FAQs

Anyone who invested in the Woodford Equity Income Fund via Hargreaves Lansdown can register their interest in joining the RGL Woodford Group Litigation.

Rest assured, all claims will be looked at and assessed, regardless of the amount, when building the legal action.

Yes, you can still be included – if you held an investment in the WEIF in 2017 and/or at any time thereafter and you believe you lost money as a result, it is worth registering, so that your potential claim can be assessed.

In order to register, which you can do here, you will have to provide some basic contact information. Subsequently, we will contact you to ask for further information about your investment including any related documents, emails, and internet-held information. All information provided will be stored securely and treated as confidential. Please see our Privacy Policy.

The registration must be for the person in whose name the investment is/was held. If your spouse, partner, or other family member held an investment in their own name, then a separate registration must be submitted, entering a different email address. If the other investor does not have their own email address, please contact sharonbryan@woodfordlitigation.com

Yes. If the investment was in their name, please register using their name. In the address field, please enter c/o your name, with your address. In the telephone and email address fields, please enter your own contact details.

Yes, you should register. You will be asked to provide details of your complaint and any response you receive(d) as part of the post-registration information gathering process.

You can still register your interest. When you’ve registered, please email details of your complaint and any response you receive(d). However, if you are pursuing a claim with the FOS, it is likely (based on the current legal position) that you would have to choose between it and pursuing a claim in Court, i.e. you cannot pursue both at the same time. So, you would need to decide whether you would prefer to pursue your claim via the FOS, or whether you would prefer to pursue the claim via RGL’s group action (or pursue your own individual claim in Court, albeit this would likely be a very expensive alternative). RGL cannot advise you in relation to this decision, and you should take independent legal advice if you are unsure what to do. If you do decide to commit to RGL’s group action, you would need to write to the FOS informing them that you wish to close your complaint. In that scenario, it would assist if you could provide us with a copy of the letter or email to the FOS, to enable us to continue to process your potential claim.

This investment does not fall within the scope of the proposed group litigation. At the moment, RGL is focused specifically on the Woodford Equity Income Fund, in relation to which our lawyers have identified certain legal causes of action. We may return to look at other Woodford investments at a later date.

This investment does not fall within the scope of the proposed group litigation. At the moment, RGL is focused specifically on the Woodford Equity Income Fund, in relation to which our lawyers have identified certain legal causes of action. We may return to look at other Woodford investments at a later date.

Yes. Anyone who invested in the Woodford Equity Income Fund can register to be included in the RGL Woodford Group Litigation.

No, there is no cost (and no obligation) as a result of registering. You simply provide some basic contact details and we will be in touch shortly afterwards about the next steps and required information. There is no cost or payment required at any point in our process, unless and until your case is successful.

Yes, that is how it is commonly known. RGL Management arrange a third-party funder to cover all legal and other costs of the RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants. RGL also ensure that insurance is in place so that RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants will not have to pay any “adverse costs” if the claims against Hargreaves Lansdown are not successful.

RGL has arranged litigation funding with a third-party funder that specialises in financing the pursuit of large commercial legal claims. The funds provided will cover all legal and other costs until a successful outcome is reached.

If your claim fails, the funder, the insurers and RGL will get nothing. If your and the other claimants’ claims are successful, a proportion will be deducted from the recoveries to reimburse the monies spent on the claims by the funder, pay the insurance premium due to the insurers, pay any deferred and success fees due to the lawyers and pay the funder’s uplift (profit) out of which, subject to certain conditions being met, the funder will pay RGL.

The amount to be deducted from gross proceeds, only on success, by the RGL Group will be 25% including VAT. There will be no other deduction, i.e. the 25% includes, amongst other costs and expenses, the legal fees of solicitors and barristers, litigation funder’s profit, administration, and ATE insurance premium to protect claimants against the risk of adverse costs.

Other groups that had previously stated an intention to progress claims in relation to the WEIF (prior to withdrawing as a result of the Link Scheme of Arrangement) intended to deduct 30%, or 36% plus insurance premium, or even 42%. We therefore believe that the RGL Group’s 25% represents a highly competitive deal.

A financial illustration relating to costs will be provided before you have to decide whether to commit to join the legal action.

Rest assured, you will not be committed to the litigation before this information is explained in detail and before you expressly agree to it.

No.

ATE (or “After the Event”) insurance covers against the risk of a legal claim being unsuccessful and the claimant having to pay the defendant’s costs. ATE insurance has been available to cover commercial litigation claims for the past 20 years or more. In that time, we are aware of a handful of examples only where ATE insurers have refused to meet the adverse costs liability of the insured litigant in question – cover being declined based on the dishonesty of the claimant in question. Over this period, thousands and thousands of ATE policies have been issued. The % of ATE claims refused is therefore negligible.

To ensure, however, that even this negligible risk of non-payment is removed, RGL arranges for the purchase of additional protection or “security” that, in the absence of fraud, guarantees the payment of any necessary claim on the ATE Insurance, i.e. there is no risk that ATE insurers will not pay the defendant’s costs if the claims are not successful.

The only caveat to this relates to fraud: if a claimant dishonestly brings a claim or gives dishonest evidence, then, effectively, he or she would not be protected by the ATE insurance. This is because the ATE insurance would pay the claim direct to the defendant as per the security, but the ATE insurer would be able to reclaim at least some of that payment that relates to the dishonest claimant.  This would not impact the other claimants insured under the policy – there would not be any reclaim in relation to them (provided, of course, they had not also brought dishonest legal claims or provided dishonest evidence).

To state the obvious, you must not be dishonest in bringing a claim against Hargreaves Lansdown.

As the litigation progresses, the Judge will ask all parties to provide details about the costs each of them has incurred and will incur. ATE insurance is aimed at protecting against having to pay the other side’s costs, so RGL and the legal team will closely monitor the updates provided by Hargreaves Lansdown about their legal costs. To the extent it becomes apparent that the amount of ATE insurance purchased (the “limit of indemnity” or “LOI”) is likely to be insufficient (the scenario where Hargreaves Lansdown’s costs exceed the existing LOI without anyone noticing is unrealistic), the insurers would be requested to increase the LOI. It is very likely they would do so, unless the merits of the claims had materially decreased. In this unlikely scenario, i.e. where the LOI may be exceeded in the future and the merits have materially decreased, the litigation would be brought to a conclusion such that the incurred costs of Hargreaves Lansdown did not exceed the LOI, i.e. the claimants would not be exposed to having to pay Hargreaves Lansdown’s costs. It is important to emphasise and to bear in mind, however, that the scenario where the LOI could be insufficient and the insurers refuse to increase it because the merits of the legal claims have significantly deteriorated is an unlikely one.

Please also note that the funder is also very much focused on ensuring that the claims have strong merits, that more than sufficient ATE insurance is purchased before the litigation is commenced and more than sufficient ATE cover is maintained as the litigation progresses.  This is because the funder indemnifies the claimants against adverse costs and the funder is also separately exposed to having to pay the other side’s costs if the claims are unsuccessful and the LOI is insufficient. All concerned – RGL, the solicitors and the funder – are all therefore very focused on ensuring the LOI is sufficient at all times.

No.

No. This is not possible. It is an explicit part of both the funding agreement with the funder and the insurance policy with the insurers, that the funder’s return and the insurers’ premium will be payable only if, and only to the extent, there are funds available to pay. In the unlikely event that the litigation is successful but the return is not sufficient to pay the funder and/or the insurer in full, their respective entitlement to fees, uplifts and premium will be expressly limited to the litigation recoveries that are available.

Each individual’s liability to pay tax is unique. If this is important to you at this stage, you should seek your own tax advice (RGL is not permitted to advise you).

After you have registered, you will receive further details about the terms of the group litigation in due course. You will be given time to consider these terms and to make a decision as to whether to commit formally to the RGL Woodford Group Litigation. Please always bear in mind that registering does not mean you have to participate in the legal action; you can take this decision once you have received further information.

RGL is not authorised to provide legal advice. However, the RGL Group legal team have confirmed the focus of the claims against both Hargreaves Lansdown and Link are such that the position in regard to limitation is that currently there are no pressing time-bar concerns.

The legal analysis conducted by RGL’s legal team has considered the actions (or, perhaps more accurately, inactions) of Link Fund Solutions (Link), which was the Authorised Corporate Director (ACD) of the WEIF, and of Hargreaves Lansdown.

In regard to Hargreaves Lansdown, particular attention has been paid to its relationship with Woodford Investment Management, the entity run by Mr Woodford and to which Link delegated the management of the WEIF. It certainly appears that Hargreaves Lansdown knew of liquidity issues in the WEIF from November 2017. This brings into acute focus the level of knowledge and information to which Hargreaves Lansdown’s senior management was privy from this time – who, what, when? – and shines a spotlight on the fact that Hargreaves Lansdown nonetheless continued to include the WEIF in the recommended funds making up its Wealth 50 (and precursor Wealth 150).

The legal team’s conclusions are very promising from the perspective of investors, with reference to claims against Hargreaves Lansdown. Legal causes of action of real substantive merit are available that, if proven, would entitle investors to a reimbursement of losses suffered.

In regard to Link, the Link Scheme of Arrangement became effective on 5 March 2024. As a result, any investor who was still in the WEIF when it was suspended on 3 June 2019, is no longer permitted, as a matter of law, to bring claims against Link, its parent or associated companies or against the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in regard to any losses that Link may have caused.

With claims against Link no longer possible, the RGL Group’s claim against Hargreaves Lansdown is now the only route for investors to claim the full redress of losses they have incurred.

There will be claims for losses sustained directly as a result of the collapse of the Woodford Equity Income Fund and also for “loss of opportunity” losses, suffered through missing out on alternative investments that, in stark contrast to the Woodford Equity Income Fund, would have generated returns.

Even if you have received compensation through the Link Scheme of Arrangement, the additional legal claim for losses against Hargreaves Lansdown may still be very significant.

This is because the legal claims in Court against Hargreaves Lansdown by the RGL Group will be for losses suffered over a longer period than the FCA’s assessment period and for different types of losses. For example, as above, the loss of opportunity of investing in alternative funds had you been told earlier by Hargreaves Lansdown about the problems with the WEIF.

Each individual claim will be different. RGL’s goal is to ensure those who invested in the Woodford Equity Income Fund recover the compensation they deserve.

Following the hiatus caused by the processes required for investors to vote on the proposed Link Scheme of Arrangement, and subsequently for the Court to approve and sanction the Scheme, the RGL Group legal team is now pushing ahead with the claims against Hargreaves Lansdown, preparing to add a further tranche of claimants to those already filed in the High Court. Timescales will remain uncertain until the substantive legal proceedings are commenced in Court – probably during Q1 of 2025 – and the claims subsequently come before a High Court Judge for the first time to consider timeframes.

The exact process of how a significant number of claims made at the same time will be dealt with by the Court will not be known until a Judge considers the relevant “case management” issues. This will become clearer as the proceedings advance in Court, but it is likely the Judge will decide that a small selection of claims should be considered first as “test” cases, rather than hearing all claims all at the same time.

The views of a highly eminent King’s Counsel, Alain Choo-Choy KC from top barrister chambers One Essex Court have been sought, and the counsel’s conclusions are very promising from the perspective of investors. Legal causes of action of real substantive merit are available that, if proven, would entitle a reimbursement of losses suffered.

Moreover, funders and insurers back legal claims with their significant financial resources only if they are confident of winning (because that is the only way they will get paid).

If the litigation progresses to trial, some investors will have to appear in Court to give evidence, potentially by video link. This is a requirement of the Court, not of RGL. Given the sheer number of investors, however, the chances of being selected are likely to be slim – possibly tens of thousands to one, because the Court will want to hear from only a very small selection of claimants. The Court will decide on the selection process and approve the list of claimants to give evidence.

Please note that if you are required to attend Court (or appear via video link), it will be only for the time required to give your evidence, not for the whole trial. Reasonable travel expenses to Court will be paid.

If you are adamant that you will not give evidence, either in person, or by video link, however small the chance of being selected, then you should give up any idea of bringing a claim. Without evidence, there is no claim.

No. RGL Management has retained Wallace LLP on behalf of the RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants to act in relation to the claims against Hargreaves Lansdown. Wallace LLP is a specialist commercial law firm with recognised expertise in Banking and Financial Services Litigation.

However, if you already have a lawyer who has knowledge or documentation relating to your potential claim, it would be useful for us to have contact with them.

At the appropriate time, you will be asked to sign RGL’s Litigation Management Agreement (LMA). This will authorise RGL to act on your behalf in the analysis, management and pursuit of your claim against the defendants. It will also authorise us to conclude the funding and insurance arrangements that must be finalised on the claimants’ behalf before legal proceedings can be commenced.

A “class action” is a US legal device. There is no UK equivalent in the context of the claims against Hargreaves Lansdown. Large numbers of claimants can, however, come together to pursue “group litigation”, in which each claimant must proactively join up to (in other words, you must “opt in” to) the legal proceedings. In the English Courts, group litigation requires the facts/circumstances of the various relevant individual claimant’s cases or the relevant legal issues to be identical or similar. In a group litigation, each legal case stands on its own merits, which is why it is very important for you to provide, when requested, any documents and other information relevant to your claim.

Pursuing legal action against large businesses and corporations is an extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive endeavour. Bringing a claim as one of a large group of claimants is far more efficient and effective. RGL Management is a litigation specialist, with extensive expertise in law, investment banking, corporate operational management and claimant communication, all of which are essential when managing a large complex legal action. Before legal proceedings are commenced, the RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants will be armed with the necessary funding and insurance and be represented by a top legal team, so as to match the defendants’ lawyers and resources. You can read more about our relevant skillsets, and our approach to group litigation on this page of our website.

RGL Management will publish regular email updates, which we will send out to everyone who is registered.

All information and data provided by you in relation to your potential claim will be kept confidential by RGL, albeit will be shared, in confidence, with our professional advisors. Please click on the link to read our Privacy Policy.

RGL Management Limited is registered with the Information Commissioners Office. Registration number ZB348904. Registration address: 29 Lincolns Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3EE.

Yes you can.

If you become a claimant in the action, your name would appear on the relevant Court documents that are served on any defendant, including HL. As such, and at the date of service, HL would be aware of your participation in the legal action. However, we are some way off this point at the moment – there would certainly not be any disclosure of your name if you register with us. Service of formal Court documents is some months off.

In due course, if you did decide to participate in the litigation such that your name is on a Court document, it would be one of many thousands of names. It appears that c.300,000 people invested in the Woodford Equity Income Fund through HL. Not every HL investor will participate, of course, but tens of thousands will do so. It is difficult to believe that HL would “target” tens of thousands of its clients in some kind of revengeful collective act (even if it could legitimately target its clients in some way, which is in itself doubtful).

If HL could somehow target its clients and chose to do so, its conduct would be drawn to the attention of the Court, as well as to the wider financial media. It would be a PR disaster for HL, as well as creating a very bad impression with the Judge. So, while we cannot advise you in this regard and we do not know how HL might react, we consider it – put at its lowest – reasonably likely there would be “safety in numbers” in being part of an action involving tens of thousands of claimants.

Neil Hargreaves is a founding member of the RGL Management Team and works on all of the RGL projects. He is not a relation (now or at any time previously) of anyone involved in Hargreaves Lansdown, and he has no connection (now or at any time previously) with the Hargreaves Lansdown business.

Yes you can. Even having received your share of the Link Scheme compensation, the legal claim for losses against Hargreaves Lansdown may still be very significant.

This is because the legal claims in Court against Hargreaves Lansdown by the RGL Group will be for losses suffered over a longer period than the FCA’s assessment period and for different types of losses, e.g. the loss of opportunity of investing in alternative funds had you been told earlier by Hargreaves Lansdown about the problems with the WEIF.

We cannot foresee any negative impact that any such transfer of the business ownership would have on RGL’s group legal action. Our claims will continue against the business as the legal entity, as if there had been no change in ownership.

This is extremely unlikely. Please use the link below to read a press release from April 2024, when the FCA confirmed its findings against Link Fund Solutions and that it had issued warning notices against Neil Woodford (NW) and Woodword Investment Management (WIM). You will see that in this press release the FCA also confirmed “that there are no other parties under investigation in relation to the Woodford Equity Income Fund.”

FCA sets out findings against Link Fund Solutions | FCA

This does not say that there will never be any other party under investigation regarding the WEIF, but given the length of time it took the FCA to investigate Link, and given that it took the FCA several years to decide to issue notices against NW and WIM, it appears highly unlikely that they will investigate anyone else in the future, including HL.