Trending Now
Commercial People Moves

ClaimShare Joins The European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA)

By Harry Moran |
June 10, 2024

ClaimShare Joins The European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA)

The European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA) is pleased to announce that Dutch collective claim manager and aggregator ClaimShare, has joined ELFA as an associate member. 

“ClaimShare‘s mission is to support people and SMEs that have suffered harm and seek redress from corporate wrongdoers. ClaimShare does this by bundling their claims and providing professional services to organizations that represent the claimants’ interests. Seeking the appropriate litigation funder is a crucial part of that service and for access to justice in general. For years, ClaimShare has advocated the necessity and added value of a dedicated litigation funding association in the EU. The establishment of ELFA is crucial to better inform clients, the legal industry and policy makers in the EU of the essential role litigation funding plays and its mechanics, as well as develop and foster best practices”, said Dirk Jan van den Broek, Managing Director of ClaimShare. 

Omni Bridgeway‘s Managing Director and ELFA Chairman, Wieger Wielinga, expressed his enthusiasm about ClaimShare joining as an associate member. He stated, “ELFA is delighted to have ClaimShare on board. With Dirk Jan and the broader ClaimShare team, we gain a wealth of experience accumulated through years of assisting claimants and interest organizations, specifically in the European Union in obtaining the redress they might not have otherwise achieved. Their perspective as a claims manager and aggregator will significantly contribute to our organization’s mission and benefit the entire industry.” 

About The European Litigation Funders Association: 

ELFA was founded by three leading litigation funders with a European footprint, and today includes almost all European litigation funders. ELFA, was established to serve as the European voice of the commercial litigation funding industry. With the objective of representing the industry’s interests before governmental bodies, international organizations and professional associations, ELFA also aims to act as a clearinghouse and reference for relevant information, research and data regarding the uses and applications of commercial legal finance within the European continent. ELFA aims to be inclusive for all professional litigation funders of larger or smaller size and to allow specific contributing market participants and academics as associate members. 

About ClaimShare: 

ClaimShare exists to support individuals and interest groups to set up and manage class actions and group actions advancing equitable access to justice. ClaimShare has successfully initiated several well-known impactful claims, helping its clients obtain legal redress regarding leaking silicone breast implants, wrongful electricity pricing and metals fraud.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.