Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage

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.”
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All

ISO Approves New Litigation Funding Disclosure Endorsement

By John Freund |

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

Innsworth Penalized for Challenge to Mastercard Settlement

By John Freund |

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Court Dismisses RTA‑Client Case

By John Freund |

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.