in over eight years and has been robust in defending [the claim].\u00a0The sum of \u00a3200m is, in both parties\u2019 assessment, more than the class can reasonably expect to obtain if Mr Merricks was to press on with the claim.\u2019<\/p>\n

Tolaney\u00a0added: \u2018The funder\u2019s attack is a different target which is: “has Mr Merricks got the best possible settlement he could have possibly got”? We say that is the wrong question.\u2019<\/p>\n

In written submissions, Mastercard said the funder\u2019s \u2018flawed intervention\u2019 was \u2018inappropriate\u2019 and that it would be \u2018wrong in principle (and threaten the collective regime) if funders were entitled to hijack the settlement process\u2019.\u00a0It added: \u2018As a large litigation funder with a portfolio of major claims, Innsworth\u2019s interests lie in maximising its commercial recovery, even if that entails a high-risk gamble in the hope that, across its portfolio, one of those high risks will ultimately pay off, covering the losses on the other high-risk claims which fail.<\/p>\n

\u2018The best interests of the class are manifestly not the same. The interests of the class lie in making the best recovery they reasonably can, particularly where the outcome may be that, if they wait, they will recover nothing. Mr Merricks, as their representative, has reached the decision that the settlement sum represents the best recovery the class could make.\u2019<\/p>\n

In written submissions, Innsworth said it had funded the proceedings against Mastercard at a cost \u2018which now exceeds \u00a345m\u2019.<\/p>\n

Charles Bear KC, for Innsworth, said the proposed settlement \u2018attributes zero value to the UK claim\u2019.\u00a0He added: \u2018The class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.\u00a0We say it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.\u2019<\/p>\n

In written submissions, the intervener added: \u2018The settlement sum is far below what was expected when the claim was certified. The [class representative]\u2019s agreement to the settlement sum represents a complete capitulation on by far the most valuable part of the claim. It was unjustified.\u2019<\/p>\n

The second day of the three-day CSAO hearing was mainly held in closed session as the intervener made submissions on confidential information relating to the settlement.<\/p>\n

The hearing continues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n