Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO of NRW Consulting (US), opened the second day of the conference by welcoming participants. Wortman highlighted key themes such as litigation trends, case management, funding developments, and forum shopping. He underscored the value of the diverse, international gathering—over 20 jurisdictions represented—and the shared commitment to advancing access to justice across disciplines.

The first panel was chaired by Dr. Leslie E. Schafer, Managing Director at EconOne (US), who welcomed the audience with reflections on her experience as an antitrust economist and emphasized the importance of transatlantic dialogue on class actions. She outlined the session’s structure, focusing on certification, causation and economic evidence, and discovery. Noting the long-standing presence of class actions in the US, she highlighted the evolution of Rule 23 and its growing relevance for antitrust matters, setting the stage for a comparative discussion on the increasing uptake of collective actions in Europe. Joseph Ostoyich, Head of US Antitrust Litigation at Clifford Chance (US), provided a detailed overview of the class action regime in the US, focusing on antitrust litigation. He outlined the Rule 23 framework, including the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, as well as the predominance and superiority tests under Rule 23(b)(3). He explained how these elements are applied in practice and emphasized the growing evidentiary burden on plaintiffs, particularly around causation and antitrust injury. The earlier presumption of class-wide harm has eroded, with courts now requiring individualized analysis backed by common proof. Ostoyich also discussed the critical role of economists in litigation and the increasing scrutiny of expert testimony, which has shifted class certification into the key battleground in US antitrust cases. Justice Peter Roth, Judge at the High Court of England & Wales and acting President of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) (UK), provided a comprehensive overview of the UK’s opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, which remains unique in Europe. He traced its development from the limited and unsuccessful 2002 opt-in scheme to the more robust 2015 reform, which introduced certification, opt-in and opt-out options, and aggregate damages assessed on a class-wide basis. He noted that the UK regime was deliberately shaped to avoid perceived excesses of the US system, borrowing more from Canadian models. While experience with the system is still relatively recent—especially due to delays caused by the landmark Merricks v. MasterCard case—Justice Roth emphasized the regime’s rapid expansion, with numerous follow-on and standalone claims now filed, especially in the tech sector. He addressed procedural aspects such as certification timelines, competing class applications, and conflicts arising from overlapping classes. On evidence, he noted reliance on party-appointed experts, the Tribunal’s interdisciplinary composition including economists, and challenges posed by disclosure demands and pass-on arguments. He concluded by underlining the UK courts’ strong stance on expert impartiality and the Tribunal’s readiness to sanction breaches of duty, highlighting the evolving but firmly grounded nature of the UK collective actions landscape. Judge Dr. Gerhard Klumpe, President of the Regional Court of Dortmund (Germany), provided an overview of recent developments in German antitrust litigation and collective redress. While Germany has traditionally been cautious with class actions, follow-on cartel damages claims have grown significantly since the 2014 EU Damages Directive. His court and others are handling hundreds of such claims, including the truck cartel and sugar cartel cases. A 2023 law now enables consumer associations to bring representative actions for damages and injunctions in an opt-in regime, subject to funding caps and eligibility criteria. He also discussed the emergence of assignment models, which allow bundling of individual claims, but noted controversy over their admissibility and risks to defendants’ cost recovery. In one case concerning softwood sales, his court referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled that while EU law does not require assignment models, Member States must ensure effective enforcement. He also addressed evidentiary standards, noting a recent trend toward relaxed proof requirements for estimating damages, greater judicial discretion, and less reliance on party-appointed experts, potentially streamlining future antitrust litigation. Dr. Peter Davis, Co-Leader European Antitrust & Competition at The Brattle Group and former Deputy Chairman of the UK Competition Commission (UK), discussed the evolving role of economists in collective proceedings before the CAT. He explained that economists assist primarily by outlining a “blueprint” at the class certification stage, describing data sources, methods of analysis, and the economic questions relevant to the case—such as causation and quantum in follow-on claims, or market definition and abuse in standalone actions. The availability of data at this stage varies widely, with limited public data often delaying deeper analysis until after certification. He illustrated this with the Power Cables litigation, where only project-level data was accessible early on. Dr. Davis emphasized the importance of economic discipline, noting that experts are expected to assist the tribunal objectively rather than act as advocates. While the standard of proof for causation remains unsettled given the limited number of decisions to date, economists must nonetheless prepare robust methodologies suited to the realities of each case.

The second panel was chaired by Els Bruggeman, Head of Policy and Enforcement at Euroconsumers (Belgium). She introduced the theme of class actions and sustainability, noting the absence of sustainability-based collective claims in Europe to date, despite Euroconsumers’ broader experience in coordinated redress. She emphasised the need to explore why such actions have not emerged, what can be learned from US developments, and whether new opportunities are arising. Judge Jerzy Luiten, District Court of The Hague (The Netherlands), presented the recent Greenpeace v. Dutch State ruling on nitrogen emissions, which held the government accountable for failing to meet EU and national targets under the Birds and Habitats Directives. The judgment required prioritisation of urgent Natura 2000 areas and imposed an unprecedented €10 million penalty if the 2030 reduction target is not achieved. He also referred to ongoing PFAS and climate-related class actions in the Netherlands, including litigation concerning the island of Bonaire. Wesley Vader, partner at Bureau Brandeis (The Netherlands), highlighted several leading Dutch climate and environmental cases to illustrate the effectiveness of litigation in enforcing sustainability goals. He discussed the landmark Urgenda case, in which the Dutch Supreme Court held that the state has a duty under the ECHR to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in real-world measures such as plant closures, speed limit reductions, and increased investment in renewables. He also covered the Milieudefensie v. Shell litigation, where an initial order to reduce emissions was overturned on appeal but is now pending before the Supreme Court. Additional cases included actions against KLM for greenwashing and ongoing diesel emissions claims, where he noted continuing challenges in enforcement and remedy design. Vader concluded that while litigation is not a silver bullet, it acts as an essential catalyst for environmental accountability. Allan Kanner, founding member of Kanner & Whiteley (US), reflected on his experience representing the state of Louisiana in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, describing the legal, ecological, and logistical complexities involved in environmental mass disaster litigation. He emphasized the need for rapid expert coordination, balancing public restoration with private compensation, and navigating statutes like the US Oil Pollution Act. Kanner contrasted the American approach—focused on suing polluters under tort and statutory regimes—with European litigation rooted in human rights protections. He praised the broader legal culture in Europe for enabling government accountability. Highlighting his work on the PFAS contamination case in Belgium, Kanner noted how aggressive court intervention, including operational shutdowns of polluters like 3M, differs sharply from US practice. He argued that litigation plays a critical role in advancing the democratic conversation on sustainability and holding corporations accountable, especially through greenwashing and environmental health impact cases. Kimela Shah, Principal at Oxera (UK), presented the economic methodologies used to quantify harm in greenwashing and emissions cases. She identified several affected groups, including consumers, investors, competitors, and the general public, and focused on how consumers and fleet purchasers suffered monetary losses from misleading environmental claims. Shah explained that damages can be assessed by analysing sales data and consumer preferences to determine overpayment for “green” features. In emissions cases like Volkswagen, post-fix issues such as increased running costs, reduced performance, and lower resale value also require quantification. These can be addressed through econometric modelling, conjoint analysis, and technical assessments. For health impacts, Shah pointed to the use of QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) to monetise harm, while stressing the importance of expert input for causation. Finally, she discussed the loss of property value due to environmental contamination, particularly where gardens become unusable, and outlined how hedonic pricing models or scenario-based analysis can be used to estimate damages in both ex post and ex ante contexts. Andrew W. Croner, Partner at Napoli Shkolnik PLLC (US), discussed the PFAS litigation against 3M on behalf of US water suppliers, emphasizing the practicality of resolving widespread harm through a class settlement. Estimating damages was relatively straightforward, as new federal and state regulations required affected water systems to install costly PFAS treatment systems. The urgency of funding these upgrades made a collective mechanism crucial. The settlement, valued between $10.5 and $12.5 billion, was allocated based on contamination levels and system flow rates, with adjustments for plaintiffs who played pivotal roles in the litigation. Croner underscored the need to balance compensation without exhausting funds for other PFAS plaintiffs or forcing the defendant into bankruptcy. He acknowledged challenges such as objections from states claiming public ownership of the claims, and the need for real-time adjustments to accommodate water wholesalers. Despite imperfections, judicial cooperation enabled the settlement’s approval, with first payments beginning just recently. Croner concluded by noting that urgency sometimes requires “rough justice” to deliver timely public health relief.

The third panel about Investors Class Actions and Securities Litigation was chaired by Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO of NRW Consulting LLC (US), opened the panel by emphasizing the importance of private enforcement in securities litigation across jurisdictions. Using the Under Armour case as an example, he illustrated the disparity between regulatory fines and private recovery: while the SEC levied a $9 million fine, the private class action ultimately settled for $434 million. Wortman stressed that such outcomes highlight the vital role of private litigation in securing meaningful investor compensation and promoting corporate accountability. Trip Chong, Head of International Business Development at Broadridge (UK), provided an investor-focused view on the expanding global securities litigation landscape. She reported that Broadridge currently monitors over 35 jurisdictions with some form of collective redress mechanism, with clients active in around 20 cases outside North America and Australia. Chong emphasized that institutional investors are increasingly using litigation not only for financial recovery but also to address corporate misconduct and governance failures. Finally, she stressed the role of economic modelling and funding terms in investors’ decisions, particularly as competing claims emerge against the same issuer. Roger Cooper, Partner and Head of Securities and M&A Litigation at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (US), spoke from a defense perspective on the effects of market volatility and cross-border coordination. He noted that macroeconomic uncertainty—such as that driven by tariffs or global instability—can complicate the price impact analysis necessary in securities claims. In the US, he explained, plaintiffs must link stock drops to company-specific disclosures rather than general market movements, making it harder to build viable claims in turbulent markets. He also detailed recent developments in the US Supreme Court’s decision, where courts have started scrutinizing the connection between allegedly misleading statements and later corrective disclosures. This has opened new paths for defendants Goldman Sachs to rebut the presumption of reliance and defeat class certification. Dr. Steffen Henning, Founding Partner at Fideres (Germany and UK), provided an economic perspective on damages and reliance. He emphasized that while reliance is a legal issue, the analysis of damages hinges on how investors would have behaved had accurate information been available—either avoiding the investment altogether or paying a lower price. He noted that European jurisdictions tend to focus on overpayment (inflation) damages, while US models rely more on price impact. Henning observed that price impact and market efficiency arguments have become central in class certification motions, shifting the battleground to economic expert analysis. He also discussed how loss modelling has become a decisive factor for institutional investors evaluating case participation and funder terms, especially in growing markets of overlapping and competing claims. Koen Rutten, Partner at Finch Dispute Resolution (The Netherlands), shared insights from the Dutch legal framework, including WAMCA and collective mandate models. He explained that while Dutch law does not follow the US-style reliance doctrine, it instead focuses on price-based loss causation and market integrity. He emphasized the growing complexity of Dutch proceedings, particularly regarding choice of law, administrative burden, and strategic behaviour by defendants—such as contacting claimants directly to disrupt group cohesion. Rutten warned that while the Netherlands is attractive for securities litigation, active participation requires investors to complete documentation and accept potential disclosure risks. Klaus Rotter, Founding Partner at Rotter Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB (Germany), reflected on nearly two decades of experience under Germany’s Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz (KapMuG). He emphasized the investor-friendly dual track system that allows claimants either to pursue full rescission or to claim price-based damages. Rotter acknowledged the often lengthy duration of German proceedings—highlighting cases like Volkswagen and Telekom—but noted that statutory interest of 7–8% per year significantly enhances final payouts and increases pressure on defendants to settle. He differentiated between high-profile mass proceedings and more contained cases, which frequently settle earlier. Rotter encouraged investors to consider German courts when the infringement occurred locally, noting that while the process is slow, the financial upside can be substantial.

Scott Hardy, President and Founder of Top Class Actions, LegaFi Law and Trimaxian (US), chaired the fourth panel on Litigation Funding of Global Mass Torts. He highlighted how litigation funding has transformed the global mass tort landscape. He described funding as essential for scaling cases and ensuring plaintiff firms can compete with well-funded defense counsel. Greg Haber, Vice President of Verita Global (UK), framed funding as a delicate balance between investor returns and claimants’ rights. Drawing on his experience in settlement administration, he discussed the growing regulatory scrutiny in the UK and highlighted recent high-profile cases that tested the limits of funder fees. He noted that the real inflection point in the market is finding the right balance: enough funding to enable access to justice but not so costly that it erodes the value for claimants. Damien Berkhout, Founding Partner at Lindenbaum (The Netherlands), outlined how funding works in the Dutch market. He explained that mass torts often involve small individual damages spread across a large group, making funding vital for bringing claims. He distinguished between the opt-in model, with little oversight, and the WAMCA opt-out system, where courts now review funding arrangements for fairness. He cited the Dutch Essure decision as an example of courts using a flexible and elegant approach. In this case, the Midden-Nederland district court held that in WAMCA proceedings, funding fees up to 25% will be deemed reasonable; while concerning higher fees the foundation has a duty to explain even if the defendant does not object. After this preliminary test, the court has to test the reasonableness of the fee compared to all circumstances of the case, ensuring that a fair share of recovery reaches claimants. Peter Cashman, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales (Australia), shared the Australian perspective, describing how funders made large class actions possible but also raised concerns over high transaction costs. He noted that courts now require disclosure of funding terms and exercise greater oversight. Recent cases show that judges are willing to reject excessive borrowing costs or inflated budgets. Cashman argued that better funder control over legal costs—without crossing into legal strategy—could help to reduce wasteful spending and protect claimants’ interests. Francesco Consoli, CEO of Libra Claims (Italy), spoke about Italy’s growing litigation funding market, calling it a “happy phase” where investor interest is strong and new financing models are emerging. He explained that in Italy, law firms cannot work fully on contingency or bookbuild alone, so third-party funding and claim assignments are essential for large collective cases. He highlighted that the Bank of Italy now supports innovative funding structures, such as securitizing claims, which expands the range of available capital and attracts more investors.

The fifth panel was chaired by Scott Hardy, President and Founder of Top Class Actions (US), who reflected on the transformative role of technology in mass litigation and highlighted how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now integrated into every stage of the process, from content generation to claims distribution. Drawing from his early tech background, Hardy emphasized the importance of building trust and emotional resonance with consumers to drive engagement and noted that simpler, emotionally framed outreach campaigns consistently lead to higher claimant participation, even in low-value settlements. James Thompson, Founder of Mediatasks (UK), outlined the approach of his company, which specializes in marketing and engagement for mass claims. He stressed the need to communicate clearly what the claimant stands to gain, comparing the process to emotional marketing rather than legal explanation. He highlighted the role of AI and automation in reactivating disengaged claimants, notably in Dieselgate claims, where AI-led campaigns successfully brought back over 30% of inactive users. Thompson also underscored the importance of segmentation and behavioural targeting, noting that successful outreach must adapt to the motivations and entry points of each claimant. Eric Schachter, Senior Vice President at A.B. Data (US), offered insight into the evolution of settlement administration in the US, highlighting the transformative role of technology across notice, claims processing, and benefit distribution. He noted the shift from print media to digital outreach, from paper forms to online submissions, and from mailed checks to digital payments. However, he emphasized that claimant trust remains crucial, especially when dealing with digital disbursements. Participation, he argued, is primarily driven by the perceived value of the claim and the emotional relevance of the case, with ease of process being a secondary factor. He also stressed the importance of leveraging defendant platforms—like Facebook in data privacy cases—for targeted and effective notice. Clare Ducksbury, Co-Founder and CEO of Case Pilots (UK), described the firm’s work as a UK- and EU-focused claims administrator handling both opt-in and opt-out actions. She emphasized the central role of technology in managing extremely high-volume claims efficiently and securely. Ducksbury noted growing interest from clients and funders in “proof of concept” testing—using seed funding to assess claimant engagement before full case launch—especially in opt-in claims. She also underlined the importance of audit trails and consistency, as defendants increasingly challenge group validity. Technology, she argued, enables not only scalable administration but also defensibility, predictive insight, and procedural fairness. Chris Ford, Senior Director at Blackhawk Network (UK), explained the company’s role as a global leader in digital payment distribution, including gift cards, e-codes, and direct-to-bank payments. He highlighted the growing relevance of flexible, low-friction payment options in class action settlements, especially for low-value claims or underbanked individuals. Ford stressed the importance of maintaining claimant trust through to the final step—payment—where drop-off rates often spike if users are asked for sensitive banking information. He advocated for offering multiple payout formats to preserve engagement and improve redemption rates. He also emphasized the value of modern digital payments infrastructure in enabling real-time auditing, compliance across regions, and efficient, scalable disbursements.

The sixth panel was chaired by Greg Coleman, Senior Partner at Milberg (US), who opened the discussion with a light tone, engaging the audience by identifying their professional backgrounds and setting the stage for a comparative discussion on lawyers’ fees across jurisdictions. Emphasizing the importance of practical knowledge for lawyers and funders alike, he directed attention to best practices beyond the US, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Jonathan D. Selbin, Senior Partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (US), reflected on his 30 years of experience in class actions and shared insights from recent work in Europe, South Africa, and Argentina. He stressed the importance of understanding jurisdiction-specific ethics, legal culture, procedural and substantive rules, and financial regulations. Drawing on lessons from the Donziger case, he emphasized caution, transparency, and local collaboration, particularly in fee arrangements and funder roles. Selbin also highlighted the need for ethical rigor and local expertise when entering new legal systems. Julia Suderow, Partner at Suderow Fernández Abogadas (Spain), explained that Spain’s legal system, while rooted in European tradition, has become increasingly liberal and dynamic. She emphasized the growing relevance of ethical considerations in collective actions, especially as Spain moves toward large-scale mass litigation. Suderow outlined how the Spanish legal market has evolved from individual practitioners to larger firms, many operating under hourly billing, and noted the growing role of funders and aggregators. Advertising by law firms remains limited due to deontological codes, although some experimentation has occurred. She highlighted that success fees are permitted and even encouraged by competition law, following Supreme Court rulings. However, she cautioned about the uncertainty surrounding adverse costs and fee recovery, as existing bar guidelines may conflict with competition principles—posing budgeting challenges for litigants and funders. Leandro Marmo, CEO and Partner at João Domingos Advogados (Brazil), provided insights into the structural barriers facing class actions in Brazil, where such cases account for less than 1% of litigation. He highlighted the persistent undervaluation of court-awarded fees as a major disincentive for law firms, particularly in socially impactful cases. Since there is often no upfront payment or retainer, lawyers commonly bear the financial risk, effectively self-funding the litigation. Although Brazilian law guarantees attorneys a minimum success fee of 10% of the case value, judges have historically reduced these fees arbitrarily—sometimes awarding nominal sums after years of litigation. In 2022, the Superior Court of Justice clarified that such reductions are impermissible unless the value in question is negligible or incalculable, establishing a precedent that judges must now follow. Despite this ruling, Marmo noted that fee security for class actions remains elusive in Brazil due to the lack of a mature litigation funding market. Fabio De Dominicis, Founder of De Dominicis Law Firm (Italy), explained that Italian lawyer fees are governed by contractual freedom, with common models being proportional fees or hourly billing (€200–€500/hour). Italy follows the English rule, with the losing party covering legal costs. While contingency fees are generally prohibited, an exception exists for class and representative actions, where lawyers can receive reward fees (e.g., 9% of total compensation) directly from the defendant. This has attracted litigation funders and made the mechanism particularly powerful in Business-to-Business (B2B) cases. Referral fees are not allowed, but collaboration agreements offering success-based compensation are a viable alternative. David Greene, Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) and Senior Partner at Edwin Coe LLP (UK), highlighted the UK’s evolving collective redress landscape. Though traditionally wary of “class actions,” recent shifts have seen growing acceptance due to their role in promoting access to justice. Greene emphasized the complexity of the UK’s fee structures, particularly with Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) and Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), both of which face heavy regulation and caps (e.g., 50% for commercial claims under DBAs). CFAs commonly follow a hybrid model (e.g., 70% base + 30% contingent). Due to increasing scrutiny of litigation funding, there’s rising interest in lawyers using DBAs and offloading them to funders. Transparency in fee arrangements remains a key regulatory priority. Greene noted that fee splits are often renegotiated at settlement, with all stakeholders—lawyers, funders, and claimants—sharing from the final compensation pot.

Eduardo Silva de Freitas[1]

Leire Gutiérrez Molina[2]

Linus Bättig[3]

[1] Board Member of Ius Omnibus

[2] PhD candidate, University of the Basque Country, Spain

[3] Junior Associate at Niederer Kraft Frey Ltd., Switzerland.