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

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Announces Entry into Polinsky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Funding

By Harry Moran |

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding reports that over 50 plaintiffs have filed suit against San Diego County, alleging sexual abuse while minors at the Polinsky Children's Center during the 90s and 2000s. Accusations also include being drugged and verbally abused by staff members, not to mention the years of trauma the victims have endured.

The lawsuits, announced during a press conference last Friday, were filed by survivors now coming forward as adults to seek justice and accountability. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs say the abuse occurred at a time when the children were placed at Polinsky for their safety and protection. Attorney Joseph Woodhall, who is representing many of the plaintiffs, encouraged other victims to come forward and start the journey toward healing.

The recent filings follow a wave of litigation from September 2024 when Los Angeles-based firm Slater Slater Schulman filed similar complaints on behalf of more than 100 former residents of the Polinsky Center.

Both firms are now collaborating to pursue justice and compensation for the growing number of clients who have come forward. Survivors or others with knowledge of abuse at the Polinsky Children's Center are encouraged to contact the legal teams involved

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, "Legal Bay is tracking the development of these cases in California, unfortunately our research indicates a similar pattern of sexual abuse we have seen in other litigations throughout the country. Oftentimes the victims are so traumatized, it's hard for them to get by financially month-to-month, and legal funding cash advances are a way to help them bridge the gap to a meaningful settlement. We will continue to aid victims of sex abuse claims, as well as pledge our support for the victims' pursuit of their personal justice."

If you're the plaintiff in an existing lawsuit and need an immediate advance against your anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405. If you were a victim of sexual abuse and need an attorney, Legal-Bay can also help you find legal representation. 

Legal-Bay lawsuit funding remains vigilant in helping clients who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Additionally, any new clients that have an existing lawsuit and need cash now can apply for regular settlement funding to help them get through their own crises. Legal-Bay funds all types of loan on lawsuit programs including personal injury, slips and falls, car accident lawsuit, medical malpractice, dog bites, and more.

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit funding companies when it comes to providing immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse legal funding—sometimes referred to as loans on lawsuit or loans on lawsuits—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit funding isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Mayfair Legal Funding Offers Financial Support to Plaintiffs in Hernia Mesh Litigation

By Harry Moran |

As hernia mesh lawsuits continue to progress against major medical device manufacturers, Mayfair Legal Funding is stepping forward with financial solutions to support plaintiffs awaiting settlements. As a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, Mayfair is committed to helping victims of defective hernia mesh implants manage their financial needs while pursuing justice.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits and Manufacturer Liability

Hernia mesh implants, designed to provide long-term repair for hernias, have been linked to severe complications such as chronic pain, infections, adhesion, and organ perforation. Many affected individuals have filed lawsuits against manufacturers like C.R. Bard, Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary), and Medtronic, alleging that their mesh products were defectively designed and failed to provide the promised benefits.

The legal process for these cases is extensive, with thousands of plaintiffs waiting for settlements. A significant development occurred in October 2024 when C.R. Bard reached a settlement agreement involving approximately 38,000 lawsuits, though financial relief for many plaintiffs is still pending. As litigation continues, Mayfair Legal Funding is ensuring that victims are not forced into premature settlements due to financial strain.

Providing Relief During Lengthy Legal Proceedings

Hernia mesh complications can result in multiple surgeries, chronic pain, infections, and organ damage, significantly affecting victims' quality of life. However, proving liability in court is a complex process that can extend for years. Manufacturers and their insurers frequently employ delaying tactics, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability while waiting for a fair settlement.

Many individuals who file lawsuits cannot work due to their medical conditions, yet they must continue paying for essential needs, ongoing healthcare, and legal costs. The prolonged nature of these lawsuits means that victims are often financially pressured to settle prematurely, even if their case could result in higher compensation with more time.

Why Legal Funding Matters

The pressure to settle early for a lower amount is common in hernia mesh litigation. Insurance companies and medical device manufacturers often attempt to delay proceedings, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability. Lawsuit loans allow plaintiffs to access a portion of their expected settlement upfront, helping cover urgent expenses such as medical treatments, rent, utilities, and other living costs. This financial support ensures that plaintiffs are not forced into disadvantageous settlements due to economic pressure.

Eligibility and Application Process

Plaintiffs who have filed a hernia mesh lawsuit and are represented by an attorney may be eligible for funding. Mayfair Legal Funding works closely with law firms handling hernia mesh cases to ensure that plaintiffs can access financial assistance without delays.

About Mayfair Legal Funding

Mayfair Legal Funding is a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs in medical device lawsuits, including hernia mesh cases, stay financially stable while awaiting settlements. With a risk-free, non-recourse funding model, plaintiffs only repay if they win their case. Mayfair ensures fast approvals, access to funds within 24 hours, and no credit checks. To date, the company has provided $45 million in funding with a 94% approval rate.

AALF Chairman: UK Should Avoid Repeating “Australia’s Flirtation with Overbearing Regulation”

By Harry Moran |

With the UK funding industry awaiting the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s review of third-party litigation funding, most of the commentary about what direction the government should take has come from those professionals practicing inside the UK. However, in an example of transnational solidarity between funding markets, the head of Australia’s industry association has spoken out to encourage the UK government to act to protect its legal funding sector.

In an opinion piece for The Law Society Gazette, John Walker, chairman of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF), presents a strong argument that the UK government must avoid following Australia’s past mistake of overregulating the legal funding industry. With the prospect of the CJC’s review soon reaching its conclusion, Walker argues that the government’s “priority must be addressing the uncertainty created by the PACCAR decision”, rather than acceding to the demands of “the powerful, well-resourced and disingenuous minority perspective of the US Chamber of Commerce.”

Walker points to the recent history of legal funding in Australia, where the strength of these critics’ views led to the previous governments introducing strict regulations that created an environment where “access to justice for claimants was denied, corporate wrongdoers were protected, and claims started to dry up.” As Walker explains, the true lesson from Australia was the reversal of these regulations by the new government in 2022, which has seen funding rebound and drive a wave of class actions representing Australians seeking justice once more.

Taking aim at the opponents of the litigation funding industry, Walker highlighted the “myths pedalled” by groups like Civil Fair Justice as being “built on falsehoods that risk clouding reality and choking off access to justice.” Putting the often-repeated claim of funders supporting frivolous claims in the crosshairs, Walker notes “in reality, funders in the UK fund as few as 3% of the cases they're approached about.”

Qanlex Rebrands as Loopa Finance

By Harry Moran |

Litigation funding startups are a common occurrence, especially in recent years. However, the rebranding of an established funder is less common, yet worth keeping an eye on.

In a new blog post, the litigation funder formerly known as Qanlex announced that it is rebranding and will now operate under the name: Loopa Finance. The funder emphasised that it is still “the same team, the same values, and the same focus”, but with a new name that represents  the adoption of a “a clearer, more modern, and more memorable identity.”

The blog post goes on to provide a fuller explanation of the new name: “Loopa refers to our way of working: examining each opportunity with a magnifying glass and creating virtuous loops of funding, access to justice, and efficient conflict resolution.” The announcement also clarifies that the rebranding “does not imply any structural, corporate, or operational modifications.”

Loopa was founded as Qanlex in 2020, offering litigation finance services for cases in Latin America before expanding its funding solutions to commercial claims and arbitrations in continental Europe. As LFJ reported in January of this year, the funder revealed that it was refining its Latin America strategy using new technologies and focusing on specific sectors within individual jurisdictions in the region. Examples of this sector focus include energy cases in Ecuador, real estate development matters in Costa Rica, and oil and energy cases in Colombia. 

More information about Loopa Finance can be found on its website

Echo Law and LLS File Class Action Against Toyota Finance in Australia

By Harry Moran |

Class actions in Australia continue to be viewed as desirable opportunities for litigation funders, with the first half of 2025 already seeing a number of funded claims brought on behalf of consumers wronged by the state or large corporations. 

A joint media release from Echo Law and Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that they are pursuing a new class action against Toyota Finance in Australia, this time over the sale of “junk” add-on insurance to consumers. The claim, which has been brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleges that Toyota Finance and insurer Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia (ADICA), engaged in “unjust, unfair, misleading and unconscionable” conduct that breached the Corporations ACT, ASIC Act, and National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

The class action has been filed on behalf of any consumers who took out a car loan with Toyota Finance and were sold a Toyota branded add-on insurance policy between 1 January 2010 and 5 October 2021. The allegedly “junk” insurance policies covered by the class action include Toyota Payment Protection Insurance, Toyota Finance Gap Insurance, and Toyota Extended Warranty Insurance.

Alex Blennerhassett, Principal Lawyer at Echo Law, said that “this class action is about holding Toyota Finance and ADICA to account for knowingly selling junk insurance to everyday Australians, even though these policies offered no value.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Emma Colantonio, Chief Investment Officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a strong example of litigation funding enabling access to justice and supporting consumers in holding major financial players to account.”

This class action is separate to the Flex Commissions claim which was filed by Echo Law against Toyota Finance in February 2024. That class focuses on allegations that car dealers secretly inflated the interest rate on consumers’ car loans, resulting in additional interest fees. The Supreme Court has ruled that these separate class actions can be managed together, and Ms Blennerhassett said that they expected “there to be a significant number of persons who are group members in both proceedings”. 

LLS is providing funding for both class actions brought against Toyota Finance. More information on both class actions can be found on Echo Law’s website.

Drew Kelly Joins Invenio LLP as Of Counsel

By Harry Moran |

In an announcement posted by Invenio LLP, the law firm revealed the appointment of Drew Kelly in an Of Counsel role. Kelly brings a wealth of knowledge to the Invenio team, with nearly two decades of experience across the legal and litigation finance sectors.

Kelly joins Invenio having most recently served as General Counsel at litigation funder Delta Capital Partners with responsibility for oversight across a wide range of areas including legal affairs, fund governance and portfolio transactions. Prior to his time at Delta, Kelly gained valuable experience as an attorney at both Husch Blackwell and K&L Gates. In addition to these roles, Kelly founded Modernist Law LLC in June 2024.

In a separate post on LinkedIn, Kelly said, “My affiliation with Invenio allows me to broaden my reach while staying focused on the same hands-on, business-minded service my clients have come to expect.” He went on to say that “Invenio brings deep experience and an entrepreneurial mindset”, while highlighting the approach taken by Ed Gehres and Blake Trueblood at Invenion for “their commitment to innovative, business-first legal solutions”.

Kelly also clarified that he would “continue to serve clients directly” through his work at Modernist Law, with his new role at Invenio allowing him “to offer expanded capabilities and deeper bench strength to clients who can benefit from it.”

Invenio’s announcement also noted the hiring of Kelly as another addition to its team being composed entirely of former General Counsels, emphasising that this collective experience gives the firm a unique perspective in offering business-focused legal advice.

Senator Tillis Introduces Bill to Tax Litigation Funders’ Profits

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ has covered over recent months, the movement to limit the use of third-party litigation funding or to impose restrictions on the practice has seen several successes with state legislatures bringing new rules into force. However, a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate has taken a different approach by looking to impose a targeted tax on funders’ profits from financing civil lawsuits. 

Last week Senator Thom Tillis, (R) from North Carolina, announced that he has introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act. The bill differs from those introduced at the state level in that it does not seek to create new restrictions around the use of third-party funding, instead it is focused on imposing a new tax on any profit that funders receive through the funding civil litigation. 

The current draft text of the article would create a new chapter in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, imposing a tax on ‘any qualified litigation proceeds’ received by a funder. The amount of tax is proposed to be set at ‘the highest rate of tax imposed by section for such taxable year, plus 3.8 percentage points.’ The bill would apply this tax on any litigation financing arrangement, regardless of whether the funder was a domestic or foreign entity.

In the announcement of the bill, Senator Tillis said, “This legislation will bring much-needed transparency and accountability by taxing these profits and deterring abusive practices that undermine the integrity of our courts.”

Representative Kevin Hern, who has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, argued that “taxing these third-party entities will limit unmeritorious lawsuits and provide economic relief to the middle class.”The full text of the Tackling Predatory 5 Litigation Funding Act can be read here.

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