Collective Actions Framework

Natasha Doris of CDR Magazine recently interviewed our CEO, Steven Friel.

When investee companies breach standards of corporate governance and even their own ESG policies, collective escalated engagements provide shareholders with the opportunity to step in and obtain redress.

While discussing the current landscape of opt-in and opt-out collective claims in the UK, Steven remarks on how impactful opt-in collective actions are in holding defendants to account. Steven elaborates, “One of the advantages of having an opt-in approach is that the stakeholders who have suffered a loss [and] that have opted in are sending a positive message to the defendant. They are saying ‘we care about this enough to take a positive step, and to litigate.'”

On the issue of the financial stake that litigation funders have in collective actions, Steven explains the importance of litigation funders in facilitating access to justice as witnessed in the Bates v The Post Office case. Moreover, he emphasises, “If litigation funding was not available for Alan Bates and his fellow sub postmasters, that justice would not have been done.” In essence, he adds: “I do agree that claimants should get all of their compensation. The defendants should be forced to pay for the losses they have caused, and if litigation funding fees should be taken from anywhere, they should be taken from the defendants.”

You can read the full interview here.

For further updates regarding Woodsford’s collective redress, escalated engagement and investor stewardship activities, follow us on LinkedIn.