One phenomenon I have been tracking over the years is the rise in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. of procedural mechanisms for collective redress, particularly in the U.K (as noted, for example, here) and the E.U. (as noted here). While I have always been careful to note the important differences between these collective action mechanisms and the U.S.-style class action approach, it may be the case that as time has passed and as procedures have developed and evolved, the mechanisms many jurisdictions are adopting increasingly are coming to resemble the U.S.-style class actions model.
As an October memo from the Jones Day law firm puts it, class action litigation “is no longer a US-specific phenomenon.” The law firm memo, which is entitled “The Rise of US-Style Class Actions in the UK and Europe,” states that the growth in the UK and EU of group litigation has been “exponential” and the rise of these actions is a “key corporate risk that will only continue to increase.” The law firm’s memo can be found here.Continue Reading The Rise of Group Actions in the U.K and the E.U.
The highest-profile attempt to utilize the new U.K. regime for consumer class actions has come to a grinding halt. The case involved a claim alleging that MasterCard’s fee structure had resulted in overcharges to tens of millions of U.K. consumers. On July 21, 2017, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, newly re-organized to oversee the consumer class action regime, declined to grant the necessary collective proceedings order that would have allowed the action to go forward. The tribunal’s ruling is highly fact-specific and its decision to decline the collective proceedings order very much reflects the specific features of the claims against MasterCard, but the ruling nevertheless does raise concerns about the viability of the class action regime and its attractiveness to prospective claimants in other cases. A copy of the Tribunal’s July 21, 2017 order can be found 
In prior posts (for example, 
There have been few more powerful forces acting recently on the litigation environment around the world than third-party litigation financing. The recent rise of litigation funding, often accompanied by the active involvement of U.S. law firms, is changing the face of litigation in numerous countries. The collective action to be filed against MasterCard later this summer in the U.K. by U.S. law firm Quinn Emanuel, in an initiative being financed by Chicago-based litigation funding firm Gerchen Keller Capital LLC, is the latest and highest profile example of this trends. Indeed, the anticipated MasterCard action in some ways reflects the coming together of many of the important global litigation trends, as discussed below. The Quinn Emanuel law firm’s July 2016 press release about the planned lawsuit can be found 
The 
Is collective action litigation in the U.K. about to get a significant boost? That is the question many are asking as the new collective action regime introduced by the 
In a May 13, 2013 order (
Although the class action lawsuit is most often associated with the litigious legal culture in the United States, the fact is that in recent years class action and other group litigation procedures have been expanding around the world. Forces of globalization and the rise of organized groups of aggrieved claimants have encourage a host of
There is no question that the