Trending Now

All Articles

4003 Articles
Commercial

Mastercard and Visa Secure Appeal in UK Multilateral Interchange Fee Battle

By John Freund |

The London Court of Appeal has granted Mastercard and Visa permission to challenge a landmark ruling that found their multilateral interchange fees in breach of European competition law, extending one of the most significant funded litigation battles in UK history.

As reported by PYMNTS, the appeal follows a unanimous June 2025 decision by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal in favor of hundreds of merchants who alleged they had been paying excessive fees.

Both payment networks welcomed the ruling. A Visa representative stated that interchange is "a critical component to maintaining a secure digital payments ecosystem that benefits all parties." Scott+Scott, the law firm representing the merchant claimants, called the original tribunal decision "a significant win for all merchants" and expressed confidence in defending it on appeal.

The case has drawn significant attention from the litigation funding community, as merchant claims against card networks have become a major category of funded litigation in the UK. Similar proceedings continue in the United States, where the Visa-Mastercard interchange fee class action produced a settlement estimated between $5.56 billion and $6.26 billion.

Federal Reserve research indicates that approximately 86 percent of interchange fees fund cardholder rewards programs — a dynamic at the center of the ongoing legal disputes on both sides of the Atlantic.

Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with John Lopes, Head of Specialty Legal Banking, First Horizon

By John Freund |

John Lopes is a market-leading bank executive and recognized authority in financial solutions for the plaintiff-side legal industry. As Senior Managing Director and Head of Specialized Legal Banking at First Horizon Bank, he leads a national platform focused on delivering capital, deposit, and technology solutions to contingency-based law firms, mass tort practices, claims administrators, and Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).

John began his career over 20 years ago advising AM Law firms, building a strong foundation in traditional legal banking and developing deep expertise in the operational and financial dynamics of large defense-side practices. He later held leadership roles at institutions including Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Western Alliance Bank, where he managed significant portfolios, built high-performing teams, and executed strategic growth initiatives across the legal vertical.

Over a decade ago, John identified a critical gap in the market and shifted his focus to the plaintiff side of the bar—where firms face unique challenges related to contingent revenue, cash flow volatility, and complex settlement structures. Since then, he has become a trusted advisor to many of the nation's leading plaintiff law firms and ecosystem partners, structuring sophisticated credit facilities, supporting billions of dollars in settlement flows, and delivering innovative banking solutions across the full lifecycle of litigation.

John is known for his ability to bridge capital, technology, and legal strategy—partnering with law firms, claims administrators, and litigation finance providers to drive growth, enhance liquidity, and create operational efficiency at scale. Through his leadership, he continues to position First Horizon as a premier banking partner to the plaintiff bar, bringing institutional-grade capabilities to a rapidly evolving segment of the legal industry.

He holds a background in financial markets from Yale University and has continued to build on that foundation through executive education with the Yale School of Management.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Lopes:

What gaps in the settlement and mass tort landscape led you to build a dedicated Settlement Services platform?

Historically, most banks approached settlement accounts as transactional escrow relationships rather than as a specialized vertical requiring tailored infrastructure. As mass tort and class action settlements have grown in size and complexity, that model became insufficient.

We saw several structural gaps:

  • Lack of dedicated infrastructure for high-volume sub-accounting and audit transparency
  • Limited understanding of QSF governance, fiduciary responsibilities, and multi-party oversight
  • Manual disbursement processes that created inefficiencies and risk
  • Inflexible credit solutions for contingency firms managing large case inventories

We built our Specialty Legal Banking group to address those gaps holistically — combining dedicated settlement banking, digital sub-accounting, modern disbursement capabilities, and tailored financing solutions under one coordinated platform.

Rather than treating settlements as ancillary deposits, we treat them as a highly specialized ecosystem requiring neutrality, transparency, and purpose-built technology.

Courts increasingly demand transparency and auditability. How do you see expectations evolving around reporting and fiduciary accountability?

Expectations are rising meaningfully. Judges and special masters now expect:

  • Real-time visibility into balances
  • Clear segregation of funds at the claimant or fee level
  • Transparent interest allocation methodologies
  • Clean audit trails across every transaction

In complex QSFs, accountability is no longer theoretical — it must be demonstrable.

We've responded by building a platform that allows structured sub-accounting at scale, defined user permissions (analyst vs. approver roles), exportable audit logs, and reporting that aligns with court oversight requirements.

The future standard will be near real-time transparency, not quarterly reconciliation. Specialized banks must offer specialized infrastructure to the settlement process — not just holding funds.

What are the most significant fraud or AML risks facing settlement administrators today, and how can institutions mitigate them without slowing distributions?

The scale and speed of modern distributions introduce new risk vectors:

  • Synthetic identity and claimant impersonation
  • Payment redirection and ACH fraud
  • Social engineering attacks targeting administrators
  • Sanctions and cross-border payment compliance risk

The key is not adding friction — but adding intelligent controls. Financial institutions must offer:

  • Multi-layer payment verification protocols
  • OFAC and sanctions screening at both onboarding and disbursement
  • Segregated user permissions and dual-approval workflows
  • Positive pay and transaction monitoring services

Technology should accelerate payments while reducing exposure. The answer is not slowing distributions — it's modernizing controls around them.

Claimants now expect faster access to funds and more flexibility in how they receive payments. How is innovation reshaping the claimant experience?

The claimant experience is evolving dramatically.

Traditional paper checks are increasingly insufficient. Claimants now expect options — ACH, prepaid cards, digital wallets, and other electronic modalities — delivered quickly and securely.

Real-time rails and digital disbursement platforms are reshaping expectations around:

  • Speed
  • Choice
  • Transparency of payment status

At the same time, the institution must provide tools so that flexibility coexists with compliance and oversight.

The institutions that succeed will be those that can offer multiple payment modalities within a controlled, audit-ready environment. That's where innovation truly adds value — not just convenience, but structured efficiency.

As litigation finance and aggregate settlements continue to grow, what role should specialized settlement banks play in reinforcing neutrality and trust?

As capital flows increase in mass tort and aggregate litigation, neutrality becomes even more critical. A specialized settlement bank must function as a stabilizing counterparty amid multi-party financial arrangements. In large aggregate settlements — especially where litigation finance is involved — clarity around control, reporting, and fee segregation becomes paramount.

Our role is not to influence outcomes, but to provide a compliant, transparent, and scalable platform that reinforces trust across all stakeholders: plaintiffs' firms, defense counsel, administrators, courts, and capital providers.

Ultimately, trust in the settlement process depends on financial infrastructure that is purpose-built for complexity — and governed by strong compliance standards.

Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with John Lopes, Head of Specialty Legal Banking, First Horizon

John Lopes is a market-leading bank executive and recognized authority in financial solutions for the plaintiff-side legal industry. As Senior Managing Director and Head of Specialized Legal Banking at First Horizon Bank, he leads a national platform focused on delivering capital, deposit, and technology solutions to contingency-based law firms, mass tort practices, claims administrators, and Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).

John began his career over 20 years ago advising AM Law firms, building a strong foundation in traditional legal banking and developing deep expertise in the operational and financial dynamics of large defense-side practices. He later held leadership roles at institutions including Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Western Alliance Bank, where he managed significant portfolios, built high-performing teams, and executed strategic growth initiatives across the legal vertical.

Over a decade ago, John identified a critical gap in the market and shifted his focus to the plaintiff side of the bar—where firms face unique challenges related to contingent revenue, cash flow volatility, and complex settlement structures. Since then, he has become a trusted advisor to many of the nation's leading plaintiff law firms and ecosystem partners, structuring sophisticated credit facilities, supporting billions of dollars in settlement flows, and delivering innovative banking solutions across the full lifecycle of litigation.

John is known for his ability to bridge capital, technology, and legal strategy—partnering with law firms, claims administrators, and litigation finance providers to drive growth, enhance liquidity, and create operational efficiency at scale. Through his leadership, he continues to position First Horizon as a premier banking partner to the plaintiff bar, bringing institutional-grade capabilities to a rapidly evolving segment of the legal industry.

He holds a background in financial markets from Yale University and has continued to build on that foundation through executive education with the Yale School of Management.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Lopes:

What gaps in the settlement and mass tort landscape led you to build a dedicated Settlement Services platform?

Historically, most banks approached settlement accounts as transactional escrow relationships rather than as a specialized vertical requiring tailored infrastructure. As mass tort and class action settlements have grown in size and complexity, that model became insufficient.

We saw several structural gaps:

  • Lack of dedicated infrastructure for high-volume sub-accounting and audit transparency
  • Limited understanding of QSF governance, fiduciary responsibilities, and multi-party oversight
  • Manual disbursement processes that created inefficiencies and risk
  • Inflexible credit solutions for contingency firms managing large case inventories

We built our Specialty Legal Banking group to address those gaps holistically — combining dedicated settlement banking, digital sub-accounting, modern disbursement capabilities, and tailored financing solutions under one coordinated platform.

Rather than treating settlements as ancillary deposits, we treat them as a highly specialized ecosystem requiring neutrality, transparency, and purpose-built technology.

Courts increasingly demand transparency and auditability. How do you see expectations evolving around reporting and fiduciary accountability?

Expectations are rising meaningfully. Judges and special masters now expect:

  • Real-time visibility into balances
  • Clear segregation of funds at the claimant or fee level
  • Transparent interest allocation methodologies
  • Clean audit trails across every transaction

In complex QSFs, accountability is no longer theoretical — it must be demonstrable.

We've responded by building a platform that allows structured sub-accounting at scale, defined user permissions (analyst vs. approver roles), exportable audit logs, and reporting that aligns with court oversight requirements.

The future standard will be near real-time transparency, not quarterly reconciliation. Specialized banks must offer specialized infrastructure to the settlement process — not just holding funds.

What are the most significant fraud or AML risks facing settlement administrators today, and how can institutions mitigate them without slowing distributions?

The scale and speed of modern distributions introduce new risk vectors:

  • Synthetic identity and claimant impersonation
  • Payment redirection and ACH fraud
  • Social engineering attacks targeting administrators
  • Sanctions and cross-border payment compliance risk

The key is not adding friction — but adding intelligent controls. Financial institutions must offer:

  • Multi-layer payment verification protocols
  • OFAC and sanctions screening at both onboarding and disbursement
  • Segregated user permissions and dual-approval workflows
  • Positive pay and transaction monitoring services

Technology should accelerate payments while reducing exposure. The answer is not slowing distributions — it's modernizing controls around them.

Claimants now expect faster access to funds and more flexibility in how they receive payments. How is innovation reshaping the claimant experience?

The claimant experience is evolving dramatically.

Traditional paper checks are increasingly insufficient. Claimants now expect options — ACH, prepaid cards, digital wallets, and other electronic modalities — delivered quickly and securely.

Real-time rails and digital disbursement platforms are reshaping expectations around:

  • Speed
  • Choice
  • Transparency of payment status

At the same time, the institution must provide tools so that flexibility coexists with compliance and oversight.

The institutions that succeed will be those that can offer multiple payment modalities within a controlled, audit-ready environment. That's where innovation truly adds value — not just convenience, but structured efficiency.

As litigation finance and aggregate settlements continue to grow, what role should specialized settlement banks play in reinforcing neutrality and trust?

As capital flows increase in mass tort and aggregate litigation, neutrality becomes even more critical. A specialized settlement bank must function as a stabilizing counterparty amid multi-party financial arrangements. In large aggregate settlements — especially where litigation finance is involved — clarity around control, reporting, and fee segregation becomes paramount.

Our role is not to influence outcomes, but to provide a compliant, transparent, and scalable platform that reinforces trust across all stakeholders: plaintiffs' firms, defense counsel, administrators, courts, and capital providers.

Ultimately, trust in the settlement process depends on financial infrastructure that is purpose-built for complexity — and governed by strong compliance standards.

Commercial

California Targets Litigation Funding with New Regulations

By John Freund |

California lawmakers are pursuing new regulations aimed at the litigation funding industry, adding the state to a growing list of jurisdictions seeking to impose oversight on third-party funding practices.

As reported by the Daily Journal, California legislators have introduced measures that would bring increased transparency and regulatory scrutiny to the litigation funding sector. The move comes as states across the country grapple with how to regulate an industry that has grown rapidly in recent years.

The proposed regulations reflect broader national momentum toward litigation funding oversight. Several states have already enacted or proposed disclosure requirements and other regulatory frameworks, while federal legislation including the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 remains under debate in Congress.

California's entry into the regulatory conversation is significant given the state's outsized role in the U.S. legal market. As one of the largest jurisdictions for both consumer and commercial litigation, any regulatory framework adopted in California could serve as a model for other states considering similar measures.

The development adds to an increasingly active regulatory landscape for litigation funders, who face growing calls for transparency from lawmakers, courts, and industry groups alike.

Commercial

Australian Court Rules Against Litigation Capital Management Client

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management saw its shares decline after an Australian court delivered an unfavorable judgment against one of its funded clients in a commercial dispute.

As reported by Sharecast, LCM had invested A$1.4 million of shareholder capital in what it described as a "small case investment." The company confirmed that the court found against its funded party, sending shares down approximately 6.5% in early trading.

LCM stated that it has after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse cost risks associated with the ruling. The firm is currently reassessing the judgment alongside its legal representatives and the funded party, and is exploring potential next steps including the possibility of an appeal.

The outcome highlights the inherent risk-reward dynamics of the litigation funding model. While funders conduct extensive due diligence before committing capital, court outcomes remain uncertain. ATE insurance policies, which cover legal costs and disbursements if claimants lose their cases, serve as a protective measure against precisely this type of result.

LCM, which operates as a dispute financing solutions firm focused on commercial litigation, continues to manage a broader portfolio of funded cases across multiple jurisdictions.

Commercial

Arbitration Finance Moves Into the Mainstream for Mining Disputes, Says Burford Capital

By John Freund |

Third-party arbitration financing has evolved from a niche practice into a mainstream strategic tool for mining companies facing international disputes, according to a senior Burford Capital director.

As reported by The Northern Miner, Burford Capital Director Jeffery Commission outlined how the sector has matured significantly. Commission noted that international arbitrations are "increasingly expensive," with average spend reaching at least $5 million and cases typically spanning three to five years.

The mining industry has been at the forefront of litigation funding adoption. Some of the earliest funded cases involved mining disputes, with Canadian junior mining companies pursuing claims against Latin American governments proving especially successful. Data shows rising numbers of mining-related disputes across major arbitration institutions including ICSID and the International Chamber of Commerce.

Burford's selection process remains highly rigorous — the firm rejects approximately 95% of claims it reviews. Key evaluation criteria include claimants' track records, project advancement stages, and respondent countries' histories of honoring arbitral awards.

Beyond cost-pressured junior miners, well-capitalized companies are now using arbitration finance strategically to monetize existing awards and deploy freed-up capital into core mining operations.

Commercial

Omni Bridgeway CEO Raymond Van Hulst Discusses Firm’s Strategy in MST Access Spotlight Interview

Omni Bridgeway CEO Raymond Van Hulst sat down with MST Access for an in-depth interview on the firm's strategic positioning and outlook in the global litigation funding market.

As reported by MST Access via Mondaq, Van Hulst discussed Omni Bridgeway's investment approach and the growing opportunities for institutional capital in dispute financing.

The interview comes at a pivotal time for Omni Bridgeway. The firm recently closed a landmark transaction with Ares Management, which acquired a 70% stake in an Omni Bridgeway continuation vehicle for over $200 million. The deal underscored the increasing appetite among institutional investors for exposure to litigation finance as an alternative asset class.

Omni Bridgeway reported strong first-half FY26 results, with positive investment and financial performance across its portfolio. The firm continues to operate across multiple jurisdictions, funding commercial litigation, international arbitration, and enforcement proceedings worldwide.

The discussion highlighted how the litigation funding industry is maturing, with established funders like Omni Bridgeway attracting significant institutional backing and expanding the range of dispute financing solutions available to claimants and law firms.

Commercial

Meta and Google Pivot Defense in Funded Social Media Addiction Trial to Plaintiff’s Personal History

By John Freund |

Meta and Google are shifting their defense strategy in a landmark social media addiction trial, turning attention to the 20-year-old plaintiff's personal circumstances rather than platform design. The case is backed by litigation funder Flashlight Capital through the Social Media Victims Law Center, with potentially billions of dollars at stake across related claims.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Meta plans to call the plaintiff's therapists as witnesses to argue that her psychological issues stem from "turmoil in her family and school life rather than the platforms." Google intends to present YouTube usage data showing the plaintiff averaged only 30 minutes of daily use, contending that is not enough to qualify as addiction.

Meta stated that "the evidence simply doesn't support reducing a lifetime of hardship to a single factor," signaling a defense built around causation rather than product safety. The approach marks a notable pivot from earlier phases of the litigation, which focused more directly on platform design and algorithmic recommendations.

The case is being closely watched across the litigation finance industry as a bellwether for social media mass tort claims. Flashlight Capital's involvement underscores the growing role of third-party funders in backing large-scale consumer harm litigation, particularly in emerging areas where individual plaintiffs may lack the resources to take on major technology companies.

Commercial

Arizona ABS Law Firms Face New Limits on Out-of-State Business

By John Freund |

Arizona's Judicial Council has approved new restrictions on the state's alternative business structure program, requiring ABS law firms to provide direct legal services and maintain meaningful operations within the state.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the updated rules mandate that ABS firms "provide legal services — not just make referrals to other lawyers" and "devote at least part of their business to serving people in Arizona." The changes target firms that have used the ABS designation primarily as a vehicle for out-of-state business or referral networks.

Arizona's ABS program, which permits law firms to accept outside investment and have non-lawyer owners, was designed to reduce legal service costs for state residents. The model has attracted significant interest from litigation funders and investors seeking to participate in law firm economics, including through management service organizations that own administrative functions of legal practices.

The restrictions signal the Judicial Council's intent to ensure the program delivers on its original promise of expanding access to justice within Arizona rather than serving as a regulatory arbitrage opportunity. The development is significant for the litigation finance industry, as alternative business structures represent one of the most direct pathways for outside capital to flow into legal services delivery. Other states considering similar programs will likely watch Arizona's evolving framework closely.