Apple’s bid to reveal ATE premiums refused by tribunal

Technology giant Apple has lost a bid to reveal a proposed representative claimant’s after-the-event insurance premiums, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling that disclosure would provide an ‘unfair tactical advantage’ by revealing the insurers’ assessment of risk. The class action is seeking estimated damages of up to £1.5 billion. A hearing to decide whether to grant a CPO in the proposed claim brought by Dr Rachael Kent – who is represented by international disputes firm Hausfeld and backed by litigation funder Vannin Capital – is due to take place in May.

Keep Reading

Insights

An unfair tax on accessing justice

Tets Ishikawa of LionFish argues that the time has now come to revisit the recoverability of uplifts, premiums and funding costs, using several recent cases and an analogy involving a schoolyard bully to make his point.

In the News

Competition Appeal Tribunal rejects Apple’s attempt to weaken collective lawsuit

In a significant development for millions who use Apple’s UK App Store, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has refused Apple’s attempt to limit the consumer claim led by Dr Rachael Kent, which alleges abuses of competition law that result in systematic overcharging for apps and in-app purchases by Apple. Dr Kent’s legal claim will now proceed in full to trial, putting added pressure on Apple amid mounting efforts around the world to hold it to account for alleged anticompetitive practices. Dr Kent is being represented by Hausfeld, with barristers from Monckton Chambers, Brick Court Chambers and 4 New Square. Vannin Capital is funding the claim.

In the News

Litigation funder jointly liable for indemnity costs, court rules

Litigation funder Therium should be jointly and severally liable for indemnity costs after a specialist currency debt management firm unsuccessfully sued HSBC, the UK High Court has ruled. The funder agreed to back the claim by ECU Group against a number of HSBC entities over allegations that traders used knowledge of ECU’s foreign exchange orders to make a profit between 2004 and 2006, in a practice known as ‘front running’. However, ECU’s claim was ruled to be time barred by Mrs Justice Moulder, who held that the company had ‘sufficient knowledge’ to plead its case in 2006.

Before You Go

Never miss a thing in the litigation finance market.