Representative Actions

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.

Regular readers of this blog know my view that the  rise of collective investor actions outside the United States is one of the most important developments in the world of directors’ and officers’ liability in recent years. The increase in collective investor actions has been particularly noteworthy in Europe. In the following guest post, ISS Securities Class Action Services and the FOX Williams law jointly report on the current state of play in European Class Actions.  The ISS SCAS authors are Jeffrey Lubitz, Managing Director, and Elisa Mendoza, Esq., Associate Director. The Fox Williams authors are Andrew Hill, Partner; Anisha Patel, Senior Associate; and Sam Tarrant and Olwen Mair, Associates. A .pdf version of the report is available here. As the authors note, investors increasingly are finding innovative ways to bring such claims and the courts and legislatures across Europe appear willing to find solutions to ease the burden and costs traditionally associated with these actions, making them more accessible to investors. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their report as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: An Investor Roadmap: The Jurisdictional Differences and Impact of ESG in European Shareholder Class Actions

On November 12, 2021, a Chinese court entered a 2.46-billion-yuan ($385.26 million) verdict in a collective investor action against Kangmei Pharmaceuticals, certain of the company’s executives and the company’s outside auditor. The action was the first of its kind in China. The claimants in the case had alleged that the company had engaged in massive accounting fraud by inflating its revenues, profits, and cash. The verdict in the case follows a July 2021 public hearing in the case. A copy of a November 12, 2021 Global Times article about the verdict can be found here. A November 12, 2021 Reuters article about the verdict can be found here.
Continue Reading First-Ever Chinese Collective Investor Action Results in $385 Million Damages Verdict

One of the more interesting developments in recent years has been the global rise of collective procedural mechanisms for aggrieved investors to seek redress from corporate parties for disclosure misrepresentations or omissions. In that vein, the recent revision of the securities laws of the People’s Republic of China are particularly interesting.

As discussed in a recent memo from AIG, presented in conjunction with the Shanghai-based JunHe law firm, the revised Chinese securities laws include among many other changes new provisions allowing for collective investor actions. According to the AIG memo, entitled “Securities Class Actions under the New Securities Law in China” (here), the revised law introduces “western-style class actions to China.”
Continue Reading Chinese Securities Law Revision Introduces “Western-Style Securities Class Actions”

Stephen Reilly

Andrew Jones

Data breach class action lawsuits are already well-established in the United States, but are only developing elsewhere. In the following guest post, Stephen Reilly and Andrew Jones of Beale & Company Solicitors take a look at the possibilities and prospects for data breach class actions in the U.K. A version of this article previously was published as a Beale & Company client alert. I would like to thank Stephen and Andrew for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Stephen and Andrew’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Data Breach Class Actions in the UK — What Next?

One of the most interesting global legal developments has been the rise in recent years of collective redress mechanisms outside the United States, a phenomenon on which I have commented in the context of collective investor actions. The provision for collective or representative actions has expanded in a number of other contexts as well, including in particular in the consumer context. On April 11, 2018, the European Commission introduced a proposal – as part of what it called a “New Deal for Consumers” – that would introduce a European collective redress right for consumers. This proposed collective action mechanism is subject to a number of procedural protections. Nevertheless, the proposal, if adopted, would represent a significant advance in the development of collective redress mechanisms and rights in Europe. The European Commission’s April 11, 2018 press release about the proposal can be found here.
Continue Reading European Commission Proposes Consumer Collective Redress Mechanism