Trending Now

Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Latest News

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Paolo Grandi, Partner, RPLT RP Legalitax

By John Freund |

Paolo Grandi is an accomplished legal expert specializing in commercial and corporate law. He advises on corporate investments, business unit transactions, capital operations, and joint ventures, taking a multidisciplinary approach to contract drafting and negotiations across sectors like energy, hi-tech, manufacturing, fashion, and real estate.

Paolo also handles litigation and arbitration in these fields, offering tailored solutions for civil, corporate, and commercial disputes. With expertise spanning environmental law, intellectual property, and technology-related crimes, he represents clients in judicial, arbitration, and mediation processes domestically and internationally. His team excels in litigation funding, risk assessment, and dispute resolution strategies.

He joined RPLT RP legalitax in 1997 and became a Partner in 2007. Beyond his legal practice, he has made notable contributions to the field, authoring publications on civil procedure, IT consultancy contracts, and hardware and software maintenance agreements. He is also a member of the Commission on Commercial Law and Practice at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Company Name and Description: RPLT. Where RP is RP Legal & Tax Professional Association, a firm founded in 1949 and present in Italy with six offices. And LT is Legalitax Studio Legale e Tributario, founded in 2013 and active in Rome and Milan. RPLT RP legalitax is the result of the merger that took place in 2023.

RPLT is a full-service reality in the legal and tax sector – and have assisted and advised dozens of companies, corporations, groups, investment funds, financial intermediaries, entities and administrations, in Italy and abroad. The partnership gives voice to the intention to combine our strategic skills and expertise to offer even more competitive, specialized and valuable professional assistance, while maintaining – in RPLT positioning idea – that matrix of independence that unites the company.

RPLT has 200 professionals including lawyers and accountants; more than 25 practice areas; 5 international desks covering Europe, Asia and Africa. RPLT adhere to the most influential international networks.

Company Website: https://www.rplt.it/en/

Year Founded: 1949

Headquarters: Turin

Other offices: Milan, Rome, Bologna, Aosta, Busto Arsizio

Area of Focus: Litigation, Commercial and Corporate Law

Member Quote: “Skill may spark success, but collaboration turns success into greatness. True victories are built on teamwork and shared vision."

NorthWall Capital’s Founder Shares Insights on Legal Assets Strategy

By Harry Moran |

Although litigation funding has grown into an increasingly mainstream sector of the broader legal services industry, the strategies that shape funders’ business models are often quite opaque to those outside the funding market.

A recent episode of the Alternative Fund Insight (AFI) podcast provided useful insights from Fabian Chrobog, founder of NorthWall Capital, who discussed the firm’s approach to legal assets and their strategy for scaleability in a wide-ranging discussion.

In the interview, hosted by Will Wainewright, Chrobog outlined NorthWall’s overall legal assets strategy: “We’ve had a lot of fun running that strategy, it’s been hugely successful. It’s generated some fairly outstanding returns for LPs and it’s something we continue to be very active in. So really what we are looking for, what we are good at, is the underwriting of complex collateral. Sometimes it’s a situational complexity, it could be these asset-backed situations which are fairly complex. 

In this case we provide loans to law firms that are secured by very large pools of potential proceeds from legal assets claims. These could be litigations that could generate in some cases hundreds of millions of revenues per case or over a dozen different cases. So, what we do is we can provide working capital to the law firm without taking security over any specific case, just saying we will get paid back from the first one, two, three cases you win or settle. 

This is not exactly rocket science because you can tell which cases are most likely to settle, because there is a lot of legal precedent or there might have already been settlement discussions. So, you provide that working capital and you effectively just underwrite the cases that you have a high degree of confidence could be successful, you zero everything else, and then you severely haircut the cases that you believe could be won or settled, and you lend against those at a very low loan to value.

At the end of the day, you just have to believe that one, maybe two, of these cases resolve and sometimes these dockets have 12, 15, 20 different cases where you should have a very high degree of certainty that you’re going to get repaid. We got into this because we started looking at one of these situations and we realised there was more to do, and we’ve been very successful in originating deal flow here.”

Asked by Wainewright about NorthWall’s decision-making process when it comes to choosing which legal situations to focus on, Chrobog said: “You’re trying to remove yourself from having to be right more frequently than you’re wrong. You’re trying to create a situation where there is really a very asymmetric risk-reward profile.

But then the way that you do it is, and what is different about NorthWall and how we approach this space, is that we’re credit investors predominantly. We’re looking at how can we reduce our downside. We always pair a credit analyst with a lawyer internally, and then we get external litigation advice to help us with the individual cases.

The credit analyst’s job is to make sure the firm doesn’t run out of money, the lawyer’s job is to make sure that we really truly understand these cases, and then the investment committee’s job is to make sure that we’ve been conservative in our underwriting process.”

Prompted by Wainewright on this being an example of the idiosyncratic strategy that you find within alternatives, Chrobog went on to expand on how NorthWall’s ensures its approach is attractive to investors.

“What you have to remember is that scalability is important. Scalability is important because the people that we have are very good and they expect to be compensated, so it’s a relatively expensive strategy to run. But our investors don’t want to invest small capital, they want to invest substantial amounts of money and they want to see it deployed. 

So, what we are really focused on is we only finance large portfolios of cases because it provides downside protection, a diversification of potential revenue streams, but it also allows for a certain element of scalability. There’s no point being in a niche strategy that you can’t scale to be meaningful.”

The full interview is available on the AFI website.

German Funder FORIS AG Highlights Strong Demand for Funding in 2024

By Harry Moran |

Whilst Germany is not a jurisdiction that is traditionally seen as a prime market for third-party legal funding, one litigation funder based out of Bonn is reporting that it has continued to see plentiful demand for dispute funding in 2024.

In an overview of its 2024 activities, Foris AG revealed that it has financed 29 new cases from almost 450 financing requests, maintaining the funder's average volume of funded cases over recent years. These new funded cases were from a range of different dispute areas including medical malpractice, inheritance, corporate and commercial contracts. The funder also saw a rise in the number of cases resolved, rising from 24 in 2023 to 33 in 2024, with FORIS AG's CEO, Frederick Iwans stating that around 80 percent of these cases reached successful resolutions.

In order to support this growth in the number of cases that FORIS AG is financing, the litigation funder and its partners launched a fund for professional investors. The fund, which has a target volume of 50 million euros, has already received its first subscriptions with Iwans saying that the high level of interest in the fund shows that litigation financing has struck a chord with potential investors.

The funder also announced that the submission of the annual report of FORIS AG with the audited annual results for 2024 is scheduled for March 28, 2025.

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces Commercial Litigation/Breach of Contract Lawsuit Filed Against Developer Hart Lyman Companies

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay, a leading presettlement lawsuit funding company, announces a commercial litigation / breach of contract lawsuit filed against Hart Lyman Companies. The prominent Syracuse-based real estate developer was sued late Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County. FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2025 05:48 PM INDEX NO. 000134/2025

The plaintiff, Jonathon Geller, a longtime investor with Hart Lyman Companies, is suing for delinquent payments on investments and inspection of books and records of eight separate entities, which he alleges the companies have not complied with. Hart Lyman Companies is currently working on the largest development in central New York history, the Great Northern Mall, whose purchase was predicated upon its close proximity to the future site of Micron Technologies. Micron has committed $100 billion toward developing multiple chip fabricating facilities in Clay, NY. The plaintiff is also an investor in the Great Northern Mall project.

The plaintiff is represented by the LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP law firm in New York City by Robert A. Giacovas, Esq.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Our firm is familiar with breach of contract and other commercial litigation such as this, and we do our best to work with plaintiffs who are having financial difficulties litigating matters against larger defendants.  Cases of this nature can take a long time to work their way through the courts and recover funds, regardless of the nature of the claims.  Due to the importance of the Great Northern Mall project for residents of central New York, we will continue to monitor updates of this case."

If you're looking for pre-settlement cash from your commercial litigation lawsuit or need a cash advance from your anticipated settlement for any other type of lawsuit, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case. 

Legal-Bay funds commercial litigation and breach of contract cases, as well as many other types of lawsuits such as wrongful imprisonment, whistleblower or Qui-Tam, wrongful termination, personal injury, slips and falls, car, boat, or construction accidents, medical malpractice, wrongful death, dog bites, police brutality, sexual assault, sexual abuse, judgment or verdict on appeal, contract dispute, False Claims Act, patent litigation, copyright infringement, and many more. Legal-Bay has recently secured additional capital for these and other types of cases, and encourages plaintiffs or attorneys that have been denied funding in the past to apply with Legal-Bay.

Legal-Bay's loan for settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. While it's common to refer to these legal funding requests as settlement loans, loans for settlements, lawsuit loans, loans for lawsuits, etc., the "lawsuit loan" funds are, in fact, non-recourse. That means there's no risk when it comes to loans in lawsuit settlements because there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case. Therefore, terms like settlement loan, loans for lawsuit, loans on settlement, or law suit loan funds don't necessarily apply, as the "loan on lawsuit" isn't really a loan at all, but rather a stress-free cash advance.

Legal-Bay is known to many as the best lawsuit funding provider in the industry for their helpful and knowledgeable staff, and one of the best lawsuit loan companies overall for their low rates and quick turnaround, sometimes within 24-48 hours once all documents have been received.To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Nicole Clark,  Co-Founder and CEO, Trellis

By John Freund |

Nicole Clark is a business litigation and labor and employment attorney who has handled litigation in both state and federal courts. She’s worked at a variety of law firms ranging from mid-size litigation boutiques to large firms, and is licensed to practice law in three states. She has defended corporations and employers in complex class action and wage and hour disputes, as well as individual employment matters ranging from sexual harassment to wrongful termination.

Additionally, Nicole is the CEO, and along with Alon Shwartz, are the founders of Trellis, an award-winning solution that uses AI and machine learning to provide legal teams with strategic legal intelligence and analytics. Nicole has an intuitive understanding of technology and is deeply committed to helping legal teams leverage technology to gain a competitive advantage and achieve a more favorable outcome for their clients.    

Company Name and Description: Trellis is an AI-driven state trial court legal research, insights and productivity platform. The company makes the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel.

Trellis offers an extensive suite of tools, including its newly released Trellis AI to automate litigation tasks, detailed judge bios and analytics, insights into law firms, company litigation history, daily filings reports, customizable alerts, court comparison analytics, and more.  With Trellis, litigation finance professionals will never miss out on a massive opportunity again by effortlessly tracking lawsuits across states and staying updated with ongoing litigation documents.

To learn how Trellis can help your team succeed, visit www.trellis.law or request a demo today.    

Company Website: www.trellis.law    

Year Founded: 2018    

Headquarters:  Los Angeles, CA    

Member Quote: “Trellis allows Litigation Funders to conduct due diligence, identify opportunities and set alerting across the United States state trial court system – the largest court system in the world.”

University of Utah Research Shows Effects of Funding Disclosure Orders on Patent Litigation

By Harry Moran |

The changing landscape of patent litigation in Delaware’s federal court is being driven by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly’s standing order requiring the disclosure of third-party funding involved in these lawsuits. That is according to research conducted by Jonas Anderson, a professor at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, which studied third-party litigation funding in Delaware and New Jersey. 

An article in Bloomberg Law examines the paper, ‘From Patents To Guns: Examining Third-Party Litigation Funding’, which found that in the two years following Judge Connolly's standing order from April 2022, the number of patent cases filed has totaled 1,121. This is a significant drop from the previous two-year period, which saw 1,899 patent lawsuits filed in the Delaware court. Similarly, in the New Jersey district court that also requires disclosure, Anderson found that since June 2021, only 88 cases out of 40,000 had disclosed that they were backed by third-party funding. 

Commenting on his findings, Anderson said that “from the evidence we’ve amassed, there’s a pretty good argument here that what’s going on is litigation funders don’t like disclosure.” He also noted that the result of this drop in cases being filed in Delaware resulted in an inverse rise in the number of patent suits filed in two district courts in Texas where there is no mandatory disclosure requirement for outside funding.

Michael Gulliford, managing partner and co-founder at litigation funder Soryn IP Capital Management, suggested that one of the reasons for a drop in the volume of cases in Delaware could be the court’s backlog of processing these suits. Gulliford explained that “the ability to get to trial in a speedy period of time” is a priority for funders, and that court backlogs in Delaware and other jurisdictions could pose a significant obstacle for litigation funders. William Marra, director at Certum Group, said that Anderson’s research supported his first-hand experience that “only a very small percentage of cases” are backed by litigation funders.

The full research and paper from Mr Anderson can be found here.

Balance Legal Capital Funding Australian Class Action Against General Motors

By Harry Moran |

A new class action in the Federal Court of Australia is targeting General Motors Australia and New Zealand over the alleged sale of Holden vehicles with faulty transmissions. The class action is being brought on behalf of consumers who purchased certain models of Holden vehicles between 1 January 2011 and 24 December 2024.

Reporting by 9News covers the class action, which is being led by Maurice Blackburn. Balance Legal Capital is providing litigation funding for the claim. The vehicles allegedly affected include a range of 13 models that were equipped with GM 6L 45, GM 6L 50, or GM 6L 80 transmissions. The claim alleges that General Motors engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of these vehicles, and that it failed to meet the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law.

Kimi Nishimura, principal lawyer and executive director at Maurice Blackburn, stated: “Through this class action, we are seeking to recover compensation for those consumers who experienced loss and damage related to the transmission system in the affected vehicles.”

In response to the reporting, General Motors Australia and New Zealand did not provide a comment on the class action, with a spokesperson reiterating that “GM does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

Detailed information on the Holden Transmission Class Action can be found on Maurice Blackburn’s website.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

By John Freund |

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.


[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as "any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer"; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

Exton Advisors Appoints Senior Finance Professional Timothy Mayer

By Harry Moran |

Leading global advisors in disputes finance, Exton Advisors, today announces the appointment of experienced funder and lawyer Timothy Mayer to its team, marking the start of an exciting year for the firm.

Called to the Bar in 1997, Timothy has over sixteen years’ experience in the disputes funding market, having spent time at some of the leading global dispute’s funders. He has managed multi-million investments across a broad range of disputes, with particular focus on international arbitration, and has been consistently recognised in the directories, including as a Global Leader in Legal Finance in the Law Dragon Global 100 guide (2020 – 2023) and Chambers and Partners Litigation Support Guide for Litigation Funding (2020 -2024).

Commenting on the appointment, Managing Director John Astill said, “We are delighted to welcome Timothy, and to grow our team in 2025. Timothy brings with him a unique combination of practical legal experience and disputes finance expertise that will be invaluable to our clients and will further strengthen the seamless and efficient approach to disputes finance that Exton Advisors offers.”

Timothy commented, “I am thrilled to join Exton Advisors at an exciting time for the business, and I look forward to the opportunity to be part of a truly unique service spanning the legal and funding spheres. No other disputes funding advisory exists quite like Exton Advisors, and I am keen to continue developing their distinctive approach to disputes financing.”

Exton Advisors deliver expertise in every aspect of the unique and complex disputes financing asset class. They advise corporate legal teams, their private practitioners and their funding partners in order to make the most of litigation assets.

About Exton Advisors

Exton Advisors deliver expertise in every aspect of the unique and complex litigation financing asset class. They advise corporate legal teams, their private practitioners and their funding partners in order to make the most of litigation assets.

Omni Bridgeway Backs Australian Class Action Targeting Johnson & Johnson

By Harry Moran |

A class action was recently filed in the Federal Court of Australia, targeting Johnson & Johnson over allegations that a number of its oral cold and flu medications are ineffective when taken orally. The claim covers 20 separate products sold by Johnson & Johnson across three brands of medication: Codral, Sudafed, and Benadryl.

An article in Lawyers Weekly covers the class action being brought by JGA Saddler, with funding for the case provided by Omni Bridgeway. The pharmaceutical giant is accused of falsely marketing and selling these products as effective treatments, with the claim seeking to represent any Australian customer who has bought one of these products since 2005.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director at JGA Saddler, stated that “Johnson & Johnson has manufactured and marketed a medication that decades of evidence have shown doesn’t work as claimed.” She also emphasised the importance of the claim in seeking compensation by saying, “customers should be able to confidently buy medicines that work as advertised and when they don’t, the company involved should be held accountable.”

Niall Watson-Dunne, investment manager at Omni Bridgeway, said that “for around 19 years, Australians have been sold cold and flu products to relieve their symptoms, despite studies and scientific evidence showing their key ingredient phenylephrine is ineffective when taken orally.”

More information about the class action can be found on Omni Bridgeway’s website.

Fundraising

View All

Case Developments

View All

Legal Innovation

View All

People Moves

View All

Regulatory

View All

Consumer

View All

Thought Leadership

View All
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |