Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

By Harry Moran |
January 17, 2025

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

As Founder and CEO of NRW Consulting, Noah brings his extensive experience in assessing and analyzing corporate misconduct in the financial markets, as well as his commitment to finding global litigation and shareholder engagement solutions to investors across the world. He has extensive experience advocating for global investors, promoting corporate governance and investor stewardship, and implementing strategies to achieve collective redress.

Noah splits his time between Philadelphia and London with a global remit where he strives to provide access to justice for global institutional investors (including financial institutions, superannuation schemes, asset managers and owners, and sovereign wealth and pension funds) and others via engagement and litigation strategies including global shareholder litigation (class/group, opt-out/direct, and opt-in), antitrust/competition/cartel litigation, complex financial litigation, global privacy/data breach litigation, and global patent litigation.

Most recently, Noah was Director of Global Collective Redress at Pogust Goodhead and immediately prior was Senior Manager, Collective Redress at Omni Bridgeway where he worked with global institutional investors to implement litigation funding strategies to aid in exercising their shareholder rights in seeking legal redress from publicly listed companies where an alleged wrongdoing had occurred.

Noah is a frequent speaker around the globe on the topic of shareholder legal redress, recovery, rights and responsibilities. He has also been a member of several leading global institutional investor organizations and currently serves on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law’s Global Class Action and Mass Torts Conference. He has also served on the International Corporate Governance Network’s (ICGN) Global Stewardship Committee and its former Shareholder Responsibilities Committee, the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute’s Event Advisory Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors’ Markets Advisory Council.

Company Name and Description:  NRW Consulting supports, recommends, and creates pathways to recovery for global investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct, including securities fraud, market manipulation, and violations of global regulatory requirements.  

Company Website: https://www.nrwconsultingllc.com 

Year Founded:  2018

Headquarters:  Consulting globally. Operating out of Philadelphia and London.

Area of Focus: When value erosion has been caused by corporate misconduct or fraud within an investee company, there are established and effective remedies for restitution. One of the most successful recourses is collective redress through group or class actions. Institutional investors have successfully used this option around the world to recover significant sums on behalf of beneficiaries.

With diverse global investor portfolios, institutional investors may need to consider class actions in multiple countries. Therefore, pursuing claims through class actions, direct actions, shareholder derivative actions, and/or funded group actions offers the opportunity to, on a de-risked basis: hold wrongdoers to account, influence corporate conduct and governance, or potentially institute corporate governance reform.

Noah also sits on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law. Perfect Law presents the annual Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference that takes place in London (https://www.perfectlaw.co.uk). The conference brings together a vertiable who’s who of the global collective redress community including judges, academics, practitioners, funders, industry providers and experts from all over the world to discuss, debate and learn from each other regarding the cases and issues of the day with the common goal of furthering access to justice.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding is a cornerstone of access to justice, allowing investors, consumers, individuals, organizations, and communities to seek legal recourse and exercise their right to pursue legitimate claims regardless of their financial circumstances. By enabling cases to proceed on their merits, it upholds fairness and accountability within the legal system, offering a powerful means to hold corporate wrongdoers to account.” 

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.