Trending Now

All Articles

3453 Articles

Balance Legal Capital Funding Australian Class Action Against General Motors

By Harry Moran |

A new class action in the Federal Court of Australia is targeting General Motors Australia and New Zealand over the alleged sale of Holden vehicles with faulty transmissions. The class action is being brought on behalf of consumers who purchased certain models of Holden vehicles between 1 January 2011 and 24 December 2024.

Reporting by 9News covers the class action, which is being led by Maurice Blackburn. Balance Legal Capital is providing litigation funding for the claim. The vehicles allegedly affected include a range of 13 models that were equipped with GM 6L 45, GM 6L 50, or GM 6L 80 transmissions. The claim alleges that General Motors engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of these vehicles, and that it failed to meet the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law.

Kimi Nishimura, principal lawyer and executive director at Maurice Blackburn, stated: “Through this class action, we are seeking to recover compensation for those consumers who experienced loss and damage related to the transmission system in the affected vehicles.”

In response to the reporting, General Motors Australia and New Zealand did not provide a comment on the class action, with a spokesperson reiterating that “GM does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

Detailed information on the Holden Transmission Class Action can be found on Maurice Blackburn’s website.

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

By John Freund |

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.


[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as "any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer"; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

Exton Advisors Appoints Senior Finance Professional Timothy Mayer

By Harry Moran |

Leading global advisors in disputes finance, Exton Advisors, today announces the appointment of experienced funder and lawyer Timothy Mayer to its team, marking the start of an exciting year for the firm.

Called to the Bar in 1997, Timothy has over sixteen years’ experience in the disputes funding market, having spent time at some of the leading global dispute’s funders. He has managed multi-million investments across a broad range of disputes, with particular focus on international arbitration, and has been consistently recognised in the directories, including as a Global Leader in Legal Finance in the Law Dragon Global 100 guide (2020 – 2023) and Chambers and Partners Litigation Support Guide for Litigation Funding (2020 -2024).

Commenting on the appointment, Managing Director John Astill said, “We are delighted to welcome Timothy, and to grow our team in 2025. Timothy brings with him a unique combination of practical legal experience and disputes finance expertise that will be invaluable to our clients and will further strengthen the seamless and efficient approach to disputes finance that Exton Advisors offers.”

Timothy commented, “I am thrilled to join Exton Advisors at an exciting time for the business, and I look forward to the opportunity to be part of a truly unique service spanning the legal and funding spheres. No other disputes funding advisory exists quite like Exton Advisors, and I am keen to continue developing their distinctive approach to disputes financing.”

Exton Advisors deliver expertise in every aspect of the unique and complex disputes financing asset class. They advise corporate legal teams, their private practitioners and their funding partners in order to make the most of litigation assets.

About Exton Advisors

Exton Advisors deliver expertise in every aspect of the unique and complex litigation financing asset class. They advise corporate legal teams, their private practitioners and their funding partners in order to make the most of litigation assets.

Omni Bridgeway Backs Australian Class Action Targeting Johnson & Johnson

By Harry Moran |

A class action was recently filed in the Federal Court of Australia, targeting Johnson & Johnson over allegations that a number of its oral cold and flu medications are ineffective when taken orally. The claim covers 20 separate products sold by Johnson & Johnson across three brands of medication: Codral, Sudafed, and Benadryl.

An article in Lawyers Weekly covers the class action being brought by JGA Saddler, with funding for the case provided by Omni Bridgeway. The pharmaceutical giant is accused of falsely marketing and selling these products as effective treatments, with the claim seeking to represent any Australian customer who has bought one of these products since 2005.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director at JGA Saddler, stated that “Johnson & Johnson has manufactured and marketed a medication that decades of evidence have shown doesn’t work as claimed.” She also emphasised the importance of the claim in seeking compensation by saying, “customers should be able to confidently buy medicines that work as advertised and when they don’t, the company involved should be held accountable.”

Niall Watson-Dunne, investment manager at Omni Bridgeway, said that “for around 19 years, Australians have been sold cold and flu products to relieve their symptoms, despite studies and scientific evidence showing their key ingredient phenylephrine is ineffective when taken orally.”

More information about the class action can be found on Omni Bridgeway’s website.

Qanlex Refines its Latin America Strategy

By Harry Moran |

Qanlex is one of the few litigation funders focused on providing third-party financing in Latin America, with a dedicated presence in the region. The funder leverages a sector-specific strategy for targeting lucrative case types.

Speaking with América Economía, Qanlex’s general counsel for Latin America, Juliana Giorgi, emphasised that in order to gain a foothold in the competitive litigation funding market, the firm has leveraged “the development of technology.” Giorgi goes on to explain that its in-house software “searches for cases in judicial databases that might interest us due to the value of the claim or the nature of the process”, allowing Qanlex to find suitable claims to finance in the different countries it operates in.

Beyond the use of technology to refine its strategies, Qanlex has also chosen to focus on specific sectors that generate valuable disputes in Latin America. Whilst the construction sector has been a particular area of interest, Qanlex has also found opportunities for niche areas within different jurisdictions. As Giorgi explains: “In Ecuador we have several energy cases that include thermoelectric plants; in Costa Rica, cases of tourist real estate development; in Colombia, oil and energy cases."

Regardless of the sector, Gorgi acknowledges that Qanlex is “open to analyzing and financing any range of cases as long as they include a liquid asset transfer at the end of which the fund can take the remuneration.”

Litigation Funding Found to be “Not Relevant” in E. Jean Carroll’s Sexual Abuse and Defamation Case Against Donald Trump

By John Freund |

The Second Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict in Carroll v. Trump, rejecting President Trump’s claims of trial court errors, including the handling of litigation funding evidence. Trump’s legal team argued that litigation funding for E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit, provided by an anonymous nonprofit, was relevant to her credibility and potential bias. The court disagreed, emphasizing that such evidence had minimal probative value.

As reported in Reason.com, the court noted that Carroll’s case was primarily taken on a contingency fee basis, with supplemental funding obtained by her legal team in 2020. Carroll had little involvement with the funding arrangement, learning about it after the fact and having no subsequent discussions with her counsel about it for years. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Carroll’s lack of engagement with the funding made it irrelevant to assessing her credibility.

Trump’s team had argued the funding demonstrated bias or a politically motivated agenda, but the court dismissed this, highlighting that Carroll publicly accused Trump of sexual assault long before the funding was secured. Additionally, Carroll and her key witnesses had openly acknowledged their political opposition to Trump, making the funder’s potential political affiliations redundant in establishing bias.

The court emphasized that litigation funding rarely impacts credibility and that introducing such evidence risks unfair prejudice and jury distraction. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to litigation funding disclosure in trials.

Emmerson PLC Obtains $11M in Funding for Moroccan Dispute

By John Freund |

Emmerson PLC, the mining company focused on the development of the Khemisset potash project in Morocco, has secured $11 million in legal funding for its dispute against the Moroccan government.

As reported in Business Insider, Emmerson obtained the funding from an unnamed legal funder. The proceeds will be used to commence with arbitration proceedings, with white shoe law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP being appointed litigation counsel.

LFJ recently reported on Emmerson's search for litigation funding, including that it is pursuing an investment dispute over the government’s alleged breaches of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Morocco and the United Kingdom. Emmerson is seeking to establish itself as a low-cost, high-margin supplier of potash on the African continent.

We will keep you updated as this story progresses.

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.

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”.