Trending Now

All Articles

3490 Articles
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Kansas Governor Approves Litigation Funding Bill with Limited DIsclosure Requirements

By Harry Moran |

Whilst many state legislatures across the U.S. are moving forward with bills imposing blanket restrictions and oversight measures on litigation funding, one state has demonstrated that there is the possibility for legislation to be drafted with a more balanced approach to the issue.

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the passage of a new litigation funding legislation in Kansas, with Governor Laura Kelly approving a bill that seeks to improve transparency around third-party funding whilst still maintaining reasonable levels of confidentiality for those parties involved in funding agreements.

The Substitute for Senate Bill 54 takes a more nuanced approach than similar bills passed by other state legislatures, requiring disclosure of funding arrangements with foreign funders from countries that are considered an adversary by the US government. A further important limitation on the scope of the disclosure requirements in this bill is that it only requires disclosure of the funding agreements to the judge in each case, with no mandatory disclosure to all parties involved in the litigation.

The bill is also notable for being seen as a compromise between two of the most vocal organisations on either side of the debate around the regulation of funding: the International Legal Finance Association and the US Chamber of Commerce, supported by Kansas’ own Chamber of Commerce. 

Paul Kong, executive director of the International Legal Finance Association, thanked the state’s legislature for arriving at “a reasonable, sensible solution”, and urged opponents of the funding industry not to pursue sweeping regulatory bills “that are a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.” Eric Stafford, senior director of government affairs at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, similarly expressed satisfaction that “the opponents from last year’s bill and proponents of the bill have been able to reach a compromise.”

The full text of the bill can be read here.

Announcements People Moves

IQuote Limited Strengthens Senior Leadership Team with New Director Appointment

By Harry Moran |

Manchester-based litigation finance firm IQuote Limited has bolstered its senior leadership team with the appointment of a new Director of Campaigns, reinforcing its commitment to expansion and innovation in the sector.

Stepping into the role is Katie Doherty, an experienced litigation finance specialist with a track record of driving growth and operational success. 

She has held senior positions at various law firms prior and has worked alongside IQuote CEO Craig Cornick for over 15 years across multiple roles.

Katie said she was both delighted and grateful for the opportunity and expressed a keen desire to get started as soon as possible. 

“It’s an incredibly exciting time for IQuote as we continue expanding our legal tech partnerships and investing in new opportunities,” Katie said.  “This is a fast-moving industry, and I’m looking forward to leading campaigns that will drive the firm’s next stage of growth.

“I can’t wait to get stuck in. IQuote has evolved massively in respect of its business offerings, the firms we are investing in, and the different campaigns we are now exploring. You have to be constantly thinking on your feet; there’s never a dull moment.”

Originally aspiring to become a solicitor, Doherty began her career in legal administration before transitioning into finance and business strategy.  She first collaborated with Craig in 2010, playing a key role in business operations, asset management, and claims handling. 

Katie thanked her team at IQuote for all their help and support.

“They have all been fantastic, and I have so much admiration for Craig,” she said.

“For him nothing is impossible; if you say, ‘it can’t be done,’ he will immediately tell you that it can and how you can make it happen.”

Craig Cornick, CEO of IQuote Limited, said: “Katie has been instrumental in the success of multiple businesses I’ve led, and her ability to think strategically while keeping operations running smoothly is unmatched.

“She knows how to build and execute campaigns that deliver real results, and that’s exactly what we need as we continue to scale. Her expertise in litigation finance, combined with her hands-on leadership style, makes her a perfect fit for this role.

“She’s got an incredible work ethic also. From the very start, Katie has always been willing to roll up her sleeves and do whatever it takes to get the job done. 

“Whether it was managing complex operations or jumping in to solve unexpected challenges, she’s always been a problem-solver. That kind of determination is what sets her apart and why I’m confident she’ll drive real impact in this position.”

Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with Sam Ward, Director, Sentinel Legal

By John Freund |
Sam Ward is the Director of Sentinel Legal, the UK’s leading firm specialising in motor finance mis-selling claims, having successfully managed thousands of claims and recovered substantial compensation for consumers who have been mis-sold car finance nationwide.
Sam has taken an unorthodox and bold approach to transparency and marketing. Through engaging video content, insightful podcasts, and candid posts on platforms like LinkedIn, Sam and the entire Sentinel Legal team openly call out unfair practices and share their views and findings publicly, actively redefining what it means to be a consumer champion law firm.
A respected and trusted voice within the industry, Sam regularly provides expert commentary and insightful analysis across major TV Networks and News platforms.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Sam Ward:
You've been closely involved in the motor finance claim issues in the UK, and attended last week's Supreme Court hearings. Can you describe the atmosphere? What stood out to you most about being there in person? There was clear apprehension at the start of Day 1. We arrived at the court around 9:15 am and faced a huge queue, filled with trolleys stacked with lever arch folders and boxes overflowing with documents for the hearings, it was quite a sight. It probably took us 30 minutes just to get inside. The security checks, complete with metal detectors and X-ray machines, set a very serious and somewhat ominous tone, highlighting the significance of the Supreme Court. Entering the courtroom itself, which was like stepping into an old classroom from Hogwarts, really amplified the gravity of the proceedings. What stood out most was the overwhelming presence of the banks' lawyers. Once seated, the consumer representatives, only about 10 out of the 60-70 people present, felt significantly outnumbered. It really was like a David and Goliath. How engaged did the Lords seem with the arguments being presented? Were there particular lines of questioning that surprised or impressed you? The Lords demonstrated extraordinary engagement. Their probing questions seemed driven by a genuine desire to thoroughly understand the complex issues leading up to the Supreme Court hearing. I was particularly impressed by their rigorous exploration of fiduciary duty and what constitutes genuine consumer consent. The questioning was relentless at times, with periodic interruptions from the Lords where exchanges could last 20 to 30 minutes before returning to the oral submissions. A memorable moment for me was Lord Briggs’ pointed comment to Mr Weir KC: "I don’t think you shrink from the implications that probably for the last 75 years, anything up to half the lenders have been acting dishonestly," with Mr Weir KC confidently responding, "My Lord, I do not shy away from that in the slightest." I couldn’t help but quietly fist pump from my uncomfortable wooden mahogany chair that I had now been sat in for 3 days. I understand the courtroom was packed with lenders and their solicitors, with relatively few consumer representatives present. Why the imbalance? And how did that impact your experience?  The imbalance was striking. The courtroom was predominantly occupied by car finance lenders and their legal teams, clearly illustrating the magnitude and resources invested by the car finance lenders. Consumers were nearly shoehorned into corners, highlighting just how crucial consumer advocacy is. The sheer number of bank representatives frantically typing away on laptops almost drowned out the Lords’ voices at times. For me it wasn’t a good look for the car finance lenders, they all seemed full of anxiety and under strict instructions on what to do and when to do it. The collective daily rate of these solicitors must have been staggering across all three days. Especially when they could have listened to it online….. What key takeaways should the legal funding and claimant communities understand about the hearing?  The core takeaway is the strong emphasis on transparency and fairness in financial transactions. The Lords well articulated questions to both appellant and respondent representatives highlighted their genuine want of understanding as to what has actually gone on here and how they might remedy it. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal's unanimous October 2024 judgment, significant shifts in handling undisclosed commissions and conflicts of interest will follow, marking this case as one of the most influential consumer cases in British legal history. This could present substantial opportunities for litigation funders looking for an uncorrelated market to invest in and claimants seeking compensation for mis-sold financial products. How are you and others in the claimant community preparing for what comes next once the judgment is handed down? Sentinel Legal has been one of the leading firms in this space, handling thousands of motor finance claims and recovering over £500,000 in compensation for clients so far, all in the county courts, with no court of appeal or Supreme Court judgement to help us. Currently, we have around 700 claims stayed in UK courts, eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's judgment to progress accordingly. Our systems are robust, tested through extensive litigation, and fully prepared to handle large scale claimant onboarding effectively. We continue actively onboarding new clients who feel they may have been mis-sold their car finance agreement. We are primed and ready to go should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Appeals 2024 Judgement.  Sentinel Legal is the largest and most technologically advanced firm in the motor finance claims sector. We've achieved these results entirely in the county courts, without relying on precedent from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. Our custom built AI models and proprietary claims handling  systems have been built in house and rigorously battle tested through extensive litigation, positioning us uniquely to manage large scale claimant onboarding seamlessly and efficiently. Sam posts debrief videos of his days at court.  You can view the Day 1 video here.
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

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

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Commercial People Moves

Harshiv Thakerar Joins Gallagher as Head of Disputes Risk

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, Gallagher announced the appointment of Harshiv Thakerar as Head of Disputes Risk based in the firm’s Middle East office. 

Thakerar’s new position will see him lead the insurance and risk management company’s dispute resolution practice in the Middle East and Africa, engaging with law firms and litigation funders in the region. Gallagher offers a range of dispute resolution and investment insurance solutions, including after the event (ATE) and contingent legal risk insurance.

Thakerar joins Gallagher having most recently served as Chief Investment Officer at litigation funder Asertis, where he also sat as board director. Thakerar brings a wealth of experience in the legal sector, having also spent time as a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya before moving into the world of litigation funding. Prior to his time at Asertis, Thakerar also held positions as Head of Litigation Funding at Global Growth Capital and Head of Commercial Litigation at Augusta Ventures.

Case Developments Commercial

High Court Rules in Favour of Henderson & Jones in Hearing on £2.15 Million Award

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder £2.15 million in damages

Reporting by ICLG highlights a development in the matter, as a hearing before the High Court last week was set to decide on eight issues arising out of the previous award of damages. The issues which the parties had agreed to resolve before the court included the appropriate level of interest on the judgment sum, the entitlement to indemnity costs and the validity of a Part 36 settlement offer.

On the issue of the interest rate on the judgment sum, the defendants had argued for 1% above the Bank of England’s base rate, whilst Henderson & Jones had argued for 6% above the base rate. The High Court’s determination favoured the claimant, with a rate set at 5% above the base rate, with the court taking into consideration the funder’s position as a small business and the Bank of England’s own data.

As for the validity of Henderson & Jones’ settlement offer that had been made in October 2023, the defendants had argued that it was invalid due to the lack of a defined ‘relevant period’ for the offer to be accepted. The claimant argued that, in line with previous Part 36 offers made in the case, the period was understood to be 21 days. Once again, the court found in favour of the defendant and in acknowledging that the offer was both valid and had been surpassed, the claimant was entitled to additional benefits.

The court denied the defendants’ request to appeal the decision.

Case Developments Commercial

€900 Million Claim Filed Against Google in Netherlands, Funded by LitFin

As LFJ reported in January of this year, the Netherlands is continuing to stand out amongst European jurisdictions for high-value claims that are being brought against multinational corporations with the support of third-party litigation funding.

A post on LinkedIn from LitFin announced the filing of a €900 million claim against Google at the District Court in Amsterdam. The claim follows an investigation by the European Commission in 2017 that found Google had abused its position to give its own comparison-shopping service preferable treatment in search engine results, thereby degrading the visibility of rival shopping services to consumer. As a result, Google was given a €2.4 billion fine in 2017, with the company being unsuccessful in its appeals to the General Court in 2021 and to the CJEU in 2024.

LitFin is providing the litigation funding to support the claim in the Netherlands, with legal representation and support provided by Geradin Partners and Dutch law firm Stek. In addition to working with these two law firms, the claim has been supported by an economic study conducted by competition economists at CRA.

In a separate press release provided to LFJ, LitFin Managing Partner Maroš Kravec issued the following statement on the claim: “Technology giants' market abuse is now the top concern for competition authorities worldwide. We are delighted to help these five comparison shopping services in seeking compensation for the severe harm Google has done to them. We also see this kind of private enforcement action as an essential front in the fight for fair market practices and corporate responsibility in digital markets."

Matej Pardo, Head of High Tech Litigation at LitFin, also commented: “We’re proud to back this claim against Google, not only to secure compensation for those harmed by its anti-competitive practices but also to take a stand in the larger fight against Big Tech’s unchecked power. For too long, giants like Google have exploited their dominance to stifle competition and undermine fair markets. Our action seeks not only to deliver damages for the affected parties we work with but also to play a role in paving the way for a more equitable digital economy where innovation and choice can truly thrive.”

Announcements Commercial People Moves

Litigation Finance Giant Nera Capital Makes High-Profile General Counsel Appointment

By Harry Moran |

Litigation finance leader, Nera Capital, has reinforced its executive team with the appointment of legal heavyweight James Benson as General Counsel, marking a significant milestone in the firm’s expansion.

Benson, an Oxford-educated solicitor with a formidable track record in banking and financial law, brings decades of expertise to the role. 

His career includes key positions at Gately PLC and most recently, Handelsbanken, where he served as Head of Legal, shaping complex financial strategies and high-stakes legal frameworks.

James said: "Joining Nera Capital is an incredible opportunity, and I look forward to leveraging my experience to drive innovation and deliver impactful solutions for our clients.

"In my profession, I’ve seen firsthand how strategic legal funding can unlock access to justice. At Nera Capital, I’m excited to play a key role in making that happen on a larger scale.

"Litigation finance is more than numbers - it’s about people, access to justice, and creating opportunities where they’re needed most. I am excited to bring my expertise to Nera Capital and work alongside a team that shares this vision.”

He continued: "Nera Capital stands at the forefront of the sector, and I’m honoured to be part of such a dynamic team. Together, we will continue to set new standards in the industry."

During his career, James has become an expert in navigating financial services, developing tailored specialisms including loan arrangements, deal structuring, fixed and floating security and intercreditor agreements.

The new hire is the latest in a series of milestones for Nera, who last month surpassed $100 million in investor returns within 28 months, thereby firmly establishing itself as a leading light in the legal finance sector. 

The company has numerous other legal and financial successes under its belt, including funding a plethora of highly successful cases across the globe.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne highlighted that she was pleased and honoured to welcome James to the management team.

“James’ depth of experience in both legal and financial services makes him an invaluable addition to our leadership team as we continue to drive innovation in litigation finance,” she said.

Announcements Consumer

34% of Americans Trust ChatGPT Over Human Experts, But Not for Legal or Medical Advice

By Harry Moran |

A newly released study from Express Legal Funding, conducted with the help of SurveyMonkey, reveals that while 34% of Americans say they trust ChatGPT more than human experts, the majority still draw a hard line when it comes to using generative AI for serious matters like legal or medical advice. The findings highlight a growing national tension between fascination with artificial intelligence and fear of misusing it for high-stakes decisions.

Key Findings from the ChatGPT Trust Survey:

  • 60% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to seek advice or information—signaling widespread awareness and early adoption.
  • Of those who used it, 70% said the advice was helpful, suggesting that users generally find value in the chatbot's responses.
  • The most trusted use cases for ChatGPT are:
    • Career advice
    • Educational support
    • Product recommendations
  • The least trusted use cases are:
    • Legal advice
    • Medical advice
  • 34% of respondents say they trust ChatGPT more than a human expert in at least one area.
  • Despite its growing popularity, only 11.1% believe ChatGPT will improve their personal financial situation.
  • Younger adults (ages 18–29) and Android and iPhone users report significantly higher trust in ChatGPT compared to older generations and Desktop (Mac/Windows) users.
  • Older adults and high-income earners remain the most skeptical about ChatGPT's reliability and societal role.
  • When asked about the broader implications of AI, only 14.1% of respondents strongly agree that ChatGPT will benefit humanity.

Expert Insight:

"This study highlights how many Americans are navigating the fast-growing influence of generative AI and natural language processing agents in their daily lives and that ChatGPT is far from being just a fringe use tool," said Aaron Winston, PhD, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding and lead author of the report. "Most people are open to using ChatGPT for advice—and over a third even say they trust it more than a human expert. But when it comes to high-stakes decisions involving legal, financial, or medical matters, most still prefer real-world professionals. It's a sign that while AI is gaining ground quickly, trust is still tied to context."

Why It Matters:

As AI tools like ChatGPT become more integrated into everyday life, understanding where people draw the line between curiosity and trust is critical. This distinction helps reveal not only how Americans are using AI today but also where they're still relying on human expertise for reassurance and accuracy.

About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a leading pre-settlement funding company headquartered in Plano, Texas, serving plaintiffs nationwide. Recognized for its commitment to ethical funding practices and consumer advocacy, the firm provides non-recourse financial support to individuals involved in personal injury and civil lawsuits—helping clients cover essential living expenses while their legal claims move forward. Beyond funding, Express Legal Funding is a trusted voice in the legal tech and finance space, publishing original research and data-driven insights that inform public discourse and guide industry best practices.