FAQs

Anyone who invested in the Woodford Equity Income Fund can register their interest in being part of the RGL Woodford Group Litigation. This includes anyone who invested through the Hargreaves Lansdown platform, but also includes anyone who did not invest via Hargreaves Lansdown.

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.

As long as the multi-manager fund was partially invested in the WEIF at some point during the period in which you held the investment, then yes, it is likely that you may have a claim within the scope of RGL Woodford Group Litigation.

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. RGL Management will arrange a third-party funder to cover all legal and other costs of the RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants. RGL will 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 Link and/or Hargreaves Lansdown are not successful.

RGL will arrange 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 have stated an intention to progress claims in relation to the WEIF will deduct 30% or 36% plus insurance premium or even 42%. We therefore believe that the RGL Group’s 25% deduction is the market-leading 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.

No.

No. This is not possible. It will be 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.

We are aware that certain law firms are also promoting claims arising out of the collapse of the Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF). We are also aware that these lawyers are now urging investors to sign up to letters of engagement and other agreements, with a message that you need to do so otherwise it will be too late to pursue your claims.

This is not the case. There is no immediate urgency to join any group. There is no advantage in being part of the first group to start legal action. The Court process will ensure all WEIF-related claims progress together and at the same time.

At the moment, therefore, the key consideration for any WEIF investor contemplating joining a legal action should be price: on success, how much will be deducted by the various “stakeholders” from any recovery of losses made? We are aware that some law firms are proposing a 30% deduction, even 42%! RGL’s view is that this is far too expensive for this type of case.

The amount to be deducted from gross proceeds by the RGL Group, only on success, 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.

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 Link, any ACD’s legal responsibilities include ensuring the fund over which it is appointed operates in accordance with how the fund was promoted and sold to investors (including the composition of the assets in which the fund invests) and applicable legal requirements, supervising the investment manager (in relation to WEIF, Woodford Investment Management, Mr Woodford’s company) and ensuring the ongoing liquidity of the fund.

Given the circumstances of the WEIF’s collapse, there are some very obvious questions to which Link needs to provide a satisfactory response, failing which its obligations should lie in the recompense of investors’ losses.

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 both Link and Hargreaves Lansdown. Legal causes of action of real substantive merit are available that, if proven, would entitle investors to a reimbursement of losses suffered.

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.

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.

Timescales will remain uncertain until the substantive legal proceedings are commenced in Court – probably during Q3 of 2022 – and the claims subsequently come before a High Court Judge for the first time to consider timeframes, which will probably be during the first half of 2023.

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 with any group. Without evidence, there is no claim (regardless of the group you sign up to).

No. RGL Management has retained Wallace LLP on behalf of the RGL Woodford Group Litigation claimants to act in relation to the claims against Link and 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 Link and 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.

It depends what you mean by ‘signed up’. RGL is not able to comment on the terms of any legal agreement you may have signed to be formally part of another group action. Although it is likely that any agreement you have signed will contain provisions allowing you to terminate it, you may need to take your own professional advice to determine the extent of the commitment you might have already made.

On the other hand, if you have simply registered your interest with another group then, yes, you are able to register for RGL Woodford Group Litigation. You will have no commitment to the RGL Woodford Group Litigation until you sign RGL’s Litigation Management Agreement.

There is nothing in theory prohibiting a claimant from signing up to more than one group to bring a claim against the same defendant. But it is doubtful any group would permit it. In any event, it would not be sensible for a claimant to sign up to two groups because you would end up paying multiple deductions to any recovery you achieve.

Just so there is no confusion, we need to be clear what ‘sign up’ means in this context. We cannot speak for the other groups, but you can register with RGL with no cost and no commitment. So, you could register with more than one group (and no doubt many investors have). It is only further down the line that you will be asked to ‘sign up’ to RGL’s Litigation Management Agreement or “LMA”. On signing the LMA (but not before) you will be committed to the RGL Group (albeit there will be no upfront financial commitment even then – payment is due only if the legal action succeeds).

In deciding which group to join on a formal committed basis, the key consideration for any WEIF investor at the moment should be price: on success, how much will be deducted by the various “stakeholders” from any recovery of losses made?

Unlike the messages promoted by the other groups, the RGL Group has always been upfront with investors about the likelihood that all claimant groups against one defendant and their claims will be managed together by the Court. Judges have very extensive “case management” powers in this regard. The Court will not allow multiple different proceedings with different judges, different hearing dates and different timetables. It is also very likely that the legal arguments across the claimant groups will not differ materially or at all, not least because all arguments advanced will be known to all of the groups.

Indeed, there is a hearing in Court on 15 December 2022, at which these types of case management issues will be considered.

Given that the target is the defendant or defendants, not other claimants, it makes sense for the “claimant side(s)” to co-ordinate, share work and co-operate generally. The RGL Group and our legal team endorse such an approach.

Accordingly, it is very likely that all claimants will either win together or lose together. In the win scenario against a defendant, the only difference between the groups will be how much of the winnings any claimant is then obliged to pay his or her group’s lawyers/funders.

We are aware that some law firms are proposing a 30% deduction, even 42%! RGL’s view is that this is far too expensive for this type of case.

If group A is bringing a claim against X only with a 42% deduction; group B is also bringing a claim against X only but with a 30% deduction; and group C is bringing claims against both X and Y with a 25% deduction, and all groups have funding and insurance, why would any WEIF investor choose group A or B?

The RGL Group is group C.

It is very unlikely the Court would prohibit a claimant from pursuing claims against HL and Link having signed up to one group’s HL claim and another group’s Link claim.

However, for (in RGL’s view) self-serving reasons, the groups running one claim only, i.e. against Link only, might object to a claimant “straddling” different groups against different defendants, i.e. they might say that the claimant can only pursue his or her Link claim. Whether these groups could legitimately prevent a member of the public running claims against both Link and HL is a matter that might need to be considered by the Court/relevant regulatory body in due course.

From RGL’s perspective, given we are running both claims, having a claimant pursue HL only with the RGL Group while pursuing Link with another group would be less attractive. Accordingly, to pursue claims as a member of the RGL Group – bearing in mind RGL is the only group running both HL and Link claims – the claimant would need to exit the other group to which he or she has signed up. The other group might say this is not possible, but that is unlikely to be correct – you are free to choose who represents you in Court. They might say exiting would be very expensive – this is unlikely to be correct and something you should discuss with RGL.

The real issue (as RGL sees it), however, is why would any claimant consider running a claim against HL with RGL while running a Link claim with another group? If you invested using the HL platform, you have claims against both defendants. Pursuing both claims provides, in our view, a better chance of maximising the recovery of your losses – there are two defendants to aim at and additional available causes of action that, if proven, will lead to additional routes to recover losses.

As explained elsewhere, the Court is very likely to manage the Link groups together and (if there is more than one HL group – RGL is currently the only group bringing a claim against HL) the HL groups together. Indeed, there are issues common to both claims, such that the Court (at least for a time) may run the Link and HL claims together. It is very unlikely that one group will succeed against Link but other groups will not, and it is very unlikely that the RGL Group will succeed against HL but (any) other groups will not (albeit, as yet, there are no other groups against HL).

So, if there is a group running both claims, i.e. the RGL Group, there is little to be gained from belonging to different groups for different claims. Join the one group that is running both claims, i.e. the RGL Group, which also happens to be the group that is materially less expensive than other groups.

In addition to these points, there would be efficiencies in terms of your time by pursuing both actions with one group, e.g. no duplication in the provision of supporting documentation and other evidence.

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.

Register for Woodford legal action