Trending Now

All Articles

3453 Articles

Victoria Supreme Court Approves $271.8M Settlement in Uber Class Action

By Harry Moran |

Australia continues to be a lucrative jurisdiction for the funding of high-value class actions, as demonstrated this week by the approval of a $271.8 million settlement which will see the litigation funder receive 30 percent of the total sum.

Yesterday, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered its judgment in the case of Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others, approving a $271.8 million settlement to end the group proceedings against the ride-sharing company. The proceedings, which were first brought by Maurice Blackburn in 2019, alleged that the group members had suffered losses and damage due to Uber ride-sharing services operating contrary to regulations between 2014 and 2017. The group proceedings received third-party litigation funding from Harbour Fund III, L.P.

The Court approved the settlement agreement, finding that it was ‘fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members’, with Uber paying the $271.8 million without admission of liability. In its judgment, the Court also ordered the following deductions from the overall settlement sum: $38.7 million to Maurice Blackburn for legal costs and disbursements, $81.5 million to Harbour as its funding commission, and a total of $220,000 to the plaintiffs and sample group members, as compensation for the work undertaken by them in the proceedings.

In her written judgment, Justice Patricia Matthews addressed the scale of the funder’s commission and acknowledged that whilst the 30 percent proportion is ‘toward the higher end of such commissions’, she emphasised that it is ‘reasonable in the context of such complex litigation with a risk profile quite distinct from, for example, a shareholder class action.’ Justice Matthews also highlighted the crucial role Harbour had played in ensuring that these proceedings were even viable in the first place, declaring that ‘without the involvement of Harbour, there may not have been any compensation available for group members at all.’

The full settlement approval order can be read here.

Pogust Goodhead Looks to Cut Staff Numbers

By Harry Moran |

Whilst large group claims can attract headlines with staggeringly large amounts of compensation, for the law firms who specialise in such cases, the costs of running these claims take a heavy toll given the prolonged case durations.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette reveals that Pogust Goodhead is undertaking staff cuts potentially resulting in around 40 to 50 job losses in its London office, with employees being let go from both business operations and legal departments. These cuts represent a 20% staff reduction, with the Gazette reporting that the law firm was also exploring letting go around 100 employees in Brazil, with most of these working as call centre staff.

Analysing the reasons behind these staff cuts, the article notes that despite being well-known for its high-value class action claims, Pogust Goodhead does not see consistent income from these lawsuits whilst they are ongoing. As a result, the law firm is reliant on capital provided by outside litigation funding, such as the landmark £450 million investment partnership with Gramercy Funds Management.

A spokesperson from Pogust Goodhead provided the following comment to the Gazette: “We were established with the ambitious goal of providing justice for millions of people who have been wronged by multinational companies. It is well known these companies have infinite resources. While it is an incredibly difficult decision, it is only right that as we move forward, we position our firm strongly to provide access to justice for clients, both, existing and those in the future. We will be running a formal consultation with staff through a staff representative group over the coming weeks before finalising how many people will be affected.”

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Reid Zeising, Founder and CEO, Gain

By John Freund |

Reid Zeising is the Founder and CEO of Gain, a company transforming the personal injury landscape. Gain integrates the industry’s leading AI-enhanced Letter of Protection (LOP) servicing platform with professionally managed services and financial solutions, serving healthcare providers, attorneys, and plaintiffs. 

Company Name and Description: Gain

Company Website: gainservicing.com

Year Founded: 2011

Headquarters:  3424 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326, United States

Area of Focus:  Personal Injury ecosystem

Member Quote: Gain is committed to leveling the insurance playing field for those injured through no fault of their own, ensuring they have access to the quality healthcare and financial peace of mind they deserve.

Fenchurch Legal Strengthens its Board with an External Adviser

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal, a specialist in litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, has strengthened its board with The Rt Hon Ranil Jayawardena joining as an external adviser.

This appointment reinforces Fenchurch Legal’s strategic priorities of bringing independent views to its board, which enhances its governance processes, risk oversight, and decision-making capabilities.

As a former Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire, Ranil Jayawardena brings a distinguished track record. During his tenure in government, he held key positions, including International Trade Minister and Environment Secretary, where he worked on post-Brexit trade agreements, national infrastructure, and agricultural policy. Prior to his political career in Westminster, Ranil built his experience in the financial sector at Lloyds Banking Group – and served his community in local government, where he was responsible for £400 million AUM.

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: “We are delighted to welcome Ranil to the board as we embark on our next phase of growth. Ranil’s knowledge and experience of regulation and financial services, alongside his experience as a Non-Executive Director on other boards, will be invaluable during this important time. Ranil’s external oversight will complement our existing board, enhancing our focus on strong governance and risk management.”

Commenting on his new role, Ranil Jayawardena added: “Having served in government for many years, I am excited to embark on this new chapter in business and support Fenchurch Legal’s growth ambitions. Litigation funding is an important enabler of access to justice, and I look forward to contributing to the company’s continued success.”

Nera Capital Delivers Holiday Hope with £250k Justice Fund for Those in Need

By Harry Moran |

Prominent legal funder, Nera Capital, is spreading festive cheer this holiday season with the opening of its £250,000 Access to Justice Fund for those in need of support.

The firm plans to launch the generous fund in December, which will be open to individuals throughout the world who are in need of legal assistance or financial support. With no limitation on the amount an individual can apply for, each application will be assessed by a committee on its merits and urgency. 

Speaking about providing this important assistance, Nera Capital Director Aisling Byrne explained: “The fund will provide critical support for those who have been harmed, marginalised or ignored. “It aims to assist those in vulnerable situations, whether by funding the pursuit of legal claims or offering general support. For example, the fund could help families living in hazardous housing conditions who lack the financial means to relocate to safer, more suitable accommodation. This could include a council property in severe disrepair causing health issues.”

She continued: “The fund is dedicated to empowering individuals to overcome systemic neglect and improve their circumstances.” As an international litigation funder, Nera Capital, already assists individuals who have fallen victim to financial mis-selling, data breach, undisclosed commissions, personal injury and more.

Established in 2011 in Ireland from the aftermath of the 2008 global economic downturn, Nera Capital was born to support local individuals who could no longer secure loans from traditional banks. The company pioneered a unique approach by structuring loans attached to personal injury or probate claims, providing much-needed liquidity to law firms seeking justice for its clients.

This innovative strategy quickly gained traction and fuelled the company’s growth, which now operates in five jurisdictions and has offices in Ireland, UK and The Netherlands funding law firms around the globe. For Ms Byrne, opening up the Access to Justice Fund is a way for the successful company to give back while recognising the reason they started Nera Capital.

She explained: “The firm was established with a bold ambition to assist individuals and families and revolutionise the legal finance sector by blending modern technology with traditional values, all while supporting access to justice.

Additional information on the fund and how to apply can be found on the Nera Capital website: www.neracapital.com.

About Nera Capital 

·       Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.  

·       Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector. 

·       Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and Holland. 

·       Member of European Litigation Funders Association

.     www.neracapital.com

Mythbusting the Call for New Regulation of TPLF

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece from Rupert Cunningham, Director for Growth and Membership Engagement at the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA).

In their call for more EU regulation last week, AmCham EU, Business Europe and their co-signatories make misleading and inaccurate allegations about third-party litigation funding. These calls have been repeated by the same groups over and over again, pushed by big corporations that simply do not want those harmed by their wrongful behaviour to have recourse in the judicial system. ILFA will continue to counter these claims in the strongest terms. Below we unravel some of the most common misleading statements:

Myth: “Third-party litigation funders currently operate in a regulatory vacuum and without any transparency requirements.”

There is no regulatory vacuum. Litigation funders are regulated under company law in the same way as any other business, for example, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Specific to litigation funding, activities are regulated by the Representative Actions Directive and the Collective Redress Directive.

Publicly traded funders are further regulated through legislation on securities and financial instruments and by the relevant stock exchanges and financial authorities. This includes publishing annual reports on financial performance. Examples of other EU rules that apply to listed funders include the Shareholder Rights Directive, Prospectus Regulation, MIFID II.

Lawyers engaged in litigation are bound by professional, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities to represent the best interests of their clients where they practise.

Myth: “A civil justice climate that is abundant in abusive claims and mass private third-party funded litigation, creates a chilling effect that deters businesses from innovating, investing, competing, and prospering.”

Supporting meritorious litigation does not deter businesses from innovating and prospering - it deters corporate wrongdoing. As long as companies behave responsibly and comply with the obligations set out in the law, they have nothing to fear from litigation funding.

Myth: “If civil litigation remains funded by unregulated private third parties, we expect a surge in speculative litigation in the EU, which would undermine public confidence in the European justice systems at a time when maintaining faith in our democratic institutions is so critical.”

Far from undermining public confidence in the legal system, a recent independent report from the European Law Institute (ELI) concluded litigation funding plays a ‘functionally vital role in facilitating access to justice in many jurisdictions’.[1]

With public funding (legal aid) increasingly concentrated in the criminal justice sphere, litigation funding offers vital assistance to claimants bringing meritorious civil claims to courts. Greater access to justice, supported by litigation funding, leads to the development of better legal jurisprudence – a benefit to our legal system and to the rule of the law.

Myth: “TPLF is a for-profit business model that allows private financiers, investment firms, and hedge funds, to sign confidential deals with lawyers or qualified entities to invest in lawsuits or arbitration in exchange for a significant portion of any compensation that may be awarded, sometimes as much as 40% of the total compensation but can go even substantially higher.”

Litigation funder’s fees reflect the level of risk undertaken (which will vary) and are assessed case-by-case.

Many funded cases are “David vs. Goliath” in nature with well-resourced defendants. This requires substantial upfront financial investment to level the playing field and for cases to proceed. In the UK sub-postmasters’ recent successful claim against the Post Office, the Post Office spent nearly 250m GBP on its defence.

Myth: “The financial incentives of such practices encourage frivolous and predatory litigation, but they also shortchange genuine claimants and consumers.”

Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, i.e. if the case is unsuccessful, the funder loses their entire investment. There is no logical financial incentive for litigation funders to fund frivolous legal claims. Funders' due-diligence checks assist the justice system by weeding out unmeritorious claims that have a poor chance of success when put before a court. The approval rate for funding opportunities is as low as 3-5%.

Myth: “The introduction of a purely profit-motivated third party, often non-EU based, into the traditional lawyer-client relationship, raises serious ethical concerns and presents an economic security threat for Europe.”

The letter presents no substantive evidence that litigation funding is being used by ‘non-EU’ entities to destabilise the European economy or legal systems. ILFA suggests that experienced judges and lawyers operating in EU legal systems are more than capable of identifying threats to the integrity of our legal systems and safeguarding against the misuse or abuse of the court system for geopolitical or other aims.

Myth: “Funders are frequently the initiators of claims and may exercise control over decisions taken on behalf of claimants, and in this context, they prioritise their own financial aims over the interests of claimants. Faced with years of litigation brought by claimants with support from well-resourced funders, expensive legal costs, and reputational risk, defendants are often forced to settle even unmeritorious claims.”

Litigation funders make passive outside investments, meaning that funders do not initiate claims or control the matters in which they invest. A recipient of legal funding, and their legal counsel, maintain full control over the conduct of the case, including strategy and ultimate decision-making.

Myth: “If Europe continues to neglect proper oversight of private TPLF we risk our courts becoming profit facilitators for litigation funders, at the expense of European companies, consumers, and the integrity of our court systems.”

The reference to European companies is a curious one. Litigation funders make no distinction between EU or ‘non-EU’ claimants, basing funding awards on factual criteria such as the legal merits of a case, budget, funding required, and any other award and risks associated with the case.

This latest call from big businesses makes clear they continue to side with corporate wrongdoers, diminishing the legitimate rights of businesses and consumers to access justice and exercise their rights before the courts.

“Misleading and inaccurate claims like these appear around the world as part of a global lobbying effort to encourage unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the legal finance sector,” said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s newly appointed Global Director for Growth and Membership Engagement.  “Robustly challenging these persistent myths is critical to improving understanding of the sector amongst policy makers and wider industry stakeholders. That is why it is so important that international organisations like ILFA are able to respond to these claims on behalf of the sector, wherever and whenever they appear.”

By enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims, litigation funding levels the playing field and creates an equality of means between otherwise unequal parties.


[1] https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Principles_Governing_the_Third_Party_Funding_of_Litigation.pdf

International Legal Finance Association Adds West U Capital as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of West U Capital to the organization’s rapidly growing membership base. 

West U Capital is an intellectual property investment firm actively seeking and engaging in a broad range of transactions, including patent litigation funding, law firm financing, patent acquisition, patent-based lending, or some combination of the four. West U’s team has decades of intellectual property-centric investment and capital management experience to provide patent owners and law firms with a range of capital options to help them monetize their patents and grow their businesses. 

“As the world’s leading association representing the commercial legal finance industry, ILFA is excited to welcome West U Capital as its newest member,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “The addition of West U and their IP investment and litigation expertise demonstrates the increasingly diverse arenas in which legal finance helps businesses and entrepreneurs access justice. The firm will play a significant role in promoting the highest standard of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector across investment areas.”

The firm was founded by Managing Partners Joseph Kessler and Mark Roche. Two experienced leaders in the intellectual property space, Kessler formerly co-founded and managed the IP Finance team at Fortress Investment Group, an ILFA member, and Roche co-founded and managed AT&T’s intellectual property arm, Knowledge Ventures, before co-founding IP investment firm Techquity Capital Management. 

“Joining ILFA marks an exciting milestone for West U Capital,” said Roche. “We're eager to contribute our expertise in patent litigation and law firm financing to ILFA's ongoing efforts to shape the future of commercial legal finance.” Kessler added, “ILFA's dedication to promoting transparency and ethical practices aligns with our values at West U. We look forward to collaborating with fellow members to drive innovation and ensure the continued growth and integrity of our industry." 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official

About West U Capital 

West U Capital is an intellectual property-centric investment and capital management firm providing a variety of capital options to help maximize the value of intellectual property, including patent acquisitions, litigation funding, law firm financing, patent-based lending, and hybrid or tailored combinations. Its partners include small and medium companies, multinational corporations, research entities, and universities from a wide array of technology and market sectors across geographical regions. With decades of transactional and investment experience, West U’s growing team has underwritten, executed, managed, and exited hundreds of IP-related investments and transactions involving billions in invested capital. 

For more information, visit https://www.westucapital.com/

European Consumer Organisation Says “No Need” for More Funding Regulations

By Harry Moran |

With the ongoing Civil Justice Council review set to shape the future of the litigation funding market in the UK, for funders and law firms on the European continent the possibility of more stringent rules governing third-party funding still looms on the horizon. 

In a recently published position paper, BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation laid out its stance on third-party litigation funding and addressed the ongoing debate around the potential for more rules governing funding in the EU. In ‘Justice unchained BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress’, BEUC emphasised that with the prohibitively expensive costs of bringing collective redress claims, “robust funding mechanisms are essential.”

BEUC’s paper directly addresses the common criticisms and alleged downsides of third-party funding, stating emphatically that “concerns raised by critics appear insufficiently evidenced by specific cases, as shown by various independent academic studies.” For example, BEUC refutes the idea that litigation funding somehow encourages frivolous lawsuits, pointing out that not only has there been no evidence of abusive practices in EU member states, “evidence from the Netherlands shows no increase in meritless collective claims after TPLF’s introduction.”

The paper also highlights the success of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which it argues has already created “a framework to mitigate risks associated with TPLF, preventing conflicts of interest, undue third party influence, and ensuring judicial oversight to enforce compliance.” Taking aim at the proposed regulations that were put forward to the European Parliament, BEUC’s position is that “there is no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF to the existing regulatory framework established by the RAD.” Furthermore, BEUC argues that “the specific measures recommended by the European Parliament may disproportionately disadvantage consumer organisations often relying on TPLF to bring collective redress actions.”

In a post on LinkedIn, International Legal Finance Association’s (ILFA) Chairman Neil Purslow expressed his support for BEUC’s stance, saying: “BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organizations in the EU, rightly recognizes the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organizations in exercising their rights.”

The full position paper from BEUC can be read here

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jonas Rey, Partner, Athena Intelligence SA & Founder, Liti Capital SA

By John Freund |

Athena Intelligence is the largest corporate intelligence firm in Switzerland, specializing in dispute resolution, litigation support and asset recovery. Liti Capital is a Swiss based litigation funders that made headlines in 2021 for tokenizing its equity and raising funds through cryptocurrency markets. The company has since invested in multiple global cases.

Company Website: https://athenaintelligence.ch/ - https://liticapital.com/

Year Founded: 2019 / 2021

Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

Area of Focus: Asset recovery, blockchain, unorthodox cases

Member Quote: If there is a way to extract returns from this, we will find it.