A heated disagreement has erupted between solicitor Boris Bronfentrinker and Innsworth Advisors regarding the proposed settlement in the groundbreaking collective action against Mastercard led by Walter Merricks.
In a significant development, Walter Merricks, representing UK consumers, reached a settlement for a £10 billion claim against Mastercard, marking a first under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. While media suggests a settlement of £200 million, confirmation remains pending. Solicitor Boris Bronfentrinker highlights the benefit, estimating £40-50 per person for claimants, describing this as favourable for UK consumers.
Innsworth Advisors, associated with third-party funder Innsworth Capital, contests the settlement for being premature and undervalued, claiming it was finalised without their agreement. They argue the reported £200 million sum necessitates scrutiny, given earlier claims and the potential consequences on future collective actions. Innsworth has informed the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) of their intentions to challenge the settlement.
Bronfentrinker, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s London office, rebuffs these assertions, emphasising that after nearly nine years of litigation, there was no rush to settle. He explained that recent evidence clarified the realistic claim value, which will be presented to the tribunal for settlement approval.
Innsworth’s objection is deemed both predictable and disappointing by Bronfentrinker, who criticises the funder for attempting to inappropriately influence Merricks’ decisions, posing a challenge to the integrity of the collective action regime. He labels the funder’s push for continued litigation, despite risks of lesser or no recovery for consumers, as driven by greed.
Adding insight, Mohsin Patel, a director at litigation finance broker Factor Risk Management, questions the funder’s standing to contest a settlement between consenting, advised parties. He suggests the inherent risk funders accept in litigation, where their financial stake does not guarantee influence over outcomes.
Patel remarks on the importance of the CAT’s decision in providing clarity amidst ongoing discussions around third-party funding regulation, urging all parties to adhere to ethical standards.
The escalating tension between the solicitor and funder in Mastercard’s collective action highlights significant issues concerning litigation funders’ roles and their influence, which could affect future legal proceedings.
