Class Certification Denied in UK Forex Case: What It Means for Investor Recoveries

Several large banks, including JPMorgan, Barclays, and UBS, have successfully challenged a £2.7 billion collective proceeding against them in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) for alleged rigging of the Foreign Exchange (“FX”) market (the “Evans action”).

The Evans action was filed on behalf of thousands of institutions, pension funds, and other investors following 2019 findings by the European Commission (“EC”) that the banks breached European Union (“EU”) competition rules by improperly sharing commercially sensitive information about their trading activities, allegedly for purposes of restricting competition in the worldwide FX market and by coordinating FX spot trades. The EU fined the banks more than 1 billion euros.

On Dec. 18, 2025, the UK Supreme Court granted the banks’ appeals and denied class certification. UK counsel can hypothetically bring the action on an opt-in basis by filing a direct group suit instead, but has already suggested to the court that this won’t be feasible. Thus, the Supreme Court decision means the CAT will not be a viable avenue for investor recovery from the FX scandal.

Continue reading for FRT analysis of this decision and its implications for investors.

Understanding the CAT & Its Role in Shareholder Recovery

The CAT is a specialist judicial body established to adjudicate disputes related to competition law. The UK Forex appeal concerned the procedural question of whether the Evans action should proceed on an opt-out basis (in which all eligible investors are included as class members by default) or as opt-in basis (in which eligible investors must file suit to recover). By denying opt-out class certification, this decision makes it much more difficult for investors to bring such actions.

The Supreme Court determined that the CAT was entitled to consider the strength of the claims in deciding whether the proceeding should be brought as an opt-in case rather than on an opt-out basis. It recognized that opt-out cases provide several procedural advantages for plaintiffs, and that if the merits of a case are weak, the CAT need not certify the class and expose defendants to the additional burdens of defending such claims. This conclusion sets a strong precedent for defendants to challenge class certification in future actions.

The Court also ruled that the CAT is entitled to reject class certification even though there may be practical challenges to the action being brought on an opt-in basis. It held that the CAT could reject arguments that opt-in proceedings could not be brought if certification were denied, particularly by smaller entities or individuals with low-value claims. It then affirmed the CAT’s broad powers to determine that a claim may proceed on an opt-in basis if capable of doing so. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to argue the necessity of an opt-out class certification even when the alternative, as with this matter, is that the action will not proceed and investors will be denied an avenue for redress.

Finally, and as concerning for claimants, the Supreme Court stated that an EC decision against a third party is not admissible in CAT proceedings and does not have probative value. The Court emphasised the English common law principle that findings made by a decision maker outside of the UK are not admissible as evidence. This makes it much more difficult to prove follow-on competition cases even when, as here, the EC has investigated and fined defendants for the same alleged misconduct.

Key Takeaways for Investors

The Supreme Court’s decision grants the CAT wide discretion on whether to certify an opt-out proceeding, allowing it to examine the merits of the case when making certification decisions, providing no presumption favouring certification, and permitting it to reject certification of an opt-out proceeding even when alternative opt-in efforts are not viable. It prohibits the findings of courts or regulators outside the UK to be used as evidence, making it more difficult to bring such cases. All of these elements will likely have a chilling effect on future CAT proceedings.

This decision reinforces that the CAT is not a favourable venue for UK claimants and that investors are better off bringing recovery efforts in jurisdictions where they do not face similar challenges, such as the Netherlands. It also underscores the importance of efforts to reshore securities claims to the U.S. using supplemental jurisdiction, as was employed in the recent Barclays class action in California District Court.  See FRT’s recent analysis, Barclays: Reshoring Claims Exported by Morrison Parts 1 and 2, for more information on this strategy.

An Update on the Global Opt-In Litigation Landscape

Last month, FRT’s in-house legal team briefed investors on the state of the shareholder class action market, including a review of global recovery opportunities in Europe and elsewhere. Those interested can read a written summary (link below) or complete the following form to watch the entire session.

Session Recap: 5 Ways the Shareholder Class Action Market Evolved in 2025