Trending Now

All Articles

3374 Articles
Announcements Consumer

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans To Provide Legal Funding To Transferred FCI Dublin Prisoners

By John Freund |

Two lawyers, Susan Beaty and Kara Janssen, have been actively advocating for the women of FCI Dublin and have uncovered alarming reports of sexual harassment and assault. The incarcerated women have since been relocated to various federal prisons across the country, including a facility in Aliceville, Alabama.

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans provides pre-settlement funding to empower the FCI Dublin victims to pursue justice during this difficult time.

Abuse Persists After FCI Dublin's Closure

Earlier this year, the FCI Dublin was shut down due to the pervasive sex abuse scandal involving prison staff. As a result, the women incarcerated were relocated to different federal prisons nationwide, including Aliceville in Alabama. Instead of finding relief and rehabilitation, more reports of abuse and retaliation have emerged for speaking out against the past misconduct that occurred in Dublin.

According to Beaty and Janssen, multiple women relocated to FCI Aliceville experienced harassment because of their affiliation with the Dublin scandal. Additionally, several women came out claiming that they were sexually assaulted by the guards at Aliceville.

These series of abuses and their nature deeply ingrained within the system highlights the flaws within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Although the BOP has conducted investigations and mass interviews, this did little to give security and restore trust among incarcerated women. Reports of poor confinement conditions and lack of access to mental health services only make it harder for these women to deal with the trauma.

Tribeca's Commitment to Human Rights

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans is deeply committed to respect for human rights, including the right to safety and dignity even in correctional facilities. Understanding the need for justice in these circumstances, Tribeca introduces its initiatives to provide lawsuit loans for the victims of abuse at FCI Dublin and other federal prisons.

Legal battles against large institutions like the BOP can be a huge undertaking and could require significant resources. Most of the victims and their families don't have the financial means to pursue their cases, especially in instances of mistreatment and abuse.

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans aims to empower the victims by aiding them financially to secure skilled legal representation and cover necessary expenses without upfront costs.

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans to Provide Legal Funding for Prison Abuse Victims

Tribeca Lawsuit Loans extends financial assistance to prisoners at FCI Aliceville and other related facilities through lawsuit cash advances, also known as pre-settlement loans, based on the class action lawsuit filed against the Bureau of Prisons. This legal action addresses the allegations of misconduct and abuse within federal prisons, emphasizing cases of sexual abuse involving prison staff.

Tribeca's dedication extends beyond financial support. It is a catalyst for systemic change within the federal prison. By collaborating with victims, lawyers and advocacy groups, Tribeca hopes to bring these injustices to the forefront and hold the responsible parties accountable.

If you or someone close to you require financial support in the middle of an ongoing case, don't hesitate to reach out. Call us now at (866) 388-2288 or apply online via our secure online form.

ABOUT US: TRIBECA Capital Group is a litigation finance company funding those across the nation involved in lawsuits, and need an upper hand financially to level the playing field.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funders Assess Challenges and Opportunities in 2025

By Harry Moran |

Leading funders in the US and UK have been asked to identify the challenges that they are facing, as well as the opportunities they are looking towards in 2025. Respondents included senior executives at Omni Bridgeway, Therium, Parabellum Capital, Harbour Litigation Funding, Balance Legal Capital, Burford Capital, and Bench Walk Advisors.

An article in Legal Business explains that the continued calls for tighter regulation and oversight of litigation finance were top of mind for many of the funders interviewed. This was particularly highlighted in the United States, where opposition to third-party funding was characterized by Therium’s Neil Purslow as “a hostile approach to the industry from US corporates”. Matthew Harrison of Omni Bridgeway and Dai Wai Chin Feman from Parabellum were both clear in saying that the actual regulators are not inherently adversarial towards funders, with Feman stating that “there is a lot of noise but there is always noise” from those who would seek to restrict third-party funding.

Meanwhile, UK funders are growing increasingly frustrated with the new government’s gradual approach to resolving the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, as the industry must now wait until the completion of the Civil Justice Council’s report next year. Purslow lamented the government’s inaction and pointed towards the previous parliament’s Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill as the obvious solution, arguing that “there was a fix available and it could and should be done”. Oliver Hayes from Balance Legal Capital similarly described the current situation as “undesirable”, but expressed hope that “the government provides a fix which clarifies the position and resolves the questionable challenges being run by defendants around the legality of funding agreements.”

Looking ahead to the opportunities open to funders, Omni Bridgeway’s Harrison suggested that the perception of funding has shifted away from only being a solution for ‘David versus Goliath’ situations, as “many CFOs, GCs, and big firms understand that litigation finance is a very valuable risk and cost mitigation tool.” As funders continue to look to diversify their investments, Mark King at Harbour noted that in the UK, “we are seeing an increased interest in credit finance facilities with law firms”.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJEU Judgment Prohibits Outside Investment in Law Firms

By Harry Moran |

A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that EU member states can block law firms from accepting external investment in order to protect lawyers’ independence and comply with their professional obligations. The court found that EU directives governing the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital, “must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation” that prohibits third-party ownership of law firms.

Reporting in Legal Futures explains that the ruling arose following preliminary questions submitted by a German court which was overseeing a dispute between law firm Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft and the Rechtsanwaltskammer München (Munich Bar Association). Halmer had informed the Munich Bar Association that it had sold 51 of its 100 shares to an Austrian company called SIVE Beratung und Beteiligung GmbH (SIVE). The bar association responded by informing HR that the transfer of shares was prohibited under the German Federal Lawyers’ Code, and subsequently revoked Halmer’s registration with the bar association. 

The Court of Justice’s ruling on these questions found that it was permissible for member states to block this kind of outside investment, noting that “economic considerations focused on a purely financial investor’s short-term profit could prevail over considerations guided exclusively by the defence of the interests of the law firm’s clients.” André Haug, vice-president of Germany’s Federal Bar Association, welcomed the European court’s decision and highlighted that its ruling concurred with the German government’s position that “the ban on third-party ownership is justified in order to guarantee the independence of lawyers.”

The case that came before the court was of sufficient significance that it attracted attention from member states across the continent, with observations submitted on behalf of the German, Spanish, French, Croatian, Austrian and Slovenian Governments.

The CJEU’s full judgment can be found here.

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Rules in Favour of BT in Harbour-Funded Claim Valued at £1.3bn

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported yesterday, funders and law firms alike are looking to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as one of the most influential factors for the future of the UK litigation market in 2025 and beyond. A judgment released by the CAT yesterday that found in favour of Britain’s largest telecommunications business may provide a warning to industry leaders of the uncertainty around funding these high value collective proceedings.

An article in The Global Legal Post provides an overview of the judgment handed down by the CAT in Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC, as the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the telecoms company following the trial in March of this year. The opt-out claim valued at around £1.3 billion, was first brought before the Tribunal in 2021 and sought compensation for BT customers who had allegedly been overcharged for landline services from October 2015.

In the executive summary of the judgment, the CAT found “that just because a price is excessive does not mean that it was also unfair”, with the Tribunal concluding that “there was no abuse of dominant position” by BT.

The proceedings which were led by class representative Justin Le Patourel, founder of Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL), were financed with Harbour Litigation Funding. When the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) was granted in 2021, Harbour highlighted the claim as having originally been worth up to £600 million with the potential for customers to receive up to £500 if the case had been successful.

In a statement, Le Patourel said that he was “disappointed that it [the CAT] did not agree that these prices were unfair”, but said that they would now consider “whether the next step will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this verdict”. The claimants have been represented by Mishcon de Reya in the case.

Commenting on the impact of the judgment, Tim West, disputes partner at Ashurst, said that it could have a “dampening effect, at least in the short term, on the availability of capital to fund the more novel or unusual claims in the CAT moving forward”. Similarly, Mohsin Patel, director and co-founder of Factor Risk Management, described the outcome as “a bitter pill to swallow” for both the claimants and for the law firm and funder who backed the case.

The CAT’s full judgment and executive summary can be accessed on the Tribunal’s website.

Commercial Fundraising

Sandfield Capital Secures £600m Facility to Expand Funding Operations

By Harry Moran |

Sandfield Capital, a Liverpool-based litigation funder, has reached an agreement for a £600 million facility with Perspective Investments. The investment, which is conditional on the identification of suitable claims that can be funded, has been secured to allow Sandfield Capital to strategically expand its operations and the number of claims it can fund. 

An article in Insider Media covers the the fourth capital raise in the last 12 months for Sandfield Capital, with LFJ having previously covered the most recent £10.5 million funding facility that was secured last month. Since its founding in 2020, Sandfield Capital has already expanded from its original office in Liverpool with a footprint established in London as well. 

Steven D'Ambrosio, chief executive of Sandfield Capital, celebrated the announced by saying:  “This new facility presents significant opportunities for Sandfield and is testament to our business model. Key to our strategy to deploy the facility is expanding our legal panel. There's no shortage of quality law firms specialising in this area and we are keen to develop further strong and symbiotic relationships. Perspective Investments see considerable opportunities and bring a wealth of experience in institutional investment with a strong track record.”

Arno Kitts, founder and chief investment officer of Perspective Investments, also provided the following statement:  “Sandfield Capital's business model includes a bespoke lending platform with the ability to integrate seamlessly with law firms' systems to ensure compliance with regulatory and underwriting standards.  This technology enables claims to be processed rapidly whilst all loans are fully insured so that if a claim is unsuccessful, the individual claimant has nothing to pay. This is an excellent investment proposition for Perspective Investments and we are looking forward to working with the management team who have a track record of continuously evolving the business to meet growing client needs.”

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Australian Google Ad Tech Class Action Commenced on Behalf of Publishers

By Harry Moran |

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

  1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
  2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
  3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
  4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process". 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

  • Law firm: Piper Alderman
  • Funder: Woodsford
  • Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter
Commercial Funder's Corner Legal Innovation

Report Highlights ‘Substantial Benefits’ of Litigation Funding for Consumer Justice

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

Litigation funding provides ‘substantial benefits’ to claimant organisations, and robust funding mechanisms are ‘essential’ to secure justice for consumers, an authoritative report found last month.

The report, Justice Unchained, by European consumer organisation BEUC, also found many of the common criticisms of litigation funding were not backed up by evidence.

The study found that consumer organisations across Europe face significant financial challenges to starting collective redress actions. It noted that initiating a collective action is ‘complex, risky, and expensive’, often involving lengthy proceedings that need significant resources.

The report said: ‘Without sufficient funding, important cases will remain unaddressed and risk making the Representative Actions Directive (RAD)2 an empty shell’.

BEUC said that as public funding, membership fees and donations were often insufficient or unavailable, litigation funding had emerged ‘as a solution to bridge a funding gap’. Benefits for the claimant included access to necessary resources, risk transfer, and ‘a more equal playing field between consumer organisations and powerful defendants’, it said.

The report added that frequent criticisms of litigation funding, such as ‘the risk of frivolous litigation, undue influence by funders, or targeting competitors’ were ‘not well-substantiated’, and ‘insufficiently evidenced by specific cases’.

According to the report, the potential risks of litigation funding in the context of collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Actions Directive, which requires member states to establish a framework that includes procedures to prevent conflicts of interest and undue influence, with judicial oversight to ensure compliance.

The report found that additional regulation of litigation funding at EU level should therefore only be considered if it is necessary. It said: ‘Two-thirds of EU Member States have opted not to regulate [litigation funding] beyond the RAD’s requirements, finding these safeguards sufficient to govern [litigation funding] effectively for collective redress actions. Besides, [litigation funding] can be managed through judicial oversight, as is the case in several Member States with a longer history of using [it]’.

The BEUC report suggested that a set of ‘best practices’, jointly established and agreed by funders, claimant organisations and others, may provide for ‘a balanced solution, ensuring [litigation funding] remains viable while promoting fairness and transparency.’

It said such best practice could encompass transparency over the funder’s sources of capital; full decision-making autonomy for the consumer organisation and its legal counsel; clear agreements on all expenses covered by the funder; clearly defined funder’s remuneration; assurance of the funder’s financial adequacy to meet obligations; strict compliance with transparency requirements set by the law; effective detection and disclosure of any conflicts of interest; well-defined conditions for termination of the funding; and a robust dispute resolution mechanism.

Announcements Consumer

Rockpoint Legal Funding Shines at Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Convention

By Harry Moran |

Rockpoint Legal Funding proudly participated in the annual conference hosted by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), showcasing its commitment to supporting legal professionals and their clients. As the only funding company endorsed by CAOC, Rockpoint Legal Funding leveraged this premier event to connect with new and prospective partners reinforcing its position as a trusted funder within California's legal community.

The CAOC is a prestigious network of attorneys dedicated to protecting the rights of California consumers. Each year, the organization hosts its annual convention, bringing together some of the brightest legal minds and innovators in the industry. For Rockpoint Legal Funding, this event was an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate its unwavering dedication to empowering attorneys and their clients through tailored legal funding solutions.

During the convention, Rockpoint operated a booth where team members engaged with attendees, offering insights into the company's services and how they benefit both legal professionals and consumers seeking justice. From new attorneys looking for funding solutions to established firms aiming to streamline their case workflows, Rockpoint provided personalized advice and showcased its comprehensive suite of legal funding options.

"Rockpoint is proud to partner with the Consumer Attorneys of California. We take a lot of pride in serving the attorneys and their clients of this prestigious organization," said Ramtin Ghaneeian, Founding Partner of Rockpoint Legal Funding. His statement highlights the company's commitment to strengthening its collaboration with CAOC and continuing to support its mission of safeguarding the rights of California consumers.

President of Rockpoint Legal Funding, Maz Ghorban, emphasized the value of building strong relationships at events like this, stating, "It's a privilege to connect with our law firm partners at the CAOC convention each year while ensuring our values align with protecting California consumers through legal recourse."

Rockpoint's presence at the CAOC annual convention underscores its dedication to fostering meaningful connections within the legal community. By being the only CAOC-endorsed funding company, Rockpoint reinforces its credibility and reliability in the legal funding landscape. This endorsement is a testament to Rockpoint's shared vision with CAOC in championing consumer rights and providing critical support to those navigating the justice system.

For attorneys and law firms, Rockpoint Legal Funding offers a variety of non-recourse funding solutions, ensuring clients have the financial support they need during ongoing litigation. This commitment aligns perfectly with CAOC's mission to advocate for justice and fairness for California consumers.

As Rockpoint continues to deepen its relationships with legal professionals, events like the CAOC annual convention remain a cornerstone of its outreach efforts. The company looks forward to future collaborations and furthering its impact within the legal community.

For more information about Rockpoint Legal Funding and its services, visit Rockpointlegalfunding.com or call (855) 582-9200.

About Rockpoint Legal Funding

Rockpoint Legal Funding is a leading provider of non-recourse legal funding solutions, serving attorneys and their clients with unparalleled expertise and care. With a mission to empower justice and support favorable case outcomes, Rockpoint is committed to providing financial assistance during critical times, ensuring no one is denied access to legal recourse due to financial constraints.

Commercial Deals

Ares Management Enters Agreement with Omni Bridgeway for 150+ Ongoing Investments

By Harry Moran |

Omni Bridgeway has entered into an agreement with Ares Management Corporation, for the alternative investment manager to acquire a stake over 150 of Omni Bridgeway’s ongoing investments. The agreement will see the creation of ‘Fund 9’ as a continuation fund to contain these investments, with Ares investing A$310 million for a 70% interest in the fund whilst Omni Bridgeway will retain a 30% interest.

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the news that “Ares has the option to acquire up to a A$35m equity stake in Omni Bridgeway through the issuance of warrants at an agreed strike price.”

Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director and CEO of Omni Bridgeway stated: “I am very pleased with this transaction as it delivers on all of our stated strategic objectives at once: validating the fair value of our book and the quality of our underwriting and valuation methodologies, improving the cost coverage rate, reducing debt to zero, and enforcing our position as the leading and institutional grade funds management platform for legal assets.”

Jan-Paul Kobarg, Partner at Ares Management added: “Leveraging our scale, structuring capabilities and flexible capital base, we are pleased to invest alongside OBL in this innovative structure for the asset class. During our due diligence process, we were impressed with the experience and quality of the OBL team. We believe this transaction accelerates OBL’s transition to a capital light funds management model in a growing asset class where it is a recognised global leader.”

More detail about the agreement between Omni Bridgeway and Ares can be found in the full announcement.