The Banking Royal Commission established by the Australian government uncovered a wide range of misconduct and failing by the country’s financial institutions, with a slew of litigation and class action claims being brought in the aftermath. Six years on from the commission’s final report, some of these class actions are only now reaching a conclusion.

An article in Reuters covers the news that the Westpac Group has agreed to settle a class action brought against it by car loan customers, over “flex commissions” paid to car dealers by Westpac and St George Finance. The provisional settlement, which is subject to court approval, is for A$130 million and would see the class action resolved without Westpac accepting any admission of liability.

The claim was brought by law firm Maurice Blackburn in 2020 on behalf of consumers who entered into a finance agreement for the purchase of a car issued under Westpac or St George’s credit licence, between 1 March 2013 to 31 October 2018. In its announcement, Westpac said that it has not paid these flex commissions to car dealers since 2018, and had ceased providing new lending through its dealer introduced auto finance business since 2022.

At the time of reporting, Maurice Blackburn had not yet issued a statement on the announced settlement.

The full announcement from Westpac Group can be read here. More information about the class action can be found on the Supreme Court of Victoria’s website.

An announcement from Omni Bridgeway confirms the appointment of David Breeney as Global Chief Financial Officer (GCFO), having officially taken over the role on 1 March 2025. The appointment sees Breeney move up from his previous position as Deputy CFO, having first joined Omni Bridgeway as Global Head of Financial Control in November 2023.

Prior to his time at Omni Bridgeway, Breeney spent 12 years at asset management firm Challenger Limited, where he served as Financial Controller for funds management and real estate. In the announcement, Omni Bridgeway said that “the background and experience of Mr. Breeney align well with the stated strategy of accelerated transition towards a fund and asset management model.”

The announcement also revealed that the departing GCFO, Guillaume Leger, will be leading the establishment of a capital formation team to coordinate fund capital raising activities of the group. After a period of three months in this role, Leger will be leaving the company and Omni Bridgeway will look to hire a permanent senior capital formation professional as a replacement.A separate announcement from Latitude Group Holdings confirms that Guillaume Leger will become the company’s new Chief Financial Officer on 16 June 2025.

As LFJ reported in January, a mining company’s investor-state dispute with the Moroccan government over a potash project has led the company to seek and secure third-party funding for its arbitration claim.

An announcement from Emmerson Plc reveals that the potash development company has drawn down the first tranche of its litigation funding, following the signing of an $11 million Capital Provision Agreement (CPA) with an unnamed litigation funder earlier this year. Emmerson explained that this initial draw down will cover all the company’s legal costs to date, whilst allowing its legal team to prepare and complete the next steps in the arbitration proceedings brought against the Moroccan government.

The announcement also detailed that alongside this first draw down, Emmerson and its subsidiaries in the UK and Morocco have “granted certain securities and charges over their assets to the funding counterparty in relation to amounts drawn down.”

The company explained that this is a normal action for litigation funding agreements, with the granting of these securities not to be enforced unless Emmerson fails to meet its obligations under the CPA.

The beginning of 2025 has already been a busy few months for Heirloom Fair Legal, with the funder expanding to the UK through its acquisition of Hayes Connor Solicitors last month, and the legal finance company is continuing to build on that momentum through two new appointments.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the appointment of two senior executives at Heirloom Fair Legal (HFL), with Steve Din and Phil Hales joining the funder. Din has taken up the role of senior vice-president at HFL and Hales has been appointed to the position of vice-president of funding relationships, with both sitting on HFL’s investment committee alongside the company’s co-founders.

Both Din and Hales join HFL from Doorway Capital, with Din founding Doorway in 2015 and Hales having spent the last three years at the company as business development director. Commenting on his move to HFL, Din said that the funder’s “larger infrastructure and bespoke approach” would allow them to “provide more flexible structures and be more creative in designing funding packages that meet the legal ecosystem’s needs.”

These new hires form part of HFL’s ambitious growth strategy, with the funder planning to exceed $250 million in funding to law firms and claimants by the end of 2026.

Geoff Dover, co-founder of HFL, highlighted the experience that Din and Hales would bring to the company, pointing out that “at Doorway, they led the way in putting law firms large and small onto solid financial foundations.” Dover went on to add: “We look forward to their contributions toward partnering with law firms and service providers that share our goal of resolving disputes more quickly and cost effectively by combining technology, legal advice and finance solutions.”

Whilst there is much discussion about what level of disclosure should be required around litigation funding, it is rare that outsiders to a claim can gain insight into the structure of these funding agreements. However, the certification of opt-out collective proceedings by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has offered a rare view of one such funding arrangement.

A judgment handed down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday granted the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the case of Bulk Mail Claim Limited v International Distribution Services Plc (formerly Royal Mail Plc). The Tribunal certified the opt-out collective proceedings, finding that the Proposed Class Representative’s (PCR) methodology “is sufficiently credible and plausible”, and further stated that it was “satisfied that there is at least a good arguable case that there has been an overcharge.”

The Bulk Mail Claim focuses on allegations that International Distribution Services abused its market dominance to overcharge customers for its bulk mail services. The proposed class is provisionally estimated to consist of 290,477 customers who purchased bulk mail retail services, with the value of the claim estimated to reach £1 billion. Mr Robin Aaronson, an economist specialising in competition policy, is acting as the director of the PCR and Asertis is providing litigation funding for the claim.

As part of its assessment of the CPO application, the CAT evaluated the terms of the litigation funding agreement between the PCR and Asertis, and found “that they do not appear to be unreasonable.” The judgment also offered some detail on the funder’s return as specified in the agreement, which is laid out below:

“In the event of success, the drawn funds will be repaid, plus a multiplier comprising two elements: a priority multiplier of 1.5x of the drawn funds and a balancing multiplier of 0.5x for the first 12 months. There is also an increase in the balancing multiplier of 0.1875 per every quarter. There is a cap of 5.75 overall, which applies to the aggregate of the priority multiplier and the balancing multiplier.”

The Tribunal also noted that the funding agreement had been amended to address its prior concerns that the agreement “did not expressly specify that prior to any settlement there should be a written legal opinion or memorandum on the proposed settlement.” Similarly, the Tribunal responded to concerns raised by the defendant that “Asertis would not be able to meet an adverse costs order”, finding that the PCR’s legal team had provided confirmation of Asertis’ financial position, bolstered by an ATE insurance policy with “a limit of indemnity of £15 million post-CPO”.

The CAT’s judgment can be read in full here.

More information about the Bulk Mail Claim can be found on its website.

As LFJ covered last week, we are continuing to see a push for new regulations governing third-party legal funding in the U.S., with more and more states moving forward with bills aiming to increase disclosure requirements.

An announcement from the Oklahoma House of Representatives details the passage of House Bill 2619, known as the Foreign Litigation Funding Prevention Act. Much like other bills progressing through state legislatures across the country, HB 2619 has a dual focus on increasing transparency around third-party funding, and on the involvement of foreign actors in domestic litigation. HB 2619 passed the House by a vote of 88-2.

The current draft of the bill requires any party to comply with disclosure requests and produce any commercial litigation funding agreements that they have entered into. Furthermore, the bill dictates that this disclosure must include a certification “as to whether any funds encumbered by the terms of the agreement have been or will be sourced from a foreign state or agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” This certification would also require the disclosure of the identity of the foreign funder. Consumer litigation funding agreements are exempt from these rules.

Representative Erick Harris, who authored the bill, explained the aims of this legislation in the following statement:

"We must ensure that our courts remain a place for justice, free from manipulation by foreign powers seeking to influence the outcomes of cases for their own benefit. This bill strengthens the integrity of Oklahoma's legal system and prohibits foreign adversaries, like Russia and China, from attempting to fund litigation that could undermine the fairness of our courts. This legislation will help preserve the sanctity of our judicial process and protect the rights of Oklahomans from external interference."

The full text of the bill can be accessed on the Oklahoma State Legislature’s website.