David Greene, our Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions, and the founding Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) recently contributed an article to The Times discussing the DBT’s review of the collective actions opt-out regime, arguing that the Government should not let the interests of big business take precedence, potentially undermining the rule of law.

Large corporations lobbying the Department for Business and Trade in its review of the UK’s opt-out regime seek to prioritise the interests of US corporations over the British public and businesses.

Introduced only a decade ago, the opt-out regime is still in its infancy. It was created to ensure that both consumers and businesses could obtain redress when powerful corporations break competition law, by abusing their dominance, or colluding in cartels.

Collective actions provide an efficient and proportionate way to hold wrongdoers to account and ensure that compensation is available to those affected, with the added benefit of deterring bad actors from breaking the law. To suggest that the regime is a burden on business is to turn its purpose on its head.

So why is the government reviewing the existence of this regime? The questions posed in the department’s call for evidence appear to reflect the manifesto of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world’s most powerful lobbying organisation, which represents the world’s largest companies and arguably aims to thwart the availability of litigation funding that ensures access to justice.

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)

The class action is led by Zahira Hussain, alongside David Greene. It comprises 140 clients, derived from a range of different sectors, from hauliers to breweries. The action has its origins in the European Commission’s findings in 2016 and 2017 that MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, DAF and Scania colluded on truck pricing for 14 years from 1997 to 2011.

Zahira commented on the success of the settlement: “I am thrilled with the progress we have made in this case. The settlements are a testament to the determination and resilience of our clients, who have come together to seek compensation for the loss they have suffered. Class actions play a crucial role in providing access to justice, especially for smaller businesses and sole traders that might otherwise struggle to challenge large corporations on their own. This case highlights the power of collective legal action in holding corporations accountable and in securing damages for Claimants.”

Edwin Coe’s pioneering Class Action team continues to lead the rapidly evolving field of class actions in the UK, backed by over 30 years of successful litigation. The team brought its first Truck Cartel claim on behalf of clients in the High Court in 2018, settling with two manufacturers in 2024, and a third in 2025. The team remains resolute in its commitment to securing justice for those affected. It continues to actively pursue the remaining aspects of the case.

Further Information
Our Truck Cartel portal is available here.

We are delighted to announce that David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions; Ali Zaidi Head of Litigation and Insolvency; Thomas Johnson, Barrister – Partner, and Zahira Hussain, Partner in our Commercial Disputes & Class Actions team, have been included in the Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers 2025 guide.

This year marks the second annual launch of the guide, which features 500 Lawyers globally who represent claimants in antitrust and competition, investor and shareholder rights, mass torts, aviation accidents, global asset recovery, and human rights. Lawyers are selected via submissions, peer critique, and journalistic research.

David Greene commented: “This recognition underscores our relentless dedication to advocating for our clients’ rights and achieving justice on a global scale. It is an honour to be named among such accomplished professionals in the Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers guide.”

The Lawdragon 500 Global Plaintiff Lawyers 2025 guide can be accessed here.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 14 lawyers including 2 Band 1 ranked individuals, and 6 practice areas have been recommended in the 2025 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession. As reported in the guide, clients say: “Edwin Coe’s expertise is long-standing and deeply rooted within the team. They take a client-first approach...”

The firm has been recommended in 6 practice areas for the first time, with the new addition of Property Litigation in band 5 – “very strong individuals at all levels” mentioned a referee. Restructuring & Insolvency: Personal Insolvency “a reputation centred on quality”, Employment: Senior Executive – “undeniably high level of service and responsiveness,” and Insurance: Mainly Policyholders – “incredibly competent and caring,” are all ranked in band 2. Professional Negligence – “Edwin Coe’s expertise is long-standing and deeply rooted within the team,” remains in band 4 and “very serious players in the market,” Group Litigation: Claimant is in band 3.

The firm was awarded 14 individual rankings this year, including Band 1 recognition for Simeon Gilchrist in Personal Insolvency – “Simeon is highly responsive and technically excellent. He’s a sophisticated thinker who always brings something to complex situations,” and Roger Franklin for Professional Negligence: Mainly Claimant – “He is someone who clients really trust and he really knows what he’s doing.” David Greene – “one of the leaders in this sector” retained his status as a Senior Statesperson for Group Litigation: Claimant and Zahira Hussain was recommended as an ‘Up and Coming’ Partner in the same category for the first time. Linky Trott – “smart, hard-working and dedicated”, was promoted to Band 2 for Employment: Senior Executive. Shams Rahman – “a robust, calm, assured and persuasive property litigator,” joins the Property Litigation rankings for the first time, alongside Joanna Osborne – “a strong lawyer with a considerable breadth of knowledge.”

Also recommended were Ali Zaidi (Personal Insolvency) – “provided a fantastic result”, Sundeep Rathod (Immigration: Business) – “an excellent, well-rounded service”, Russel Shear (M&A) – “extremely competent and a pleasure to work with”, Simon Miles (Intellectual Property) – “a very knowledgeable and approachable specialist” and, Nicola Maher – “she’s really excellent – she knows it all backwards” and Roger Franklin (both for Insurance: Mainly Policyholders).

Thank you to all our clients and contacts who took their time to recommend us and congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services.

You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that our lawyers and their practices have been recommended for their outstanding work in 18 categories in the newly released The Legal 500 UK 2025 directory. These independently researched rankings highlight the individuals and practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to clients across a wide range of categories.

Individuals

Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 65 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for George Orman (Employment), Valerie Sweeting (Group Litigation: Claimant), Wendy Hall (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Brenna Baye, & Nik Haria (all Construction: non-contentious), and Charles Wilson (Property Finance).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene retains his membership of two ‘Halls of Fame’ for Commercial Litigation and for Group Litigation, whilst Matthew Barnett (Personal tax, trusts and probate), David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate), Daniel Bellau (M&A) retain their rankings ‘Leading Individuals.’

Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation), and Thomas Johnson (Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market) also keep their ‘Next Generation Partner’ recommendations.

Practices

We are recommended in 18 practice categories – with new entries for Construction: non-contentious who are described as ‘highly knowledgeable in their own fields‘, and Immigration: Personal ‘knowledgeable, experienced and practical‘. Immigration: Business reappears after dropping out last year, and Commercial litigation: mid-market ‘A well-oiled machine undertaking an impressive range of high-quality instructions in challenging fields’ moves up one tier to tier 3.

Our litigators were also recommended for Group Litigation: Claimant ‘broad competence, excellent analysis, short turnover time, and willingness to go the extra mile for the clients’, Fraud: Civil, Professional Negligence, Insurance Litigation: For Policyholders where one contact stated ‘One of the strongest teams out there acting for insureds. They know what they are doing and are highly skilled at getting the right results for their clients.‘

Our ‘commercial in their approach and friendly to deal with’, Property team is recommended for Residential Property ‘highly professional team’; Property Finance and also Property Litigation: ‘The team are extremely committed, efficient, knowledgeable and tenacious.’

In the Private Wealth sector, our team was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client said the team ‘give their clients not just the perfect professional service, but the perfect personal service too’.

Our Employment team was ranked for Employment: employers and for Employment: senior executives, with one referee commenting that the team have ‘great technical knowledge combined with excellent client relations and a pragmatic approach.’

‘The Edwin Coe team has been extremely easy to work with. Their technical knowledge has been spot on and their professionalism is top tier’ commented a client in of our Intellectual Property team; and our Corporate team are recommended for M&A: £10m-£100m ‘very capable, no nonsense approach,’ and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap, ‘very knowledgeable.‘

Congratulations to all involved!

For more detailed information, including specific lawyer rankings and commentary, please visit the Legal 500 website.

Congratulations to Thomas Johnson of our Commercial Disputes & Class Actions team, who has been shortlisted by The Bar Council of England and Wales for their ‘Employed Barrister of the Year in a Law Firm’ award.

The Employed Bar Awards 2024 showcases the wealth of talent amongst employed barristers. Launched in 2017, they celebrate the vital contributions that employed barristers make across numerous practice areas and sectors including the public sector, law firms, commerce and the armed forces. The awards are presented for high quality legal advice and an outstanding contribution by employed barristers to the work of their organisations and the law more generally.

The judging panel for the 2024 awards includes Patrick Walker, Gaynor Wood, alongside Bar Council Chair Sam Townend KC and Vice Chair Barbara Mills KC.

The winners will be announced at the Employed Bar Dinner and Awards which this year, will be held at Gray’s Inn on Thursday 10 October.

You can read more about the nominees and the awards on the Bar Council’s website.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that six of our solicitors are included in the thirteenth edition of The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom, which has just been released. The 2025 UK edition recognizes the professional excellence of 6,458 lawyers in 85 practice areas, and in particular, recommends the following solicitors at Edwin Coe:

• David Greene (Competition Law and Litigation)
• Linky Trott (Employment Law)
• Rachel Harrap (Employment Law)
• Simon Miles (Intellectual Property Law)
• Christopher Berry (Insolvency & Restructuring Law and Litigation)
• David Goepel (Charities Law)

Congratulations to all!

The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom 2025 Guide
For over 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe.

Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on a rigorous peer-review survey. Their process is designed to capture the opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers asks voters the question: “If you were unable to take a case yourself, how likely would you be to refer it to this nominee?”

David Greene, our Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions spoke to Eleanor Oldroyd and Nick Bright on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Saturday Breakfast, where he discussed how compensation claims work for class actions, particularly with regard to the compensation due to the sub-postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal.

You can listen to the whole interview on the BBC Sounds website  (from 1:26:30, available until 18 June 2024).

Litigator Barry McGouran (Restructuring & Insolvency) has been promoted to Senior Associate.

Former Edwin Coe trainees Nicole Davis (Restructuring & Insolvency) and Lara Persell (Private Client) have been promoted from Solicitor to Associate.

Finally in our Tax team, Bradley Gabriel has been promoted to Tax Manager along with Henry Hinton who becomes a Tax Executive.

Edwin Coe’s Managing Partner Alison Broadberry commented, “Sincere congratulations to all on their well-deserved promotions. We wish them every further success as they continue their career journey which we will fully support them on.”

Hall of Fame status is awarded to individuals who have received constant praise from their clients for continued excellence. The Hall of Fame highlights, to clients, the law firm partners who are at the pinnacle of the profession. David, who is also our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation is a member of two Halls of Fame, for Commercial Litigation and for Group Litigation.  As reported in the directory, a client commented that David, is considered as “one of the best litigation solicitors practising in the City who commands the respect, and fear, of his peers.”

In the interview, David looks back on his career, spanning forty years as a partner, how the legal sector has changed particularly in the field of litigation and he selects a number of his career highlights.

The full interview can be read here.

City AM previews The Eclipse Litigation: Upham & Ors -v- HSBC UK Bank PLC which will be heard in the Commercial Court for the next eight weeks in front of Mr Justice Bright. David Greene and Thomas Johnson are leading the group action of investors against HSBC over a Disney film tax scheme that resulted in large tax bills.

HSBC is set to defend itself today from a £240m legal action by more than 500 investors over a Disney film tax scheme.

The investors are suing the bank for what they say are losses caused by HSBC’s marketing of film financing schemes called Eclipse Partnerships.

The tax scheme was devised by HSBC’s Private Wealth Solutions’ team, and marketed by Future Capital Partners (now in liquidation) to investors between 2005 and 2008.

The claimants allege that HSBC were the key players in the development and marketing of the Eclipse Partnerships which were sold to them as an opportunity to invest in transactions with Disney in relation to certain film rights.

The investors believed they would benefit from tax relief by putting their money into film productions, with any losses being written off against their tax bills…

You can read the full article on City AM’s website .

Updates on our work on The Eclipse Litigation can be seen on this page.

Millions of claimants, billions of pounds, and a smorgasbord of international cases: 2024 promises to be another landmark year for the English courts. The Lawyer’s annual preview of the most important cases to hit the courts this year includes our work, led by David Greene and Thomas Johnson, on The Eclipse Litigation: Upham & Ors -v- HSBC UK Bank PLC which will heard in the Commercial Court later in the month.

This £240m claim against HSBC has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood blockbuster, with claimants alleging deceit, conspiracy and joint tort-feasance against the banking giant. HSBC has instructed Norton Rose Fulbright to defend two jointly managed actions being pursued by Edwin Coe and Stewarts on behalf of claimants who contend they suffered financial losses because of the tax-advantaged film investment scheme, ‘Eclipse’.

The tax scheme was devised by HSBC’s Private Wealth Solutions’ team, and marketed by Future Capital Partners to investors between 2005 and 2008, with profits shared by both entities. Claimants allege the scheme was marketed as a genuine film distribution business involving feature films produced by Disney, as such participants believed they could claim statutory tax reliefs that were available for investments in businesses “trading with a view to a profit”.

You can read the full article on The Lawyer’s website (subscription required)

Updates on our work on The Eclipse Litigation can be seen on this page.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that 13 lawyers including 2 Senior Statespeople, and 5 practice areas have been recommended in the 2024 edition of Chambers UK: A Client’s Guide to the UK Legal Profession. As reported in the guide, clients say: Edwin Coe “punches above its weight in a range of different areas.”

Restructuring & Insolvency retain their band 1 ranking for Personal Insolvency, whilst Simeon Gilchrist has retained his top individual ranking – “He is great, he’s very straightforward and he’s a good technical lawyer,” whilst Ali Zaidi has also retained his band 2 “He has very good technical awareness and the ability to identify issues.”

Senior Partner David Greene is newly appointed as a Senior Statesperson in the UK-wide Group Litigation: Claimant category, “David Greene is a very safe pair of hands. He knows this field and what he’s doing,” and our “knowledgeable and experienced” Class Action Team makes its first appearance in the same category.

Our Employment: Senior Executive team, “Every person within the legal team at Edwin Coe is a trustworthy, capable and strong lawyer,” retain their band 2 ranking, along with recommendations for Head of Department, Linky Trott who “has a wealth of experience to draw on. She builds great rapport and delivers a great service,” Rachel Harrap “She is very results-oriented, savvy and pragmatic,”.

In addition our Insurance team is again ranked twice – for Insurance Litigation: Mainly Policyholders and also for Professional Negligence. Clients comment that the team is “fantastic from start to finish.” Roger Franklin “just brilliant”, and is ranked in both categories. Nicola Maher is again ranked for Insurance Litigation and is described as “very astute and consistently at the top of her game.”

Russel Shear, our Head of Corporate retains his ranking for Mid-Market M&A “Russel understands our business and objectives”, Sundeep Rathod is newly recommended for Immigration: Business “Sundeep is a dynamic and phenomenal individual with great drive and passion,” Head of Intellectual Property Simon Miles is ranked again, one client said “Simon is fantastic – a commercially astute IP lawyer who consistently delivers results with pragmatic and clear advice,” and finally, Joanna Osborne is recognised for Property Litigation, and is described as “astute, tenacious, personable and an excellent lawyer.”

Congratulations to all involved!

Edwin Coe is recommended in the UK, High Net Worth and Global directories. Chambers’ independent research collects information about organisations, individuals and the marketplace, conducting thousands of interviews a year with in-house counsel and third-party experts, such as barristers and accountants, to deliver detailed insight into providers of legal services. You can view our results on Chambers’ website.

The Legal 500 UK 2024 directory has recently launched. This year, after extensive research and feedback from clients and contacts, their researchers have recommended our work in 16 categories.

Individuals
Across our practices, our lawyers are recommended 68 times by the Legal 500’s expert researchers, with new mentions/reappearances for Jamal Saleh (M&A); Clare Gilroy-Scott (Employment); Kate Dwyer (Insurance Litigation); Anna Primrose and Eva Moynihan (Personal tax, trusts and probate); and Claire Lehr (Intellectual Property).

Our Senior Partner, David Greene is now the member of two ‘Halls of Fame’ for Commercial Litigation and newly for Group Litigation.

Matthew Barnett (Personal tax, trusts and probate) is a new ‘Leading Individual,’ and joins David Goepel (Personal tax, trusts and probate) and Daniel Bellau (M&A), who retain their rankings ‘Leading Individuals.’

Zahira Hussain (Commercial Litigation) also retain their ‘Next Generation Partner’ rankings and Tom Johnson (Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market) becomes our third ‘Next Generation Partner.’

Practices
Two practices received their first recommendations this year – Group Litigation: Claimant, where the team was described as a ‘Lean and nimble team, which punches well above its weight in heavy duty commercial litigation. They have particular expertise on claimant side mandates in group actions.’ along with our Contentious Trusts and Probate team which is a ‘flexible and focused team which is committed to the client and determined to succeed.’

Still in the Private Client sector, our team was recommended for Personal tax, trusts and probate along with Charities and not-for-profit. One client said the team is ‘a very discreet, Rolls-Royce practice, where the client is far more important than the solicitor, and service is everything.’

Our Employment team was ranked for Employment: employers and for Employment: senior executives, with one referee commenting that the team are ‘Good at understanding the nuances of the case. Meet deadlines. Good communicators.’

Our Commercial Litigation team were recommended for Mid-Market matters whilst our Insurance Litigation team were ranked for Professional Negligence and For Policyholders, where one contact stated ‘…Always courteous and respectful to their client and others, Edwin Coe is a winning team.’ Our litigators were also recommended for Fraud: Civil – ‘Right on the spot with a clear strategy to achieve the final goal.’

Our ‘very professional and highly regarded’ Property team is recommended for Residential Property; Property Finance and also Property Litigation: ‘In the service we received, everything was spot-on – more a 7-star than a 5-star service from the property litigation team.’.

Other practice areas recognised in the UK directory are Intellectual Property; M&A: smaller deals ‘very commercial corporate practice,’ and Equity Capital Markets: Small-Mid Cap.

Congratulations to all involved!

You can read all the rankings and testimonials at the Legal 500 website.

David Greene spoke to Law360 recently about his work with the Deprived Pensioners Association, a pressure group aiming to challenge the government over rules that prevent older pensioners from having their retirement benefits rise in line with inflation.

A pressure group has said that it plans to challenge the government over rules that prevent older pensioners from having their retirement benefits rise in line with inflation.

The group, the Deprived Pensioners Association, said it has retained David Greene of Edwin Coe LLP as it crowdfunds a “judicial review” over legislation dating back to 2004.

The association said on Sunday that 60,000 Britons over the age of 80 whose retirement benefits are paid by the Pension Protection Fund do not get so-called pension indexation. Benefits increase in line with inflation, up to 2.5% a year, under the provision. The cost of living as measured by the Consumer Prices Index rose 8.7% in the year to May 2023.

“At a time of high inflation the effect of this provision of the law is devastating for thousands of pensioners,” Greene, a former president of the Law Society, said in a statement. “There can be no doubt that the effect of this is to discriminate on the basis of age: older pensioners suffer more than younger. We will seek to challenge this discriminatory law in court and campaign for government action to right this fundamental wrong.”

The association was set up by former directors at construction company John Mowlem & Co. PLC, which was bought by Carillion PLC in 2006. Carillion itself became insolvent in 2018, and the company’s pension schemes entered into PPF assessment that year…

Read the full article on Law360’s website (subscription may be required).

Further coverage of this story includes:

• Daily Express, 17 July: ‘Devastating’ pensions technicality means 260,000 risk inflation hit with no protection
• Daily Mail, 18 July: I’m still working at 78 – 260,000 pensioners miss out as PPF lifeboat fails to match inflation

The DPA
The campaign is being run by the Deprived Pensioners Association.

The Association is crowdfunding a “judicial review” with CrowdJustice.

David Greene recently spoke to the Daily Mail about the class action that he is leading for the passengers of TUI’s Marella Discovery 2 cruise ship, following the mid-voyage cancellation of a Caribbean cruise, reportedly due to a technical issue with the catering facilities.

Cruise passengers forced to fly home just days into their dream holidays are set to launch legal action against travel company TUI.

Refunds and compensation is expected to total more than £1 million when lawyers at a top London firm act on behalf of a large group of passengers left furious after being forced to cut short their Caribbean cruise after just three stops.

Notes were slid under cabin doors in the dead of night citing problems with catering equipment.

With no further explanation from officials or the ship’s Captain, passengers say their experience was ‘traumatic’…

… Last night Mr Greene, a senior partner at the firm, said: ‘For many a cruise round the Caribbean starting in Montego Bay is the holiday of a lifetime for which they have saved over years.

‘These are special events often afforded out of savings at these difficult times. It makes it distressing when the whole thing goes wrong and is then cancelled with hurried flights home.

‘The blame for this lies squarely with TUI. It’s a disgrace that those affected have not had all their money refunded plus compensation which TUI should pay.

‘Time for TUI to hold its hand up, accept the wrong and pay these people back their money…’

The full article is available on the Daily Mail’s website.

Karen joined Edwin Coe as a trainee, qualifying into the Intellectual Property team, and is also a qualified Chartered Trade Mark Attorney. She deals with all aspects of intellectual property law, both contentious and non-contentious matters in the fields of trade marks, passing off, copyright and design rights.  Karen also regularly prosecutes trade mark and registered design applications at UK, EU and international level. She manages, co-ordinates and deals with the enforcement aspects concerning the clients’ trade mark and registered design portfolios.

Thomas Johnson is dual qualified Barrister–Partner and is recommended as a ‘Rising Star’ for litigation in the Legal 500 UK directory. His practice spans all aspects of commercial litigation and alternative dispute resolution.  He has particular experience in high value, complex fraud cases, finance disputes, and company law.

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner commented “I’m delighted to welcome Karen and Thomas into the partnership at Edwin Coe. Both are dedicated, talented lawyers who are a great asset to our clients and the firm.”

David Greene, our Head of Class Action and Finance Litigation recently spoke to Law360 about the state of litigation funding sector, in the light of the current economic situation, particularly as interest rates continue to rise.

Litigation funders have been buoyed by more than a decade of low interest rates. But central banks worldwide have hiked up rates to fight inflation — and other more traditional asset classes, such as bonds and money market assets, could make risky litigation funding look less appealing.

Whether this will actually harm the sector — and if so how much — remains unclear. Some industry players even argue that the sector could use the moment to grow bigger…

…David Greene, senior partner and head of group action litigation at Edwin Coe LLP, also expressed concerns about whether funders would have enough capitalization to see their cases through.

“Capital has become a bit of an issue, with one or two funders finding it difficult to continue to trade through the lack of capital,” Greene said at the forum in October.

Observers say that whether a third-party litigation funder is hit by the rising cost of capital will depend on where their own money comes from…

…Greene of Edwin Coe told Law360 that the rise in interest rates has an effect on funding firms for two reasons.

“If the returns on other investments rise, like simple bank deposits, which have little or no risk, the returns on alternative investments which carry high risk will need to increase,” he said.

The result is that funders are trying to reduce risk as much as possible, for example by rejecting those cases with lower value and higher risk, Greene added. Returns have to be higher as costs rise.

This is a potential double-whammy for law firms, with the cost of funding and of litigation going up. The labor market has remained tight as salaries in the capital have been pushed upward.

“In London, the cost of labor is increasing,” Greene said…

You can read the full article on Law360’s website (Subscription required)

David Greene analyses the growing number of class actions in the UK banking sector, and suggests how banks should prepare for them, in a new article written for Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.

Claims against banks by existing or former clients for loss arising from bank conduct are nothing new. Due to clever online frauds and stricter regulation, this is a fast-developing area of law. One example is the recent development of the Quincecare (Barclays Bank Plc v Quincecare Ltd ([1992] All ER 363) duties, which were reviewed last year in a number of courts, including at the High Court in Federal Republic of Nigeria v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA [2022] EWHC 1447 (Comm.).

Recent press headlines suggest that there is a new trend for claims to be brought against banks by large groups in class actions fuelled by third-party funders.

Lying behind the headlines is a piece of research undertaken and reported by law firm RPC, which suggested that there are 109 class action lawsuits being brought against the major UK banks in the FTSE 100. This includes proceedings brought in the UK and the United States. The UK proceedings are just a small part of the overall picture, accounting for only six of the 109 lawsuits.

What is a class action?

In the United States, the term has tended to dominate public perception of the litigation process. Class actions can be huge, ground-breaking and newsworthy. The lawyers associated with them can be controversial, brash and loud, feeding off the media frenzy that may follow them, but the vast majority simply get on with the job. A typical class action in the United States relates to a state or federal issue, ranging from mass tort to price-fixing and securities fraud.

The action may be issued in the state or federal courts. The procedure in the latter is largely contained in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The normal procedure for claims follows the usual opt-in procedure, which is that if you wish to start proceedings, you issue in your own name. The U.S. class process works on an opt-out procedure; if the class is certified by the court, then everyone within the class and bound by settlement or judgment is included unless they opt out. Unlike most jurisdictions, the losing party does not usually have to pay the winning party’s costs — that is, there is no cost shifting. This makes the certification process all the more important and hard-fought.

The reputation of the U.S. class process and litigation is generally unfavourable on this side of the Atlantic. Considerable press attention has been paid to the more fringe claims, such as the action over jelly beans for containing sugar and the claim against Subway for “foot-long” sandwiches that are less than 12 inches.

Perhaps the most infamous claim was the “hot coffee” claim against McDonald’s, in which the damages awarded amounted to $2.9 million. Many of these claims are dismissed at an early stage, and there was more to the “hot coffee” claim than the press suggested, but the headlines define its reputation.

That reputation has undoubtedly affected European views of class actions. The description itself remains contentious, with the European Commission and domestic regulators using any description but “class action” for “collective actions” or “group litigation”.

You can read David’s article in full on Thompson Reuters website (subscription may be required)

In an article for Juriste International, the magazine of the International Association of Lawyers (UIA), David Greene, our Head of the Class Action & Finance Litigation examines how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the world have sought to enforce the Paris Agreement on climate change through the courts.

…Conference of the Parties (COP) is the decision-making body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. For the international legal community, the most momentous COP took place in Paris in 2015, leading to the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, which COP oversees. The Agreement seeks to establish transparent national plans to reduce emissions and keep the global temperature rise this century to, at best, 1.5 degrees Celsius. At the core of the plans are Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) whereby national goals are set to reduce emissions. NDCs have often led to domestic legislation seeking to bring emission reduction plans to the domestic level.

One does not need reminding of the effects of climate change, with July 2021 being earth’s hottest month on record. The past seven years since the Paris Agreement have seen a wave of litigation by NGOs, communities, and charities seeking to enforce the Agreement obligations at both a national and corporate level. The Paris Agreement and the NDCs have been a core basis for groups seeking to enforce those obligations. Courts across the world have shown a willingness to develop normal tortious principles to meet the growing clamour for nations and corporations to meet climate change challenges.

Litigation often turns on guaranteed constitutional rights. Typically, those rights (taken here from the European Convention on Human Rights but reflected in most national constitutions) are the right to life, the right to liberty and security, and the right to a private and family life. But the invoking of constitutional rights is not one size fits all, and each jurisdiction interprets its own constitution’s language…

David’s article is available in full, in the December 2022 issue of Juriste International (pdf p17-18).

In an article for Law360, David Greene, our Head of the Class Action and Finance Litigation examines the actions that Amazon is currently facing across the world.

The world tech giants are receiving much attention from competition regulators in many jurisdictions. As night follows day class action lawyers are not far behind.

Like some other tech companies, Amazon.com Inc. faces a swath of regulatory and class action claims in Europe and the U.S., including the latest class action to be filed in the U.K. by Julie Hunter acting as class representative in what has been termed the Buy Box claim.

Do these actions spell radical change in the workings of Amazon or just short-term adjustment in the startling growth of the e-commerce giant?

From its beginnings in Jeff Bezos’ garage in 1994, Amazon has grown to be one of the most influential economic and cultural forces in the world. In the past 10 years worldwide sales have grown from $7 billion to $470 billion, of which some $32 billion are in the U.K.

In the U.S., Amazon has some 46% of the e-commerce market and in the U.K. it is 34%, with 90% of U.K. shoppers using it for some of their shopping.

While Amazon may not yet fulfill the European description of super dominant applied to Google LLC, which holds between 75% in the U.S. to 94% in India of domestic desktop search traffic market, it has become dominant enough to grab the attention of regulators in Europe and the U.S.

In 2017, Amazon resolved an investigation by the European Commission into its distribution deals with European e-book publishers, leading the commission to end its investigation without issuing a fine.

In 2019, the commission opened a formal investigation to assess whether Amazon’s use of nonpublic data from independent retailers selling in its marketplace breached EU competition rules.

In that investigation in November 2020, the commission issued a statement of objections outlining its preliminary view that Amazon should not rely on independent sellers’ business data to calibrate its own retail decisions when acting as a competitor to those independent sellers, because the practice distorts fair competition on its platform and prevents effective competition.

At the same time, the commission opened a second investigation into Amazon’s buy box facility, and Amazon’s Prime program.

The commission has the power to fine Amazon up to 10% of its global turnover if found guilty of breaching EU rules.

One of the purposes of a statement of objections is to set out the grounds for a resolution of concerns. Last month, the commission indicated that it will resolve the investigations on the basis of undertakings to be given by Amazon to:

• Cease using sellers’ data for its own competing retail business and its private label products;
• Treat sellers equally when ranking their offers for the buy box on its website that generates the bulk of its sales; and
• Ensure that sellers and offers on its Prime program are chosen based on nondiscriminatory criteria, with sellers also allowed to choose their own logistics and delivery services company instead of Amazon’s competing logistics services.

Domestic regulators have also been considering Amazon’s sales practices. In the EU, that step is taken in coordination with the commission to ensure consistency across the EU.

In Italy, Amazon was fined by the Italian competition authority in 2021 for pressing its own logistic service — fulfillment by Amazon — for vendors through the ascription of the Amazon Prime label.

The Federal Cartel Office in Germany has been investigating Amazon for some years. The result of the early investigations was a resolution of sorts in 2019, and they led in part to the introduction of new legislation that reflects the new EU Digital Markets Act and seeks to widen the oversight and regulation of tech giants such as Amazon.

The German legislation prohibits self-preferencing, denying interoperability and exclusively bundling their own services to the detriment of rival offerings, among other prohibitions listed in Section 19b of the 10th Amendment to the German Competition Act, commonly known as the GWB Digitalisation Act.

Not being satisfied with the earlier resolution the German authority has opened up fresh investigations under the new legislation as to Amazon’s conduct and algorithms.

In the U.K. the Competition and Markets Authority has started its own investigation. This is somewhat behind the European curve with the CMA yet to determine Amazon as dominant. Only on that finding can it then move on to investigate whether any dominance is being abused.

The European regulators’ stance reflects the coming new regulatory regime for digital gatekeepers, the providers of the core platform services on which businesses depend to reach their customers. The new regime is reflected in the U.K. Digital Services Act, which came into effect on Nov. 1, and the EU Digital Services Act, coming into effect in May 2023.

In the U.S., Amazon has been under investigation by both state and federal investigators for some time. Here allegations will be litigated either by state or federal authorities. The latest filing against Amazon is by the California state attorney general alleging breach of state antitrust legislation.

Where the regulators tread, litigation is bound to follow, much these days on a class basis. In the U.S. a massive would-be class action was commenced in 2020 in Seattle. That recently survived an application to strike out when the court found that the class representatives had standing to sue and that they “sufficiently allege the requisite anti-competitive conduct.”

As one might expect, Amazon denies wrongdoing on its part and says that its offering is not anti-competitive and serves the public well. It certainly does not roll over, and it strenuously litigates allegations with some success.

A claim accusing Amazon of anti-competitive behavior by preventing third-party sellers from offering lower prices for their products on other platforms, including their own websites in Washington, D.C., by the D.C. attorney general, was recently dismissed by the D.C. Superior Court. The dismissal was made upon Amazon’s application, because the court concluded the plaintiff had failed to evidence sufficiently anti-competitive behavior.

In the U.K., a tentative class action has been commenced in the Competition Appeal Tribunal by a consumer advocate, Julie Hunter, seeking to be the class representative of all consumers in the U.K. who purchase goods on Amazon. Similar to the European claims and the inquiry by the CMA, the complaint centers round the buy box on the Amazon website.

The complaint suggests that consumers are given a choice that is manipulated in favor of Amazon to the exclusion of other vendors, who may be offering the same product cheaper or on better terms.

It is claimed thereby that customers are enticed to pay more than they need to and are more restricted in choice. The claim for unlawful abuse of dominant position is based on Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

The claim raises many factual and technical issues on the way in which the buy box is designed, both physically on the page as the interface with the consumer and technically through algorithms.

The claim suggests that for its own commercial purposes, Amazon may exploit human biases on where we focus attention first, not just in positioning but also in color and font size. As a result, one element of expertise the court may require is evidence from behavioral scientists.

The claim is what is termed a stand-alone action. By Section 58A of the Competition Act, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal is bound by decisions of regulators of breaches of the Competition Act or the relevant articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, at least until the U.K. left the EU.

Damages claims that are filed after such a finding are termed follow-on actions. If there has been no finding, the claimant must prove the breach in a termed stand-alone action. If a claim is started before a regulatory decision but one is subsequently made, a stand-alone action might be converted into a follow-on claim.

The claim by Hunter is brought under Section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This section allows for collective actions either on an opt-in or opt-out basis. It matters not whether the claim is a stand-alone or follow-on claim.

We can foresee each stage of the collective process being heavily litigated on both sides. The class representative will need to secure certification of the class in a collective proceedings order and the claim on an opt-out basis. In this fashion Hunter will be seeking to represent all consumers who it is said have been affected by the alleged unlawful abuse.

Following the guidance given by the U.K. Supreme Court in Merricks v MasterCard in 2020^[1], a follow-on action, the process of securing a collective proceedings order is undoubtedly easier, and recent decisions by the Competition Appeal Tribunal have been positive for claimants seeking collective proceedings orders. But there remain hurdles and no doubt these will be furiously fought.

We have yet to see consumer cases following the granting of a collective proceedings order resolved either by settlement or trial. This is an area of the law in development. In addition to questions of dominance and whether or not conduct is abusive, the major question will be whether and to what extent consumers suffer loss as a result of Amazon’s practices.

In all competition litigation this is a hard-fought area with economists and econometricists taking center stage. It seems likely that the headline figure of a claim for £1 billion ($1.24 billion) will substantially reduce in any resolution.

Are the U.K. proceedings of significance to the future of Amazon? Certainly not. With an annual turnover of $470 billion, the proceedings in the U.K. are but a small issue. It is likely, however, that Amazon will fight the issues hard to avoid setting any precedents under current or future legislation.

Of more concern to the tech giant is European regulation and ensuring Amazon’s trading practices do not fall foul of the impending EU Data Services Act and any separate U.K. legislation, and what may follow. Whether, as intended, the opening up of competition has a long-term commercial effect on Amazon remains to be seen.

David’s article first appeared on in Law360 and is reproduced with thanks. It is available in full as a pdf here or on the Law360 website (subscription required)

^[1] Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51.

Edwin Coe has once again been included in The Times Best Law Firms Guide – The Times’ annual list of the top 250 legal practices in England and Wales. The newspaper highlights our expertise in commercial dispute resolution.

The votes on this occasion highlighted Edwin Coe’s outstanding claimant dispute resolution team. Edwin Coe is renowned for its contentious practice often for large groups of claimants in insurance, competition and complex financial disputes as well as property litigation and insolvency. It has practitioners covering international and domestic litigation, mediation and arbitration. It also takes a full part in the profession, boasting the current Presidents of R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals and The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).

“I’m delighted that The Times has recognised the hard work and expertise of Edwin Coe’s outstanding litigation team,” said David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner, “our litigators, throughout the firm, work tirelessly to achieve commercial and often innovative solutions for our clients, and it is particularly gratifying to receive recognition from the solicitors and barristers who we work with every day.”

Ali Zaidi, Edwin Coe’s Head of Litigation and Insolvency added, “Congratulations to our talented lawyers. This listing is a great reflection of the expertise and quality of work being produced across the firm for our clients.”

The Times and Statista, an international market research firm, asked solicitors and barristers across England, Wales and Scotland to recommend the best law firms in any of 28 categories covering business, public and private-client fields. Lawyers could not vote for themselves and could only vote once in the survey, to create a ‘definitive’ list of the most respected lawyers and firms in the industry. Only 250 of the approximately 9,700 firms in England and Wales made the list.

This success follows Edwin Coe’s recent recognition in the newly published Chambers UK 2023 and Legal 500 UK 2023 directories.

Here is an extract from the CNBC article, which can be read in full here:

“Class action lawsuits of this type aren’t common in the U.K. They’re “opt-out,” meaning they’re brought on behalf of every individual that falls within the class unless they expressly opt out, similar to U.S.-style class action cases. A recent change in U.K. law paved the way for a flood of opt-out class action suits, with other cases against Meta and Google ongoing.

“It is a new process and all the courts involved in it are feeling their way but there is clearly a trend for these mega actions for consumers claiming many billions of pounds,” said David Greene, committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association.

“Clearly Amazon will fight the case at all stages including class certification but the Tribunal has made a number of orders recently for similar actions, certifying the opt out process. It is of course difficult at this stage to assess the likelihood of success in these cases but the Big Tech companies are well resourced to fight.” “

The BBC article can be read in full here:

David Greene, our Senior Partner and the founding Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) recently spoke to the Times about the need to simplify the system for group litigation and create effective mechanisms for collective redress.

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)

Class Action specialist, Zahira Hussain, an Edwin Coe Partner, said “Edwin Coe is once again at the forefront of the battle against cartels. We are litigating these claims in both the High Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal and now over 125 businesses, large and small, have come to us to use our expertise in this area of the law, from small enterprises to major breweries, to renowned high street names, all of which claim losses of tens of millions pounds at the hands of the cartel. As well as relying on our peerless experience fighting cartels, our clients have the benefit of insurance that gives a guaranteed return on damages awarded, without any risk. No wonder businesses are fighting their way to the Edwin Coe door.”

“As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 is likely to have overpaid for its trucks. Edwin Coe is seeking damages from the truck manufacturers on behalf of clients.”

“We are delighted that we are already assisting so many clients on a no win, no fee basis, with the ability to continue doing so for future claimants. Our website carries a wealth of further information on the action, and I would be delighted to discuss it further with anyone who has an interest in signing up to this class action.”

Contact us
Edwin Coe’s Trucks Cartel team is able to advise on all aspects of the claim across Europe. If you or your business used trucks (whether bought, rented or leased) in the period, please contact Zahira Hussain in order to discuss the matter further.

Background
Five truck manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF, have admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. There has also been a finding against a sixth manufacturer, Scania, by the European Commission.

In 2018, Edwin Coe issued a first claim on behalf of clients in the High Court. The firm recently issued two more claims in the High Court on behalf of further clients in November 2020.

The team dealing with the claims is considering making further claims on behalf of clients. If you or your business bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more, here or in Europe, between 1997 and 2011 (the cartel period), you will have a claim.

Edwin Coe has funding in place, which means you can pursue your claim without cost or risk, subject to assessment of the claim.

Edwin Coe’s Class Action Team
Edwin Coe is at the forefront of the growing field of class actions. We are one of a handful of UK firms specialising in this type of work, bringing cases against entities whose actions have caused damage to small or large groups of people. We advise on the stages involved in pursuing a class action and the various options for funding.

Further Information
Our Truck Cartel portal is available here

Edwin Coe is acting for almost 400 of Eclipse investors in a claim against HSBC for fraud in the selling of the Eclipse schemes.

David Greene, Senior Partner said “The offer being made by HMCTS effectively to abandon its claim for tax on declared income that we now discover was fictional is welcome news for so many. The amount of tax for individuals, some £1.6 bn in total, was an existential threat to assets and livelihoods.

This is the right answer from the Revenue in the face of our appeal for one of the partnerships and on behalf of investors. The Revenue recognise that the whole mechanism constructed by HSBC and others was false and, having examined all the contractual documents, concluded that the income that was declared by partnerships was, in fact, fictional. It now just remains for HSBC to make good the substantial actual losses of investors deriving from the cash invested.”

David Greene, our Senior Partner recently spoke to the Financial Times, on the Supreme Court ruling in January which found that many business-interruption policies should have provided cover against the financial losses inflicted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The UK’s largest pub group Stonegate is suing a trio of insurers for losses it suffered during the pandemic, one of the highest-profile cases yet in a bitter dispute between the hospitality and insurance industries.

The company, which is backed by private equity group TDR Capital, is seeking £845m in a claim filed at London’s High Court against MS Amlin, Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe and Zurich.

An insurance policy covering business interruption and related losses has been triggered multiple times during the coronavirus crisis, Stonegate argues in court documents.

According to the documents, Stonegate says that the insurers do not dispute that the policies should have paid out, but contend their liability is limited to £17.5m, of which £14.5m has already been paid…

…“The Supreme Court case answered a lot of questions about standard [contract] wording and indeed as a result led to the settlement of many cases,” said David Greene, senior partner at law firm Edwin Coe. “But there will remain cases where insurers will continue to disagree on wording or particular circumstances which will lead to disputes.”…

Read the full article here (subscription may be required).

Related stories:

Edwin Coe’s Insurance Litigation team prepares group actions against Hiscox and RSA

“In the vicinity but not beyond” Group action against Allianz Insurance plc issued by specialist insurance litigation team

Judgment handed down in FCA Covid-19 BI insurance test case

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe said “Following the collapse of the criminal trials against former officers and a solicitor for alleged doctoring of evidence there has been much said on the issue of the police cover up of events. This has caused profound distress to our clients who are survivors of the disaster. The cover-up was detailed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel in September 2012, its existence was accepted by the then Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, acknowledged by the then Prime Minster David Cameron, and by the Lord Chief Justice of the High Court. The Inquest jury in the 2014-2016 inquests found that the behaviour of the fans did not contribute to the deaths of the 96.

We trust that a settlement will put an end to any fresh attempts to rewrite the record and wrongly claim that there was no cover-up. In so commenting, we contrast the dignity of the bereaved families and the supporters, with the conduct of those who still seek to peddle the discredited lies of the past.  Our clients want to move on and resolve issues without the rewriting of history”.

The PIP debacle erupted in 2010 when it emerged that implants fraudulently manufactured by PIP were made of cheap, industrial-grade silicone not cleared for human use, which was up to six times more likely to rupture than other implants and was found to have leached into the bodies of women who, as a result, suffered auto-immune disease, prolonged anxiety, and possibly cancer.

The late Jean-Claude Mas, founder of PIP was jailed for four years and fined 75,000 euros in 2013.

A French lawyer, Olivier Aumaitre, and “partner” lawyers¹ internationally, set up PIPA (PIP Implant World Victims Association) to represent claimants in claims against TUV, the German authority that certified PIP implants.

The judgment of the court in Paris today means that TUV’s negligence is held to be solely responsible for paying damages and Mr Aumaitre is reported as having said that “After 10 years of waiting and fierce combat, the German certifier will have to fully compensate the victims.”

Unfortunately, not all who commenced proceedings will enjoy the proceeds because some 6,200 victims have had their claims ruled to be “inadmissible” for lack of evidential proof being submitted.

Edwin Coe LLP, one of Britain’s leading class action firms, with 30 years’ experience in this type of litigation, is investigating the merits of possible claims against the lawyers.

PIPA suggests on its website that any claimants should not challenge PIPA or Mr Aumaitre!

Amanda Carter, who has played a central role in representing PIP victims, said, “After 7 years embroiled in a very stressful legal battle, we find it inexcusable that these women have had their claims disallowed and are now in the awful position of having to potentially repay the 3,000 euros interim payment they received. The responsibility for ensuring that adequate checks and evidence were provided is ultimately the lawyers’ responsibility. This is a never-ending saga that is causing unquantifiable stress.”

Edwin Coe intends to look into all aspects of the case and to investigate various possible causes of action including for negligence, conflict of interest, breach of data protection and a failure of client care.

David Greene, Senior Partner at Edwin Coe commented, “It is sad that whilst many women will be celebrating this victory there are thousands who were dismissed from the case for technical reasons and are not being compensated notwithstanding the pain and suffering caused by, literally, the poison that was put in them. This was a matter of French law and we are looking at the circumstances in which these thousands of cases were dismissed and whether appropriate action at the time might have led to those thousands also celebrating the win today.”

Technology partner GMT has opened the online pre-registration and registration of interest to participate in this case is now live here.

NOTES TO EDITORS
The website of PIPA sets out information pertinent to the case.

¹ Including a claims management company Stanton Fisher, Slee Blackwell Solicitors of Barnstaple, Your Lawyers of Chesterfield as well as Coleman Legal of Dublin.

Group action management technology for the case is provided by Group Management Technology.

David Greene, partner in Edwin Coe LLP said “Vostochny Bank (often referred to as Orient Express Bank) has been mired in controversy since U.S. investor Michael Calvey, the founder of private equity group Baring Vostok, was detained along with other fund executives in 2019 after state investigators accused them of embezzlement related to the bank.”

“The issue the bondholders had was unrelated but turned on a change to the terms of the bonds. With claims of US$75 million the issue looked set for litigation in London but discussions between the parties lead to resolution and the bondholders reached agreement on terms that are wrapped up in the acquisition of Vostochny by Sovcombank. This is a great result for the Edwin Coe team in their continuing work for major Russian clients.”

The litigation was handled by the Group and Finance litigation team at Edwin Coe LLP, led by Senior Partner David Greene and Senior Associate Fred Sheppard.

In an opinion article written for the New Law Journal, our Senior Partner and the current Law Society President, David Greene salutes Walter Merrick’s recent class action success in the Supreme Court & puts the case for a wider collective process for redress.

In Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE [2020] UKSC 51, [2020] All ER (D) 67 (Dec) LJJ Sales and Leggatt rationalised the ‘opt out’ class action process by quoting from Judge Posner in Carnegie v Household International Inc (2004) 376 F 3d 656, 661, a decision of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: ‘The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17m individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30’.

Our own process of opt out actions, with one important exception under CPR Pt 19.6, is limited to claims for breaches of competition law. Perhaps the time has come for widening the subject matter.

Europeans (for which purpose I include the UK) have not quite come to terms with the ascription ‘class action’. Perhaps it resonates too much of litigation in the US. The stain of the hot coffee litigation in the US runs deep this side of the Pond…

Read the full article on the NLJ website (subscription may be required) or on David Greene’s LinkedIn post.

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that David Greene yesterday took up the role of President of The Law Society. He won the Law Society’s presidential election for 2018 and was appointed as deputy vice president in July 2018, becoming vice president in 2019 and now president in 2020. The Law Society’s president represents the organisation at home and abroad and is chair of their Council.

David is the firm’s Senior Partner and Head of Group Action Litigation. He led the Article 50 Brexit litigation in 2016 and has worked on group actions in the UK since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. He has for many years advised sovereign states on disputes in international tribunals and particularly specialises in work involving governments in sub-Saharan Africa advising on civil justice and human rights.

Managing Partner, David Kinch said “We are delighted that David has been elected to lead the profession. It is well deserved recognition for his contribution to the profession over more than four decades and dedication in campaigning for civil justice and in his pioneering group action litigation work. It is a huge honour for the firm.”

David’s inaugural speech is available here.

The challenge to the A Level algorithm met with immediate success. The firm was acting for a student from a school with a challenging academic record who had a place at Bristol to do law. His predicted grades were reversed by the use of the applied algorithm and he lost his place. A letter before action was written following which the Government abandoned the algorithm and restored assessment undertaken by schools.

David Greene, Senior Partner, said “This severely affected our client who, was the first of his family going to University, had a place to read law at Bristol University. He lost that place as a result of the recalculation of his A Level results on the application of the Government’s algorithm. We wrote a letter before action in accordance with the pre-action protocol. It is a real pleasure that the Government has reversed its decision because, like thousands of others, the result gives the client the chance of getting back his place. The problem many face now, however, is the level of oversubscription at University. We remain hopeful that the client will secure his place. He’ll make a great lawyer.”

“We also issued proceedings on 14th August against the Post Office for judicial review of aspects of their compensation scheme for sub-postmasters established following a devastating judgment by the High Court in December on their treatment of sub-postmasters. Following that judgment the Post Office has set up a scheme to compensate those that were not party to the proceedings. That scheme has several flaws and is wholly inappropriate to establish the level of compensation due. We have issued on behalf of a former sub-postmaster whose life has been devastated by the utterly disgraceful conduct of the Post Office.”

The Financial Times reports on a group action led by our Senior Partner, David Greene, on behalf of 371 investors which relates to a film financing scheme that was deemed to be a tax avoidance vehicle by HM Revenue & Customs.

The investors have filed a claim at London’s High Court against HSBC UK for alleged losses caused by the role of its private bank in the development and marketing of a series of film financing schemes known as the Eclipse Partnerships.

The claimants, represented by law firm Edwin Coe, are alleging they were told that Eclipse would trade the rights to blockbuster Disney films including Enchanted. However they claim none of the rights to any of these films were ever actively traded and say that instead of investment returns they have ended up with losses and potential tax liabilities for investing in the partnerships.

Read the full article here (subscription may be required)

Further information on our Eclipse Partnerships group action may be read here.

Other recent coverage of this story includes:

• Accountancy Daily – HSBC faces £1.3bn lawsuit over ‘sham’ film investment
• Citywire Wealth Manager – Sir Alex Ferguson and Sven-Goran Eriksson join £1.3bn HSBC suit
• This is Money – Football bosses Sir Alex Ferguson and Sven-Goran Eriksson suing HSBC over failed film scheme
• Investment Week – £1.3bn fraud claim filed against HSBC UK Bank for ‘sham’ investment scheme
• Hubbis – GBP1.3 billion Fraud Claim filed against HSBC
• Verdict / Private Banker International – HSBC hit with £1.3bn lawsuit over film financing scheme

HSBC faces a £1.3 billion legal claim for its involvement in a Disney film financing scheme set up to avoid tax.

Investors were told that Eclipse Partnerships would exploit the rights to films, including Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 and 3, National Treasure 2 and Enchanted.

But the law firm Edwin Coe, which is believed to have recently filed court papers, said investors face demands for as much as ten times their investment from Revenue & Customs.

Read the article here.

Further information on our Eclipse Partnerships group action may be read here.

The Claimants rely on the European Commission’s decision (background on the claim). The manufacturers sought to differentiate between different parts of the decision for that reliance. The Tribunal has however rejected their objections and found that, subject to limited exceptions, the Claimants can rely on all of the decision, including recitals which the Tribunal has found binding, including that those companies to which the decision was addressed were guilty of exchanging gross price lists and information on gross prices, including planned future gross price increases. This included information which was not in the public domain, and which was commercially sensitive. In addition it was found that between 1997 and 2004 the addressee companies in some cases also agreed their respective gross price increases and also discussed net prices for some countries.

If you or your business purchased or leased trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more between 1997 and 2012, you will have been subject to any overcharge arising from the price fixing cartel.

Please contact us today to make a claim as soon as possible.  In the first instance, please complete the following short questionnaire(s) as applicable: 1. Brand new truck purchase; 2. Leased trucks or 3. Second-hand truck purchase or contact Zahira Hussain directly.

If you or your business bought trucks weighing six tonnes or more and then rented them out to third parties between 1997 and 2012, please get in touch. You or your business will have overpaid for the trucks because of the price fixing that was prevalent in the trucks market at the time. Five truck manufacturers (MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF) have admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011

Edwin Coe has funding in place for these claims. This means that the funder will cover the legal costs of the claim in exchange for a share of any damages secured at the end of the proceedings – there is nothing to pay as the claim progresses. If the claim is unsuccessful, there will be nothing to pay.

The decision by the European Commission was published in 2016. Time is therefore marching on. Accordingly, if you would like to make a claim, please get in touch as soon as possible.

Please complete the following short questionnaire(s) as applicable: 1. Brand new truck purchase; 2. Leased trucks or 3. Second-hand truck purchase or contact Zahira Hussain directly.

The defendants have admitted liability for the cartel. The quantification of damages flowing from the cartel remains in dispute and will be the core of the litigation process in front of the Tribunal.

Background

Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading group action litigation firm, is leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from truck manufacturers. The claims arise out of an investigation and findings by the European Commission that six different truck manufacturers were guilty of price fixing over a 14 year period. As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2012 is likely to have overpaid for its vehicles

If you bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more, here or in Europe, during the cartel period, you will have a claim. Edwin Coe has funding and insurance in place, which means you can pursue your claim without cost or risk.

Our trucks cartel team is able to advise on all aspects of the claim. Please contact Zahira Hussain for more information.

As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 is likely to have overpaid for its vehicles. Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading group action litigation firm, in conjunction with Affiniti, is leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from the truck manufacturers, which will be a cost and risk free claims process.

If your business rented trucks to third parties and you had a fleet of at least 100 trucks in total during the cartel period, please contact Zahira Hussain about the claim for damages. Alternatively, you can register your claim by completing the relevant online questionnaire(s) and, on receipt of your completed questionnaire(s), we will be in touch.

As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 is likely to have overpaid for its vehicles. Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading group action litigation firm, in conjunction with Affiniti, is leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from the truck manufacturers, which will be a cost and risk free claims process.

Zahira Hussain commented: “It was great to meet members of the IRHA, to answer their questions on the status of the claim and to be able to offer them a cost-free route to compensation.”

Edwin Coe’s trucks cartel team is able to advise on all aspects of the claim across the European Union. If you or your business used trucks (whether bought, rented or leased) in the period, please contact Zahira Hussain in order to discuss the matter further.

Entertainment giant Disney played an ‘essential part’ in luring footballers and celebrities into a major tax avoidance scheme and could be dragged into a £300million lawsuit, say lawyers representing the investors.

Prospective investors in the Eclipse scheme were told they could reap the profits of Disney films and were given glossy brochures, DVDs, memorabilia and promises of invitations to red carpet premieres, it is alleged.

Law firm Edwin Coe, representing 400 of the 780 investors, has already sent ‘letters before action’ to the banks involved – HSBC, Barclays and Bank of Ireland – over their roles in the scheme.

To read the full article, please click here.

*Update (10/03/2019) – BIG banks including HSBC, Barclays and Bank of Ireland could face a bill of up to £11billion for their roles in tax avoidance schemes used by wealthy celebrities. The Mail on Sunday can reveal more.

*Update (08/04/2019) – Santander dragged into scandal over alleged film-based tax dodging scheme used by celebs. The Mail on Sunday can reveal more.

In a City AM article, Edwin Coe Senior Partner, David Greene comments on the HSBC partnerships.

HSBC Private Bank is being sued for £150m by over 400 investors in connection with a film financing scheme that purported to invest money in Disney blockbusters for tax benefits.

Investors, including ex-Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson and ex-England managers Sven-Goran Eriksson and Glenn Hoddle, lost out after tax authorities ruled that the film financing scheme they had invested in was actually a tax avoidance scheme.

It aimed to take advantage of tax legislation designed to promoted the UK film industry.

To read the full article, please click here.

*Update (27/02/2019) – Barclays and Bank of Ireland are also being sued as part of a £180m lawsuit brought by investors in a film finance scheme the pair were involved in. Find out more in City AM’s latest article.

*Update (04/03/2019) – Claims against banks in Disney tax avoidance case could pass £1bn. Find out more in City AM’s latest article.

UK law firm Edwin Coe has teamed up with international litigation funder Therium Capital Management to file a £150MM claim on behalf of 400 high net worth individuals who allege that banking giant HSBC pitched them an investment into Disney movies, which was actually a complicated tax avoidance scheme.

To read the full article, please click here (subscription required).

The order was made in proceedings in which Edwin Coe represents over 90 claimants, individuals from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, who lost approximately £3.5 million paid to purchase holiday homes in the South of Italy. The Italian mafia and the IRA were involved in the developments in question, which were seized by Italian financial police and never completed. In the meantime, the purchasers’ deposits were paid away unlawfully by the firm who had been nominated by the developers and were acting for the purchasers.

The purchasers brought suit against the firm, whose defence was in large measure funded by their insurer, AIG. As the Court found, the litigation was fought fiercely and unreasonably on the part of the defendants:

“Every possible point was taken on behalf of the Defendants and such concessions as were made were made very late and made only when the position being maintained hitherto was plainly untenable.”

The purchasers prevailed at trial on all points and then again before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, in appeals pursued fruitlessly by the defendants. After having been awarded its costs against the defendants, the purchasers then applied to have those costs paid by their insurer.

Costs are not automatically awarded against an insurer who funds the defence. In this case, however, the Court was persuaded that such an order was appropriate: Mr Justice Foskett found that AIG had bankrolled the Defendants’ unreasonable conduct for their own commercial reasons and in so doing had failed to exercise the powers they enjoyed to require the Defendants litigate reasonably. In the judge’s words:

“The objective observer, which I was for this purpose, could readily conclude that this was a war of attrition, but one which would probably have been substantially avoided if AIG’s funding had not been provided and AIG had exercised proper control over the expenditure.”

As well as granting the purchasers costs in the High Court, the Court also awarded them the costs of the application.

David Greene, Senior Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution at Edwin Coe and the partner in charge of this litigation, says:

“This decision is an important victory for our clients, who have suffered both delay and needless expense due to the conduct of both the defendants and AIG. The way in which AIG funded and directed (or refused to direct) the defence in these proceedings deserved condemnation, and our clients deserved compensation; this decision provides both.”

An alliance of 27 brewers, retailers and other UK firms have launched a £100million legal claim against a ‘cartel’ of European truck manufacturers.

Adnams, Timothy Taylor and Fuller’s, as well as Poundland, are among those to have appointed lawyers from Edwin Coe to sue in London’s High Court.

The legal action was filed last week.

To read the full article, please click here.

If you would like to learn more about the trucks cartel or would like to register an interest in joining the claim, please click here or contact Zahira Hussain (t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

A third group action has been registered with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) seeking redress for those affected by the €3bn truck price-fixing cartel. Law firm Edwin Coe is seeking damages for businesses that were both direct and indirect purchasers of trucks (companies that used transport services provided by hauliers).

To read the full article, please click here.

How will I fund my claim against the trucks cartelists? Our video below explains how you can fund your claim on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

Waste businesses have joined those in other industries to try to win compensation for a vehicle pricing fraud.

Law firm Edwin Coe said some 10 million trucks sold across the EU during 1997-2011 may have been overpriced by up to £10,000 each.

To read the full article, please click here.

Do you have a claim? Senior Partner, David Greene explains who has a claim against the truck cartel in our video below.

London law firm Edwin Coe LLP has today filed a group action seeking damages for businesses being direct and indirect purchasers of trucks and who were victims of fraudulent price fixing by major truck manufacturers over a 14-year period.

Edwin Coe is calling on any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2012 to join the lawsuit, which will sit in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

To read the full article, please click here.

We are assisting a range of major regional brewers, find out how we can help you by watching our video below on ‘Trucks Cartel and the Brewing Industry’.

A London-based solicitors firm is looking for companies that leased or bought HGVs between 1997 and 2011 from major truck manufacturers following a major price-fixing truck cartel scandal revealed two years ago.

Edwin Coe is calling on any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2012 to join the lawsuit, which will sit in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

To read the full article, please click here.

Unsure if you have a claim? In our video below, Senior Partner David Greene explains who has a claim against the truck cartel.

Law firm Edwin Coe has filed a group action seeking damages for businesses affected by fraudulent price fixing by major truck manufacturers over a 14-year period.

The firm is urging any business that purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 to join the lawsuit, which will sit in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

To read the full article, please click here.

Edwin Coe has secured funding from Affiniti Finance meaning it can act for clients under a ‘no-win, no-fee’ arrangement. Find out more about funding your claim in our video below.

UK law firm Edwin Coe is on the hunt for any business who leased or purchased a truck in the UK from 1997-2012. Those are the years that the six major truck makers are alleged to have formed a price-fixing cartel, whereby they overcharged as much as £10,000 per truck sold. Edwin Coe is representing a class action suit (one of many) that is being funded by Affiniti Finance.

To read the full article, please click here.

We are assisting some well-known high street names and a supermarket retailer, find out more about the truck cartel and the retail industry in our video below.

The Law Society Gazette features an article giving details on the recent developments of our group action against the truck cartel. 

Commercial firm Edwin Coe has become the latest practice to announce preparations to mount a group action challenge over alleged anti-competitive behaviour by European truck manufacturers.

The firm said it has entered into a ‘no win, no fee’ funding arrangement with Affiniti Finance to fund a ’trucks cartel’ claims on behalf of aggrieved clients.

To read the full article, please click here.

Affiniti Finance and Edwin Coe Announce EU Truck Cartel Claim

This article also features on The Litigation Finance Journal website, please click here to access.

As a result of the cartel, any business which purchased, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 is likely to have overpaid for its vehicles. Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading group action litigation firm, is leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from the truck manufacturers.

Zahira Hussain of Edwin Coe’s Litigation team commented:

“We are delighted to be joining forces with Affiniti in relation to the truck cartel claims. In conjunction with Affiniti, we are able to offer our clients a cost and risk free claims process. If the claims are unsuccessful for some reason, our clients will have nothing to pay. Companies that used trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 can pursue their claims through us without risk.”

Edwin Coe’s trucks cartel team is able to advise on all aspects of the claim including how pass on may affect you. Please contact Zahira Hussain – Senior Associate for more information.

Some ex-players and managers face demands of up to £6 million and many bills will be up to 20 times higher than the amounts invested.

The warning came after hundreds of ex-players and managers invested in a tax avoidance scheme called Eclipse…

Law firm Edwin Coe, hoping to challenge the bills at a tax tribunal, called it a “nightmare scenario”.

Read the article in full here.

Edwin Coe and tax specialists Newport Tax Management LLP represent the investors in the Eclipse scheme.

Edwin Coe is pleased to announce that once again David Greene, our Senior Partner, alongside Head of Intellectual Property, Simon Miles; Head of Employment, Linky Trott and Restructuring & Insolvency Consultant, Christopher Berry, have all been recommended in the new UK edition of Best Lawyers:

• Christopher Berry – Litigation
• David Greene – Litigation and also Competition
• Linky Trott – Employment
• Simon Miles – Intellectual Property

The Best Lawyers UK 2019 Guide
Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. For more than 30 years, their methodology has been designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their private practice colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

The Giambrone judgment offers a warning to conveyancing lawyers who undertake wider obligations than the standard as they now might find themselves liable for their clients’ wider losses.  If nothing further this case should serve as a warning to practitioners to take extra care in the new post-BPE era.

Edwin Coe acted for some of the claimants in Giambrone.

To read the article in full, please click here.

The London Evening Standard features one of Senior Partner David Greene’s class action cases against the London School of Economics.

More than 100 students have received payouts after preparing a class action lawsuit against the London School of Economics over their “appalling” living conditions.

To read the full article please click here.

To read our press release please click here.

David Greene, Edwin Coe’s Senior Partner and Head of Litigation, said: “Post graduate students from abroad rented accommodation at Sidney Webb House from the LSE paying £9,000 a year. The accommodation was damp, unheated and lacked hot water for extended periods causing students to fall ill. Complaints made by students fell on deaf ears. Eventually students came to us and we worked with them to crowd fund a small amount to pay for experts to examine the mould that was caused by the conditions. We helped the students to engage with the LSE and to pursue their claim. I am pleased that we have been able to resolve the complaints with a small payment by the University but more importantly the University and Unite have issued apologies and undertaken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Zahira Hussain, Edwin Coe Senior Associate said on the appeal: “It is surprising that Scania has appealed, bearing in mind that five of the manufacturers admitted their wrongdoing. The Commission found that Scania had also been up to no good. The appeal does delay matters for claims against Scania but all the other cartelists are liable and we are pressing ahead with all our claims across the EEA.”

Claims for losses suffered as a result of a breach of competition law can be brought in the High Court or in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Usually such claims can be brought in the High Court up to six years from the date on which the loss was suffered. The start of the six year period can however be deferred where the Defendant(s) deliberately concealed essential facts about its infringement. The limitation period thus begins to run from the date on which a Claimant is, or could with reasonable due diligence be, in possession of sufficient facts to be able to plead a course of action. This time is likely to run from the date of the publication of the Commission’s Statement of Objections or Decision.

In the CAT however the limitation period is different. Where a claim arises before 1 October 2015 (as it does here because of the cartel period of 1997 – 2011), the CAT’s rules provide for a two year limitation period, which runs from the later date on which:

1. The cause of action accrued;
2. The relevant Commission Decision becomes final.

In the trucks cartel, the Commission decision in relation to five of the cartelists has become final because the time limit for appealing the decision dated 19 July 2016 expired without an appeal being made by the five companies. In relation to Scania however, the appeal made automatically extends time until the appeal is finally resolved. This is good news for companies that wish to issue a claim in the CAT against Scania.

We have prepared a video in which David Greene, our Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution discusses the trucks cartel.

Anyone who has been affected by the trucks cartel and would like to register their interest should contact Zahira Hussain (t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

Commercial Fleet features an article discussing Edwin Coe’s group action against the fraudulent truck cartel. 

Collective action litigation firm Edwin Coe is leading a group action on behalf of claimants in the brewery industry seeking damages from the truck producers involved in a fraudulent price fixing cartel…

To read the article in full, please click here.

Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading collective action litigation firm, is now leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from these truck producers.

Five truck manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF, admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel fraud against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. These manufacturers colluded for 14 years on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with stricter emission rules. Additionally, Scania fought the allegations but has recently been found guilty by the Commission and fined €880 million. The total fines across manufacturers are €3.7 billion.

The manufacturers now face claims of €100 billion across the EU.

Edwin Coe has put together a team of lawyers and specialist economists to run the claims. It is already acting for major high street names.

Zahira Hussain, Edwin Coe solicitor said “We are looking to help breweries and drinks sector businesses make their claim, whether they operate a large fleet of delivery trucks or perhaps only one or two.

Companies will have a claim in damages in relation to the difference between the higher price that was paid by them as a result of the cartel, and the purchase price of trucks that would have been payable, had there been no cartel. These claims are called “follow-on damages” claims. It is estimated that some 10 million trucks were sold across the EU during this period and that each one may have been overpriced by up to £10,000.

Companies that bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 will have a claim. Through Edwin Coe, these businesses can pursue that claim without cost or risk.”

We have prepared a video in which David Greene, our Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution discusses the cartel with a focus on the brewing industry.

For more information and to view our video, please see our dedicated site http://trucksclaims.co.uk Truck owners and operators who would like to register their interest should contact Zahira Hussain
(t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

Since the recent finding against Scania, there are now six manufacturers which have been found by the European Commission to have participated in a price fixing cartel fraud against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. These six manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, DAF and Scania, account for around 9 out of every 10 medium and heavy trucks produced in Europe.

The manufacturers now face claims of €100 billion across the EU.

Zahira Hussain, Edwin Coe solicitor said “Companies that bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing six tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 will have a claim. Through Edwin Coe, these businesses can pursue that claim without cost or risk.”

In our video David Greene, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution explains who might have a claim and how it might be pursued.

For more information and to view our video, please see our dedicated site http://trucksclaims.co.uk

Anyone who has been affected by the truck cartel and would like to register their interest should contact Zahira Hussain (t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

Five truck manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF, admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel fraud against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. These manufacturers colluded for 14 years on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with stricter emission rules. Additionally, Scania fought the allegations but has recently been found guilty by the Commission and fined €880 million. The total fines across manufacturers are €3.7 billion.

The manufacturers now face claims of €100 billion across the EU.

Edwin Coe has put together a team of lawyers and specialist economists to run the claims. It is already acting for major high street names.

In our video in which David Greene, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution discusses the cartel with a focus on the retail industry.

Zahira Hussain, Edwin Coe solicitor said “We are looking to help retailers make their claim, whether they operate a large fleet of delivery trucks or perhaps only one or two.

Companies will have a claim in damages in relation to the difference between the higher price that was paid by them as a result of the cartel, and the purchase price of trucks that would have been payable, had there been no cartel. These claims are called “follow-on damages” claims. It is estimated that some 10 million trucks were sold across the EU during this period and that each one may have been overpriced by up to £10,000.

Companies that bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 will have a claim. Through Edwin Coe, these businesses can pursue that claim without cost or risk.”

For more information and to view our video, please see our dedicated site http://trucksclaims.co.uk Truck owners and operators who would like to register their interest should contact Zahira Hussain
(t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

Edwin Coe, the UK’s leading group action litigation firm, is leading a group action on behalf of claimants seeking damages from truck manufacturers which entered into a fraudulent price fixing cartel.

Five truck manufacturers, MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF, admitted to the European Commission that they participated in a price fixing cartel fraud against purchasers of their trucks from 1997 until 2011. These manufacturers colluded for 14 years on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with stricter emission rules.

Scania fought the allegations but has been found guilty by the Commission and fined €880 million. The total fines across manufacturers are €3.7 bn.

The manufacturers face claims of €100 bn across the EU.

Edwin Coe has put together a team of lawyers and specialist economists to run the claims.  It is already acting for major high street names.

Zahira Hussain, Edwin Coe solicitor said “Companies will have a claim in damages in relation to the difference between the higher price that was paid by them as a result of the cartel, and the purchase price of trucks that would have been payable, had there been no cartel.  These claims are called “follow-on damages” claims. It is estimated that some 10 million trucks were sold across the EU during this period and that each one may have been overpriced by up to £10,000.

Companies that bought, leased or outsourced trucks weighing 6 tonnes or more between 1997 and 2011 will have a claim. Through Edwin Coe, these businesses can pursue that claim without cost or risk.”

For more information, please see our dedicated site http://trucksclaims.co.uk or, to register your interest, please contact Zahira Hussain (t: 020 7691 4000 e: zahira.hussain@www.edwincoe.com)

A law firm that became embroiled in a property scheme that was abandoned amid allegations of ‘Mafia’ connections has been told it must compensate nearly 200 investors for loss of deposits.

In a judgment handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Giambrone, an Italian-based international firm, acted negligently over advice it gave to 180 British homebuyers who tried to purchase off-plan luxury apartments in Italy. The clients’ deposits ranged from £30,000 to £105,000.

London firm Edwin Coe acted on behalf the claimants.

To read the article in full, please click here.

Barclays Bank consumer credit arm Clydesdale Financial Services is being sued for more than £1.5m by 106 consumers over a holiday home timeshare scheme.

Edwin Coe Senior Partner and Head of Group Action Litigation David Greene, representing the 106 claimants, says the group is targeting Clydesdale under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act in an interview with Money Marketing.

Money Marketing provides news, analysis and insight for financial advisers and the financial services industry.

To read the full article, please click here.

The Legal Awards is a highly renowned awards programme created to celebrate the ever flourishing Global Law. Commenting on the vigorous level of competition over the past 12 months Leah Jones and Elizabeth Moore, Award Directors of the 2016 Legal Awards’ Winner Guide, said: “The Corporate LiveWire Legal Award winners have proven to be of high calibre, showing a strong motivation and drive to achieve fantastic results within the legal community. We are exceptionally proud of all of our winners and are keen to see how they will continue to demonstrate their commitment in the future”.

The judging panel at Corporate LiveWire placed each shortlisted candidate under acute scrutiny, setting its sights firmly on the most client-focused and dedicated teams and individuals. Each winner was handpicked based on merit and has shown excellence, great performance and dedication over the course of the year. Each individual is set to play an important role in the continued economic growth in the legal sector.

Commenting on the award David said “I am delighted to be recognised by Corporate LiveWire for my Group Action Litigation work especially given that this has been an extremely busy year for the team”.

Senior partner at Edwin Coe, David Greene, said: “We are very pleased to be joining the bar team led by Dominic Chambers QC on this issue.”

To read the full article please click here.

Lawyer Monthly comments that Edwin Coe has been appointed as solicitors for the Santos claim that seeks to determine whether Parliamentary authority is required before Article 50 notice withdrawing from the EU can be triggered.

To read the full article please click here.

The Santos claim is the only issued application for judicial review on the issue of whether the Prime Minister has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 based on Royal Prerogative or will need a vote in Parliament approving withdrawal. The application is due to be heard for the first time on 19 July.

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe LLP, said

“We are very pleased to be joining the Bar team lead by Dominic Chambers QC on this issue. This is an issue of crucial constitutional importance in the process of withdrawal from the EU. It makes perfect sense for this issue to be determined as soon as possible.   The determination will clear the way for the right method to be adopted in serving notice under Article 50. We will certainly be pressing the Court to deal with the matter swiftly.” 

Test case may provoke ‘long-overdue shake up in opaque world of timeshare exchange companies’, says David Greene (Edwin Coe litigator).

Around 500 claimants will bring a High Court action against a timeshare exchange club over alleged ‘skimming off’ of members’ properties.

David Greene speaks to the Solicitors Journal. Please click here for the full article.

Various organisations behind the Keep Sunday Special campaign, including the Association of Convenience Stores, Relationship Foundation, USDAW, National Federation of Sub Postmasters and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents have turned to law firm Edwin Coe LLP, to advise on the recent publication of the Government’s response to the consultation last year on removing restrictions on Sunday trading for large stores. The firm is advising on a possible challenge to the consultation and the amendments to the Enterprise Bill now passing through Parliament.

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe, said:

“We have for many years supported the convenience store sector so it was natural for it to turn to us to question the consultation process on Sunday trading. The Government proposed changes last year but stalled legislation due to the opposition to change. Now it is having another go at removing restrictions. One of the complaints of campaigners against removing restrictions is that the principal question of whether restrictions should be lifted at all is being avoided under the cover of a consultation and response that centres on devolving decisions to local authorities.

The real issue is effectively being hived off. This device has caused confusion amongst the respondents to the consultation many of whom addressed the fundamental issue but did not address the principle of devolution. Further the Government has presented no evidence of the effect of devolution.

We have this week written to the Department in a letter before action seeking information ahead of a decision as to judicial review.”

For further information on this news release, please contact:-

David Greene
Senior Partner
t: 020 7691 4000
e: david.greene@www.edwincoe.com

Tanya Byrne
Head of Business Development & Marketing
t: 020 7691 4173
e: tanya.byrne@www.edwincoe.com

To read the full article in Solicitors Journal, please click here.

The Torquing Group, the company behind the ZANO project, advertised for investors by way of the Kickstarter crowdfunding platform and are thought to have amassed over £2.3 million in start-up contributions. The failure of the project and the appointment of liquidators for the Torquing Group means that many “investors” may be left out of pocket.

David Greene, Senior Partner said

“Questions of crowdfunding in failed enterprises raise significant questions of law and liability. As yet there has been no test of rights of investors in a failed crowdfunding enterprise. The issues arising from the failure of the ZANO project will have to address these questions.  The Kickstarter model is that payments are made not against taking an equity stake but, effectively, by way of a pre-payment for product at a discount.

This collapse will put the crowdfunding process under scrutiny and any liabilities that may arise including those of the crowdfunding agent.

The proposed liquidators are maintaining that the “backers” are not creditors of the company and thus have no status in relation to the liquidation. Our view is that that is not right and we understand that the liquidator is considering this but did make an emergency application to the Court to advertise the meeting in newspapers to a wider audience than the addressees of the notice.”

For further information on this news release, please contact:-

David Greene
Senior Partner
T: 020 7691 4000
M 07768 301221
david.greene@www.edwincoe.com
Twitter: @LitLawyer

Tanya Byrne
Head of Business Development & Marketing
T: 020 7691 4173
tanya.byrne@www.edwincoe.com

The Torquing Group, the company behind the ZANO project, advertised for investors by way of the Kickstarter crowdfunding platform and, according to a BBC news report, are thought to have amassed over £2.3 million in start-up contributions. The failure of the project and the appointment of liquidators for the Torquing Group means that many “investors” may be left out of pocket.

David Greene, Senior Partner said:

“Questions of crowdfunding in failed enterprises raise significant questions of law and liability. As yet there has been no test of rights of investors in a failed crowdfunding enterprise. The issues arising from the failure of the ZANO project will have to address these questions. The Kickstarter model is that payments are made not against taking an equity stake but, effectively, by way of a pre-payment for product at a discount.

This collapse will put the crowdfunding process under scrutiny and any liabilities that may arise including those of the crowdfunding agent.”

For further information or to register your interest with regards to this matter please contact enquiries@www.edwincoe.com

David Greene, Edwin Coe litigation partner commented: “This is great news for consumers and a real blow for the insurers; the clients of law firms which advised on the purchase of the holiday homes in European resorts. It’s so often the classic tale of the dream home turning into a nightmare for purchasers. In the Giambrone case, in which the Court has recently found the lawyers liable to its clients, the developments being sold turned out to be the subject of a conspiracy between the IRA and the Calabrian mafia.”

“For some years the insurers such as AIG have been arguing that clients of law firms which breach their obligations to them are only entitled to a small proportion of their loss because the claims are all aggregated within the minimum cover of £3 million. Usually the threat of this argument forces consumers into accepting low offers from the insurers. The Court has decided, however, that the insurers argument is wrong and the clients of law firms are entitled to the cover of £3 million each allowing them to make a full recovery of their loss.”

END

David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe LLP said:

“Holidaymakers and those booking holidays can be easy targets for the fraudsters, not just for an overpriced drink, but for scams that might cost them their life savings. We’ve pursued the fraudsters and those that support them and recovered millions of pounds but it could all be avoided with a little care. The relaxed atmosphere, a drink or two or just the prospect of getting away can lead to people dropping their guard and financial disaster.

Time share fraudsters and scams prey on the holiday mood. People are enticed into the selling process and presented with a package for future holidays that is untrue about the standard of accommodation and hides the true cost of the purchase. Those that have already been trapped are offered an escape but in addition to complete frauds the cost just keeps ramping up. Our advice is be very very careful about parting with money and if you do then always pay with a credit card. This offers you some protection against fraudsters.

Other holiday scams include the offer to purchase the dream home abroad at low cost. Always take local independent advice. Be extremely wary of buying off plan, as planning is often a major problem. It may not be there at all but if it is, it may not have been legitimately obtained. Be diligent and keep your guard. Again if you are buying, pay the deposit with a credit card.

Fraudsters are making a fortune out of holidaymakers booking homes on line. They either hack sites sending false payment details or phish sites to appear as the true owner. Again and again we see fraudsters opening accounts at High Street banks, setting up an account, operating it for a few weeks and disappearing.”

END

David Greene, Edwin Coe litigation partner commented “Practitioners will be pleased to resolve this issue. The old system is in run-off post Jackson but the issues are still significant in the run off and in the areas of litigation, such as insolvency, where the old system continues to apply. The test for the Court in considering incompatibility is not whether the legislation is fair and had flaws but whether it was a proportionate way of achieving the legitimate aim of providing access to justice for claimants in the light of the then cuts in legal aid. Certainly many claimants lawyers will be breathing a sigh of relief at the result and the effect of it on their remaining pre-Jackson cases.”

END

David Greene, Senior Partner of Edwin Coe LLP said:

“Hundreds of investors were attracted to buying a holiday home in Calabria unaware of the darker side of the organisation lying behind the development. In the event this only became clear on the arrests by the anti-mafia squad in Italy of those involved in the development against allegations that the sale and purchase process was part of a money laundering exercise between former IRA personnel and the Calabrian mafia, the infamous ‘Ndrangheta. The trial of the men arrested is ongoing.

The proceedings in London are the result of multi million pound claims by investors against the Italian lawyer who acted for them in the transactions. It is not suggested that he, Gabriele Giambrone, was part or knew of the criminal activities lying behind the development.”

David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe LLP said:

“The Alliance backed the mediation scheme in good faith but it has failed them. As stated by James Arbuthnot, leader of the group of over 140 MPs, it has ended up mired in legal wrangling, with the Post Office objecting to most of the cases even going into the mediation that the scheme was designed to provide. A mediation process requires two to tango but the Alliance feels that the Post Office is not joining the dance.”

“Subpostmasters want to resolve their complaints. With great hesitation they conclude that if the mediation process is not going to work they will have to resort to the court. They have sought to avoid this but it now appears inevitable. Many of the Subpostmasters have lost everything. We are now exploring their options to bring this to a speedy conclusion and achieve the justice the Subpostmasters deserve.”

END

The Jackson reforms celebrated their first birthday in April. A year is not enough time to measure their success. Indeed, to some extent, the reforms have taken a back seat to the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537. That decision goes somewhat further than proposals made by Lord Justice Jackson, particularly on the concept of parties agreeing the extension of time for events in the litigation calendar.

The main body of the Jackson reforms came into effect on 1 April 2013. The manner in which this happened, however, and the transitional provisions, have built in a long period of transition from one regime to the other. In particular, changes to the recovery of success fees and after the event insurance premiums drove many claimant firms, particularly in personal injury, to sign up thousands of clients with claims in prospect to beat the 1st April deadline. Those signings are still working their way through the system. The normal life of a personal injury case is nine-to-12 months, so the next year should really see a change there.

With all respect to the judiciary, two fundamentals are often forgotten in these types of reforms.

First, the greater the control the judiciary has over the course of litigation, the higher the costs. The judicial view suggests the contrary. The Bench seek control in order to reduce the costs of litigation but the opposite tends to happen. Any judicial intervention in the process naturally increases the cost. The conclusion many come to (and some predicted) in relation to previous reforms, including the Woolf reforms, are that they drive up costs.

We see this in the new post-Jackson budgeting process and indeed in the Mitchell decision itself. For the budgeting exercise to be completed, considerably more work needs to be undertaken.

Detailed consideration must be given to the whole run of the case. Correspondence needs to be exchanged to deal with issues that may arise and to agree the disclosure proposals and the budget itself.

There is a steep learning curve for practitioners. Even when things settle down, the exercise will still drive up costs. The exercise does greatly assist in establishing predictable and, perhaps, proportionate costs but it will always cause further costs to be incurred. The Mitchell decision requires much more time to be spent on an individual piece of litigation, thus increasing costs. Further, it has and will produce much satellite litigation. Mitchell may be seen as an aberration flowing from the judicial politics of the time. The courts must surely restore the principle that the primary purpose of the process is to do justice between the parties, who are actually paying the court for the privilege. The courts and the rule committee will hopefully step in to stop the tide of litigation and costs that flow from this decision.

The second fundamental is that market reaction to these types of reforms is all important. This can be difficult to predict and fraught with potential unintended consequences. Because of the normal lifespan of personal injury litigation, we are starting to see the market reaction to the Jackson reforms. That market is being shaped by non-recoverability of success fees and of ATE premium. It is also subject to the change in fixed costs which were reduced substantially after referral fees were banned. We can see three market changes:

• since Woolf the personal injury market has worked on the basis that claimants would have no liability for costs and thus no risk. It was thought that might continue notwithstanding Jackson but it appears the market has concluded it must charge the client some costs out of the damages recovered. Any firm not doing that is unlikely to survive in the longer term
• the second reaction is in the ATE market. It was predicted the ATE market in personal injury might collapse. It has not. It has, however, changed substantially because the ATE product being sold to claimants covers them in relation to Part 36 offers and the escape for the defendant from QOCS. ATE providers need volume to make this market work because premiums are small, which means conducting business with firms able to provide substantial numbers of clients
• this flows into the third effect of Jackson in personal injury – market consolidation. To make the new rates and recovery regime work, firms need to consolidate to cut the costs of undertaking the work.

The jury is out as to whether Jackson-related reforms will reduce the costs parties have to pay in personal injury or whether simply shift a proportion of costs from defendant to claimant. In other civil work, the Jackson reforms make pursuing smaller debts uneconomic. It remains to be seen how the market will provide a home for such claims. It is possible there will simply be a substantial increase in the number of litigants in person.

Whilst highlighting increases in costs flowing from judicially instigated reforms, there are some outstanding benefits of the latest round of reforms. In particular, the reforms produce a greater predictability for both parties in relation to costs. This makes the running of litigation somewhat easier and allows an accurate picture to be given to provide ATE cover for adverse costs. Proportionality also assists in pursuing claims in mid-range disputes. Unfortunately the picture is not so bright for lower range debts.

Some might say civil justice reform needs to be visited every 10 years or so. That’s time enough for reforms to bed down and effects assessed. That means nine years before another review. Maybe then we could look fundamentally at judicial control of proceedings and to what extent that is truly necessary for an efficient and cost effective process – an interesting question for the next reviewer.

This article first appeared in the June 2014 issue of Chartered Legal Executive Journal.

For further information on this news release, please contact:

David Greene, Partner +44 (0)20 7691 4000 david.greene@www.edwincoe.com

David Greene, partner of Edwin Coe LLP, said

“Representing creditors we are pleased to see that the court has made a compulsory order because this is a situation which needs investigating immediately. Creditors learnt for the first time the full details of the scam run by this company. Customers were paying the company money, 25% was paid in commission to salespeople who used false names in the sale process, but in many cases no wine was then bought. Indeed the court was told that the company was using the money to pay out other investors like a Ponzi scheme. Some of our clients have reported the matter to the police and the metropolitan police are investigating.”

He continued “It is clear that the company has very little wine to meet the demands of customers with a shortfall possibly of £12 million. We wish to ensure a speedy resolution to the questions that have been raised. Clearly many investors have lost substantial sums in what may turn out to be a straight fraud. This is a situation that should properly be regulated by the FCA but these investment houses fall outside regulation. The High Court has recently determined that some unregulated investments fall to be regulated but wine investment remains outside. It is time for the FCA to do something about this.”

ENDS

For further information on this news release, please contact:

David Greene, Partner +44 (0)20 7691 4000 david.greene@www.edwincoe.com

The Croydon-based firm sold wines from Bordeaux and other fine wine producing regions by cold-calling potential investors.

“The Official Receiver has been appointed provisional liquidator of Bordeaux Fine Wines,” read a statement from the Insolvency Service. “The role of the provisional liquidator is to protect assets in the possession or under the control of the company pending the determination of the petition.

“The provisional liquidator also has the power to investigate the affairs of the company insofar as it is necessary to protect the assets including any third party or trust money or assets in the possession or under the control of the company,” it added.

The return date of the petition is 26 February 2014 and in the meantime those who have bought wine from Bordeaux Fine Wines Ltd are left wondering what has happened to their wine. Edwin Coe has been approached by creditors to represent and protect their interests.

Edwin Coe is a leader in the field of action groups and has an established track-record and an acknowledged reputation for pursuing such claims for consumers. We are ranked leaders in this field in the Legal 500 and Chambers (UK) directories, and received an award from ‘The Lawyer’ for outstanding achievement in our representation of action groups.

If you purchased wine from Bordeaux Fine Wines Ltd, which they were holding for you, whether in bond or not, please contact Edwin Coe using the details below.

ENDS

For further information on this news release, please contact:

David Greene, Senior Partner +44 (0)20 7691 4000 david.greene@www.edwincoe.com