Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Paolo Grandi, Partner, RPLT RP Legalitax

By John Freund |

Community Spotlight: Paolo Grandi, Partner, RPLT RP Legalitax

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.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All

France Issues Decree Regulating Third-Party Funded Collective Actions

By John Freund |

France has taken a significant step in codifying oversight of third-party financed collective actions with the issuance of Decree No. 2025-1191 on December 10, 2025.

An article in Legifrance outlines the new rules, which establish the procedure for approving entities and associations authorized to lead both domestic and cross-border collective actions—referred to in French as “actions de groupe.” The decree brings long-anticipated regulatory clarity following the April 2025 passage of the DDADUE 5 law, which modernized France’s collective redress framework in line with EU Directive 2020/1828.

The decree grants authority to the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) to process applications for approval. Final approval is issued by ministerial order and is valid for five years, subject to renewal.

Approved organizations must meet specific governance and financial transparency criteria. A central provision of the new rules is a requirement for qualifying entities to publicly disclose any third-party funding arrangements on their websites. This includes naming the financiers and specifying the amounts received, with the goal of safeguarding the independence of collective actions and protecting the rights of represented parties.

Paul de Servigny, Head of litigation funding at French headquartered IVO Capital said: “As part of the transposition of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, the French government announced a decree that sets out the disclosure requirements for the litigation funding industry, paving the way for greater access to justice for consumers in France by providing much welcomed clarity to litigation funders, claimants and law firms.

"This is good news for French consumers seeking justice and we look forward to working with government, the courts, claimants and their representatives and putting this decree into practice by supporting meritorious cases whilst ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected.”

By codifying these requirements, the French government aims to bolster public trust in group litigation and ensure funders do not exert improper influence on the course or outcome of legal actions.

Privy Council to Hear High-Profile Appeal on Third-Party Funding

By John Freund |

The United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is set to hear a closely watched appeal that could have wide-ranging implications for third-party litigation funding in international arbitration. The case stems from a dispute between OGD Services Holdings, part of the Essar Group, and Norscot Rig Management over the enforcement of a Mauritius-based arbitral award. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had previously upheld the award in favor of Norscot, prompting OGD to seek review from the Privy Council.

An article in Bar & Bench reports that the appeal is scheduled for next year and will feature two prominent Indian senior advocates: Harish Salve KC, representing Norscot, and Nakul Dewan KC, representing OGD. At issue is whether the use of third-party funding in the underlying arbitration renders the enforcement of the award improper under Mauritius law, where third-party litigation funding remains a legally sensitive area.

The case is drawing significant attention because of its potential to shape the international enforceability of funding agreements, particularly in light of the UK Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision. That ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape by classifying many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, thereby subjecting them to stricter statutory controls. The PACCAR decision has already triggered calls for legislative reform in the UK to preserve the viability of litigation funding, especially in the class action and arbitration contexts.

The Privy Council appeal will test the legal boundaries of funder involvement in arbitration and may help clarify whether such arrangements compromise enforceability when judgments cross borders. The outcome could influence how funders structure deals in jurisdictions with differing attitudes toward third-party involvement in legal claims.

Banks Win UK Supreme Court Victory in $3.6B Forex Lawsuit

By John Freund |

Several major global banks, including JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup, Barclays, MUFG, and NatWest, have successfully blocked a £2.7 billion ($3.6 billion) opt-out collective action in the UK’s Supreme Court. The proposed lawsuit, led by Phillip Evans, aimed to represent thousands of investors, pension funds, and institutions impacted by alleged foreign exchange (forex) market manipulation.

An article in Yahoo Finance reports that the case stemmed from earlier European Commission findings that fined multiple banks over €1 billion for operating cartels in forex trading. Evans’ action, filed under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, sought to recover damages on behalf of a wide investor class. However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower tribunal’s decision that the claim could not proceed on an opt-out basis, requiring instead that individual claimants opt in.

The judgment emphasized the insufficient participation rate among potential class members and found that an opt-out mechanism was not appropriate given the specifics of the case. Justice Vivien Rose, delivering the court’s opinion, noted that while individual claims might have merit, the representative structure lacked the cohesion and commitment necessary to justify a mass claim. As a result, the banks have succeeded in halting what would have been one of the largest collective actions in the UK to date.