Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor

SPONSORED POST: Segue Cloud Services Multi-Funding Case Study

SPONSORED POST: Segue Cloud Services Multi-Funding Case Study

The Following sponsored post was contributed by Segue Cloud Services. The Challenge Multi Funding USA is a pre-settlement finance provider that serves attorneys and their plaintiffs. The company has been serving clients for nearly a decade, providing millions of dollars in financial support in jurisdictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, California, Florida, and Washington. Through its pre-settlement funding services, plaintiffs can access much needed funds during the often lengthy settlement process as they wait for their cases to be resolved. When a case concludes in favor of the plaintiff, Multi Funding recoups its investment at a preferred rate of return. Managing the pre-settlement finance process can be labor-intensive, complex, and expensive. It involves an array of ongoing administrative tasks, from initial case intake, to underwriting and approvals, to managing contracts and case documents, to the regular tracking of case developments. And all key stakeholders need to be apprised of each occurrence as it unfolds. Like most providers, Multi Funding had relied on staff members to manage all the workflows and processes associated with pre-settlement funding. This meant manually inputting all case data into spreadsheets, completing forms, generating documents and reports, and notifying the parties involved whenever a milestone or change in dispensation occurred. And when a change occurs—as is usually the case—much of the entire process has to be repeated. As a result, Multi Funding’s team devoted countless hours to updating records and changing data, causing added expense and creating the potential for unnecessary errors in the process. “The amount of time and work required to usher a pre-settlement funding case from intake to settlement can be overwhelming. It can often take four days just to manually underwrite a funding application,” said Alex Reyes, customer service specialist, of Multi Funding. “Every time we have to manually change or update information, it can result in delays and increases the potential for human error, which can quickly steamroll into problems for our clients.” As Multi-Funding handled more funding requests, it recognized that it required a more efficient way to track, manage, and organize the painstaking pre-settlement process. The Solution After doing some research on potential technology providers, Multi Funding contacted Segue Cloud Solutions, an innovative software company that developed a technology platform specifically for the pre-settlement process. The solution to enables legal finance providers to enhance productivity, streamline daily workflows, reduce costs, and speed time-to-market. Multi Funding consulted with Jack Closs, project supervisor at Segue. “When we spoke with Multi Funding’s administrators, it was clear that our solution could deliver a range of efficiencies to expedite their existing processes, diminish their labor requirements, and drastically reduce the potential for human error,” said Closs. “Their spreadsheets were cumbersome and prohibitive, making it difficult for staff members to retrieve the case information they needed at any given moment. Our automation software would allow them to easily track and access everything from settlement milestones, to interim pay-off amounts, to correspondence with funding sources and changes in case dispensation, all from a single, intuitive interface.” Segue’s secure, robust platform automatically retrieves data to populate online forms and other documentation, generating material specific to each individual client according to established rules and permissions. The software automatically notifies staff, attorneys, paralegals, and clients of changes in status at various stages of a case. It organizes and centralizes all contact information, pay-off details, and case data, and generates documents such as contracts, letters, and reports with a click of a mouse. The solution is built on the industry-leading Salesforce CRM platform, making it easy to deploy in Multi Funding’s existing environment. In addition, the platform’s document generation capabilities are powered by Conga, a major provider of digital document management. The Outcome Multi Funding USA has processed thousands of loans through the platform. Through this solution, they’ve been able to increase productivity by some 15 percent, while mitigating costly mistakes. In addition, the solution has reduced the firm’s cost of operations, decreasing labor requirements and helping to speed more cases through their paces—without having to add personnel or extraneous infrastructure. And since Multi Funding accesses Segue’s technology through a cost-effective subscription with no per-transaction fees, return on investment is swift and considerable. “In a complicated environment like ours, Segue provides a much more efficient solution compared to manual administration. Underwriting processes that once took hours or days can now be turned over in about eight minutes,” confirmed Reyes. “Before we used Segue, we’d frequently tell clients we’d have a contract to them by the next week. Now we can produce all the documentation in less than an hour.” When asked about the value of the Segue pre-settlement funding solution, Multi Funding says it transcends traditional cost and organizational savings. “The ability to have an extensive range of automatically updated case information readily accessible throughout the pre-settlement process is a huge advantage,” concluded Reyes. “It creates an instant competitive edge for our firm by enabling us to provide fast and efficient service to our clients.”

Commercial

View All

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.