Sarah Breckenridge of Erso Capital notes that it has become market practice – in competition claims but more widely in litigation – to require claimants to obtain (at further cost) an Anti-Avoidance Endorsement or deed of indemnity in favour of the defendant to augment an ATE policy but explains how, in the recent case against Qualcomm, the claimant’s lawyers were able to convince the Competition Appeal Tribunal that this extra insurance was not necessary in Consumers’ Association V Qualcomm Incorporated: Preparing To Fight On Anti-Avoidance Endorsements.
