Trending Now

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

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.

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.

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.