header-logo header-logo

26 February 2025
Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Competition , Collective action , Litigation funding , Consumer
printer mail-detail

£200m Mastercard settlement confirmed

The Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) has approved the £200m settlement between Mastercard and Walter Merricks, in a claim initially valued at £14bn.

Merricks acted as class representative in the opt-out collective proceedings against the bank over multilateral interchange fees charged by Mastercard between 1992 and 2007. The settlement, agreed in December, was challenged by litigation funder Innsworth Capital as too low.

Approving the settlement last week, however, CAT member Hodge Malek KC said: ‘Mr Merricks has tirelessly fought for the benefit of class members over the last eight years and that is appreciated.

‘The fact that the outcome has been disappointing in the light of how the evidence and the rulings had developed does not detract from that.’

Merricks’ solicitor, Boris Bronfentrinker, partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, said: ‘These proceedings started off as a landmark case in setting the foundation for collective actions in the UK and it will end being as equally ground-breaking in a settlement achieved under heavy attack and challenge by the litigation funder.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll