Novarex Capital Partners has closed a second financing round of £16 million, more than tripling the size of its opening £5 million raise and bringing total capital generated across the programme to £21 million.

As reported by Pulse 2.0, the London-based platform completed the round on terms providing investors a stated return of 20%. A further round is already planned, structured around a stated return of 16.5%, though Novarex has not disclosed its timing or terms. The firm also declined to name the participants in the £16 million round or detail its contractual structure.

The capital supports the working capital requirements of an unnamed law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that prepares eligible legal claims. Novarex said the underlying firm operates within applicable SRA standards, maintains professional indemnity insurance, and handles client money and case processes inside the regulatory framework. The firm has a pipeline of contracted work and focuses on claims meeting established eligibility criteria.

Novarex describes itself as a specialist introduction platform covering private credit, litigation finance and structured capital, connecting sophisticated investors with private-market opportunities built around defined transaction parameters. It closed its initial £5 million round in August.

The structure is a familiar one in the UK consumer claims market, where law firms preparing high volumes of cases face significant upfront costs long before any recovery arrives, and where outside capital has increasingly filled the working capital gap. It is also the model drawing regulatory attention, with the SRA consulting on new rules governing solicitors' involvement in litigation funding arrangements following a series of claims firm failures.

Thomas Goodhead, forced out of the firm he co-founded a year ago, is returning to the Mariana Dam litigation at the head of the rival practice now claiming to be lead solicitors on the case.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, Goodhead will lead the claim at Bailey Glasser International alongside former Pogust Goodhead partners Jeremy Evans, Faranak Ghajavand and Guy Robson. Senior barristers instructed since the start of the trial, including Alain Choo Choy KC and Andrew Fulton KC, continue on the case. BGI said more than 15 lawyers with experience on the matter are moving across, and has brought in Hausfeld as co-counsel.

BGI is a trading name of Edward McCourt & Co, a City firm operating under a commercial cooperation agreement with US practice Bailey & Glasser. Edward McCourt & Co has been owned since February by Evans, previously a senior partner at Pogust Goodhead. Goodhead himself was briefly a director of the firm last November.

The dispute sits on top of a funding fight. Goodhead has said his removal followed his refusal to accept a settlement he considered to have vastly undervalued the claim, a settlement he says Pogust Goodhead's funder Gramercy pressed him to take. Pogust Goodhead accused him of improperly using investment capital intended for the litigation on personal spending, allegations he denies, describing his removal as a "boardroom coup."

Pogust Goodhead disputes that BGI is on the record and has warned that changing advisers could put claimants' costs protection at risk. Chief executive Alicia Alinia said the firm is "deeply concerned about the potential consequences for our clients." An expedited hearing next month will decide which firm represents the claimants, with the quantum trial listed for April 2027.

Responses to the Solicitors Regulation Authority's consultation on third-party litigation funding have exposed a gap between those who want the regulator to go further and those who want it to go no further than the risks it has actually identified.

As reported by Credit Connect, the Finance & Leasing Association welcomed the SRA's proposals to strengthen consumer protections around funded claims, but argued that a solicitor-focused rulebook cannot address market-wide risk on its own. The FLA called on the Government to extend Financial Conduct Authority regulation to commercial litigation funders, introduce anti-money laundering oversight, and impose stronger transparency requirements. It also pressed for better coordination between the SRA, the FCA, the Information Commissioner's Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The Law Society took the opposite position. As reported by Solicitors Journal, the Society urged the SRA to make fuller use of its existing powers and guidance before layering new obligations onto solicitors, and cautioned against assuming that every consumer claim requires additional regulatory involvement.

Law Society president Mark Evans said the organisation supports the SRA's transparency and consumer protection objectives, but that "any new requirements must target genuine risks rather than create unnecessary burden." He added that litigation funding "can be a vital route to justice for consumers who could not otherwise afford to pursue a claim, but additional regulation must be in-line with the risks identified."

Both responses point back to the collapse of SSB Group, the high-volume claims firm whose failure left funded consumers exposed and which has driven much of the SRA's recent work in this area. Evans acknowledged that the collapse underlined the need for effective safeguards, while warning that a one-size-fits-all approach risks making it harder, not easier, for individuals to bring claims.

Siltstone Capital has released the full programme for the first European edition of LITFINCON, which opens in Amsterdam on 7 October with eleven panels and a speaker roster drawn from funders, brokers, insurers and the plaintiff bar.

As reported by PR Newswire, the two-day conference runs 7 and 8 October at the Rosewood Amsterdam, the former Palace of Justice on the Herengracht, with VIP programming including a dinner and canal cruise the evening before. This is the seventh LITFINCON edition and the first held in Europe, following events in Houston, Beverly Hills and Singapore that have drawn more than a thousand attendees between them.

The theme is "The Claim Is the Asset: IP, Arbitration, Class Actions & the Investors Who Know It." Confirmed speakers include Philipp Leibfried, Managing Director and Head of Europe at Burford Capital; Neil Purslow, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Therium Capital Advisors; Max Tribble of Susman Godfrey; Dan Kesack of WTW; Nick Moore of CAC Specialty; Jamie Molloy of Ignite Specialty Risk; Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Capital; and Till Schreiber of Cartel Damage Claims.

Panels cover pricing in European collective actions, enforcement of arbitration awards, Unified Patent Court strategy, artificial intelligence in litigation finance, insurance structures for legal assets, and the divergent regulatory positions taking shape in the UK, EU and United States. The programme closes with a 75-minute unscripted session billed as "Candid Conversations."

Jim Batson, Chief Investment Officer of Legal Finance at Siltstone Capital, said: "Every deal in this industry starts with a conversation between people who trust each other."

Austrian funder Padronus is financing three new German collective redress actions against Netflix, Apple TV and WOW, structuring its return just below the statutory ceiling that governs funder participation in the country's collective redress regime.

As reported by Digital Fernsehen, the Verbraucherschutzverein filed the three Abhilfeklagen on 15 September, two before the Kammergericht Berlin and one before the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht. The claims allege that the providers raised subscription prices unilaterally on the basis of clauses that do not meet German standards for consumer contracts. Cited increases include WOW from €35.99 to €44.99, Apple TV+ from €4.99 to €9.99, and Netflix from €11.99 to €19.99.

The funding terms are the notable feature for the market. Padronus, operating through Vienna-based Prozessfinanzallianz GmbH, carries the entire cost risk and takes 9.9% of any proceeds, deliberately set beneath the 10% cap imposed on funder remuneration by the German legislation implementing the EU Representative Actions Directive. Where a participant holds legal expenses insurance that responds, Padronus waives its share altogether. Consumers pay nothing regardless of outcome.

Expected individual refunds run from roughly €200 to €700 per provider, and Padronus chief executive Richard Eibl has said a subscriber to all four services could recover close to €800. At the participation levels the funder is targeting, aggregate exposure would reach nine figures.

The German courts have not settled the question. The Kammergericht Berlin held comparable Netflix and Spotify clauses invalid in 2023, and the Bundesgerichtshof declined to disturb that outcome. But the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht dismissed a parallel claim over Prime Video in July, and an appeal is pending.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the £260 million settlement of the opt-out collective action brought against Google on behalf of thousands of UK app developers, clearing the way for the largest distribution to class members the Tribunal has sanctioned since the UK's collective proceedings regime began in 2015.

Of the total, £160 million is earmarked for eligible developers, including sole traders and small businesses that sold apps or digital content through the Play Store from August 2018 onwards. The remaining £100 million covers the funding, insurance and legal costs of running the case. Individual payouts will be calculated on each developer's qualifying Play Store sales during the relevant period, and eligible businesses are being directed to the claim website to register ahead of the claims process opening.

As reported by City AM, the claim alleged that Google abused a dominant position by imposing unfair and excessive commissions on developers distributing through the Play Store. Google settled without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, saying it was pleased to reach agreement subject to court approval.

For the funding market, the approval resolves the question hanging over the case since August. Bench Walk Advisors financed the proceedings, and the professional parties agreed to forgo £34 million of their contractual entitlement, bringing their combined return down to the £100 million the Tribunal has now approved. The Tribunal's willingness to sanction a settlement of this size, with costs and funder returns disclosed and reduced in advance, gives funders a concrete benchmark for what the CAT will treat as just and reasonable.

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said: “This landmark settlement vindicates the opt-out collective actions regime at an important moment for its future. Thanks to the regime and the litigation funders who underpin it, thousands of small businesses with no realistic alternative to take on a corporate wrongdoer will now be awarded compensation they could never have won on their own.”

“As the Government considers the future of the regime, this case is proof the system can deliver. This is a young regime that should be nurtured and expanded, not constrained, so more consumers and small businesses can hold powerful defendants to account.”

Burford Capital has set the terms on the refinancing it launched at the start of the week, pricing $300 million of senior secured notes at a coupon of 8.000% and locking in the cost of retiring its nearest maturity.

As reported by PR Newswire, the notes are due 2029 and will be issued by Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary. Burford Capital Limited is guaranteeing the paper, which is secured on a senior lien basis by substantially all of the issuer's assets and by the capital stock of certain subsidiaries, subject to exceptions.

The pricing carries a clear message about the funder's cost of capital. The 8.000% coupon on secured paper sits well above the 6.250% Burford is paying on the unsecured 2028 notes it is redeeming, and the company is putting up collateral to get there. Against that, the transaction takes $100 million of gross debt off the balance sheet, since net proceeds plus cash on hand will retire all $400 million of the 2028 notes.

The offering is expected to close on September 17, subject to customary conditions, with redemption of the 2028 notes to follow as soon as practicable afterwards.

The notes are being placed privately and have not been registered under the US Securities Act, with distribution limited to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A and to non-US persons under Regulation S, in each case also qualified purchasers under the Investment Company Act.

A Singapore ruling upholding a US$490.32 million arbitration award against Tata Power is drawing attention across the arbitration bar for what it says about how far arbitrators must go in disclosing their connections to third-party funders.

As reported by the Deccan Chronicle, the Singapore International Commercial Court on August 26 dismissed all three of Tata Power Company Limited's applications challenging the award, which was issued in favour of Kleros Capital Partners along with legal costs and interest. Kleros pursued the claim with litigation funding from Omni Bridgeway.

Tata Power argued that two members of the tribunal, Prof Lawrence Boo and Stuart Isaacs KC, should have disclosed their appointments in other arbitrations involving Omni Bridgeway-funded parties. It also pointed to Prof Boo's professional and personal association with Mark Hughes, a member of Omni Bridgeway's investment committee.

The court rejected the apparent bias allegations, holding that undisclosed appointments in unrelated matters did not establish bias and that where the circumstances did not give rise to apparent bias, there was no need to decide separately whether a disclosure obligation had been breached. It also declined to treat third-party funders as parties for disclosure purposes.

"How far should arbitrators be required to disclose professional relationships with parties, lawyers and third-party funders, particularly when litigation financiers have economic interests in the outcome?" asked finance expert Biswanth Pradhan, framing the wider question the case raises.

Tata Power has indicated it will appeal to the Singapore Court of Appeal.