A new player is entering the international disputes arena—this time with a distinct twist on legal funding. Gryphon Law has officially launched as the first law firm globally to specialize in contingency-fee representation for cross-border disputes.

Gryphon Law aims to offer an alternative to third-party litigation funding by shouldering the cost of legal claims in return for a share of the outcome. Based in New York and with plans to expand into London and Miami, the firm targets clients who might otherwise turn to traditional funders, offering instead to partner with them directly through performance-based fee structures.

The firm was founded by John Templeman, a seasoned international disputes attorney qualified in New York, England & Wales, and Australia, who previously held roles at leading global law firms. Templeman has assembled a multilingual team capable of handling the full lifecycle of international litigation and arbitration in English, Spanish, and French—from initiation to enforcement. Co-founding the venture is Daura Dutour, an 18-year disputes veteran with experience in the U.S., France, and Haiti, supported by three additional associates.

Templeman stated: "I believe there's a real opportunity in the market to provide clients with an appealing alternative to third party funding, particularly in the sub-US$30 million value range below where many of the funders operate. I've been fortunate to assemble a world-class team of disputes lawyers who share this vision – we're looking forward to contributing to this rapidly evolving field.”

Gryphon Law’s business model suggests a more vertically integrated approach to litigation finance—embedding the funder role within the law firm itself. For clients, this could mean greater alignment of interests, fewer intermediaries, and possibly reduced costs when compared to traditional third-party funding arrangements.

The following was contributed by Francesco Dialti, Partner of CBA Studio Legale.

Litigation funding is a mechanism that is gradually taking root in the Italian market. In turn, application of Italian securitization mechanism to litigation funding is a very recent phenomenon.

So far, there had been only a few securitization transactions to fund private antitrust enforcement. 

Last August, finally the first Italian law securitization exclusively dedicated to fund litigation of claims for personal injuries was successfully completed, which represents a milestone for the development of the litigation funding market in Italy.

The transaction – carried out by the special purpose vehicle Prontodanno.it SPV 1 S.r.l., with the assistance of CBA Studio Legale as legal advisor – involves a target portfolio of over 500 claims, with a prospective value of €70 million, for compensation, under contractual and/or non-contractual liability, for personal injuries suffered by individuals as a result of medical malpractice or road accidents or accidents at work.

In the context of the transaction, Prontodanno.it S.r.l. acts as asset manager and Centotrenta Servicing S.p.A. as servicer. This note aims to provide a brief overview of such transaction, focusing in particular on its main structural and operational aspects. From a structural point of view, the transaction qualifies as a true sale securitization.

In order to aggregate as many claims as possible, it is a multi-originator transaction, with the assignors being individuals resident in Italy who own a potential right to compensation for damages suffered as a result of medical malpractice, road accidents or workplace accidents.

The purchase of these claims by a special purpose vehicle (SPV), set up specifically for this purpose under Italian law 130/1999, is financed through the issuance of partly-paid asset-backed securities (ABS), subscribed by a number of professional investors, including family offices and holding companies of some well-known Italian entrepreneurial families.

In particular, by subscribing to the securities and paying to the SPV the relevant subscription price – partly at the time of issue of the ABS and partly during the so-called “investment period” (see below) – the noteholders provide the SPV with the necessary funds not only to purchase the claims, but also to pay the relevant litigation costs.

The transaction has a revolving nature: cash flows generated by the collection of the claims, for a defined term (the “investment period”), are used exclusively to purchase new claims and finance the litigation costs; i.e., in the first phase, there is no repayment of capital to investors.

In order to cover the purchase price of new claims and the litigation costs to be incurred during the transaction, the SPV shall mainly use (i) the initial payments made by the noteholders at the time of subscription of the ABS and (ii) the amounts collected from time to time by the SPV from the claims. If such proceeds are insufficient to purchase new claims and/or finance ongoing litigation, the SPV may request additional payments from the noteholders until expiry of the investment period. 

It is to be noted that, as expressly provided under Italian securitization law, the claims and all related collections constitute assets segregated from all other assets of the SPV, being available exclusively to satisfy the SPV's obligations to the noteholders and any other creditor of the SPV in relation to the relevant transaction.

The asset manager Prontodanno.it S.r.l. has been appointed to select and evaluate the claims, while Centotrenta Servicing S.p.A., acting as servicer supervised by the Bank of Italy in accordance with applicable Italian legislation, is responsible for verifying the compliance of the transaction with the law and the relevant prospectus, as well as for the management and recovery of the claims.

--

Francesco Dialti is a Partner and heads the Banking & Finance and Capital Markets practices. He has gained considerable experience in advising Italian and international banks on banking law, asset finance and structured finance. He advises financial institutions, companies and investors on real estate finance, project finance, asset finance and structured finance.

He is recognised by Chambers & Partners; Legal 500 ranks him as Leading Partner in B&F Lender side, as Recommended Lawyer in B&F Borrower side and Shipping, as Key Lawyer in Energy; Best Lawyers ranks him as Recommended Lawyer in Banking and Finance. IFLR1000 recognised him as Highly Regarded in B&F and in Project Finance, Leaders League and Lexology Index placed him in the Banking & Finance category.

At the Client Choice Awards, he was honoured in the Banking category in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2022.

A new UK class action against Apple is set to test the boundaries of competition law and collective redress, with global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway stepping in to finance the case. James Daley, a well-known consumer advocate and founder of Fairer Finance, is spearheading the action with the backing of Milberg London LLP, targeting Apple’s alleged abuse of market dominance through its Apple Pay platform.

According to the claim website, the proposed class action—believed to represent as many as 50 million UK consumers—centers on Apple’s practice of restricting iPhone users to Apple Pay as the sole mobile wallet option, and imposing fees on card issuers that are ultimately passed on to consumers. Legal proceedings are expected to be filed before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal within weeks.

Daley has assembled a high-profile team, including King’s Counsel Thomas de la Mare and economists from Oxera Consulting, to support the claim. Milberg’s Zena Prodromou and James Oldnall lead the legal team, and this marks the third competition claim in as many years for the firm’s increasingly active antitrust litigation practice.

Omni Bridgeway's Investment Manager Simon Latham praised the effort, saying, “Class actions are vital as they often represent the only avenue for consumers to gain access to justice.”

If successful, the case could reshape how platform monopolies are challenged in the UK and open the door for more consumer-focused litigation funders to support broad-based claims. As collective actions continue to gain traction in UK courts, litigation funding will remain a crucial enabler in holding dominant tech firms accountable.

A new international alliance of litigation finance professionals has been launched to streamline cross-border collaboration in the legal funding industry. Global Litigation Funding (GLF) brings together an initial cohort of independent litigation funding advisors and consultants with the aim of creating a smarter, faster, and more trusted network for legal finance across jurisdictions.

A LinkedIn post states that the alliance was founded by a group of well-known industry professionals, including Peter Petyt (4 Rivers), Kishore Jaichandani (Caveat Capital), Chris Garvey (Sachenga & Co.), Miko Burzec (independent advisor), and Dinesh Natarajan (Trident Strategy). Each of the founding members brings regional specialization and deep domain knowledge in litigation funding, legaltech, asset tracing, and financial structuring.

GLF’s strategy centers on collective intelligence and pooled resources. The alliance aims to improve deal execution capabilities by sharing insights, contacts, infrastructure, and back-office support. Members are positioned across key legal markets, offering clients both local insight and the reach of a global network. The alliance is not itself a fund but functions as a coordinated platform for funding advisors and stakeholders seeking to deliver cross-border legal finance solutions.

Each founding firm brings a complementary strength: 4 Rivers offers deep brokerage experience, Caveat Capital is known for its bespoke case structuring, Sachenga & Co. has earned Chambers recognition, Trident Strategy focuses on sports-related disputes, and Miko Burzec has a background in capital raising and institutional advisory.

GLF’s formation comes amid rising demand for globally coordinated litigation funding strategies. As legal disputes grow increasingly international, this kind of collaboration-focused model may serve as a blueprint for the future.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Summary: Consumer legal funding (CLF) is a non-recourse financial product that helps people meet essential living expenses while their legal claims are pending. It does not finance lawsuits, dictate strategy, or control settlements. In fact, every state that has enacted CLF statutes has explicitly banned providers from influencing the litigation process.

1) What Consumer Legal Funding Is

CLF provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance, typically a few thousand dollars to individuals awaiting resolution of a claim. These funds are used for rent, food, childcare, or car payments, not for legal fees or trial costs. If the case is lost, the consumer owes nothing.

CLF is not an investment in lawsuits or law firms, it is an investment in the consumer. 

2) Why Control Is Banned

The attorney–client relationship is central to the justice system. CLF statutes protect it by prohibiting funders from interfering. Common provisions include:
- No control over litigation strategy or settlement.
- No right to select attorneys or direct discovery.
- No settlement vetoes. Only the client, guided by counsel, makes those decisions.
- No fee-sharing or referral payments.
- No practice of law. Funders cannot provide legal advice.

These bans are spelled out in statutes across the country. Violating them exposes providers to penalties, voided contracts, and regulatory action.

3) Non-Recourse Structure Removes Leverage

Control requires leverage, but CLF offers none. Because repayment is only due if the consumer recovers, providers cannot demand monthly payments or seize assets. They do not fund litigation costs, so they cannot threaten to cut off discovery or expert testimony. The consumer retains ownership of the claim and full authority over all decisions.

4) Ethical Safeguards Reinforce Statutes

Even without statutory language, attorney ethics rules bar outside influence:
- Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
- Confidentiality rules prevent improper information-sharing.
- No fee-sharing with non-lawyers ensures funders cannot 'buy' influence.
- The decision to settle rests solely with the client, not third parties.

Together, these rules and statutes guarantee that litigation decisions remain with client and counsel.

5) Market Realities: Why Control Makes No Sense

CLF contracts are relatively small, especially compared to the cost of litigation. They are designed to cover groceries and rent, not discovery budgets or jury consultants. Trying to control a case would be both unlawful and economically irrational.

Because repayment is contingent, funders want efficient and fair resolutions, not drawn-out litigation. Their interests align with consumers and counsel: achieving just outcomes at reasonable speed.

6) Addressing Misconceptions

- Myth: Funders push for bigger settlements.
  Fact: They cannot veto settlements. Dragging out cases only increases risk and cost.

- Myth: Funders get privileged information.
  Fact: Attorneys control disclosures; privilege remains intact. Access to limited case status updates does not confer control.

- Myth: CLF pressure consumers to reject fair settlements.
  Fact: Statutes forbid interference. And because advances are non-recourse, consumers are not personally liable beyond case proceeds.

- Myth: CLF is an assignment of the claim.
  Fact: Consumers remain the sole parties in interest. Providers have only a contingent repayment right.

7) How Statutes Work in Practice

States that regulate CLF typically require:
1. Plain-language contracts advising consumers to consult counsel.
2. Cooling-off periods for rescission.
3. Bright-line bans on control over strategy or settlement.
4. No fee-sharing or referral payments.
5. Regulatory oversight through registration or examination.
6. Civil remedies for violations.

This model balances access to financial stability with ironclad protections for litigation independence.

8) The Consumer’s Perspective

CLF does not alter case strategy; it alters life circumstances. Without it, many injured individuals face eviction, repossession, or the inability to pay basic bills. That pressure can lead to ‘forced settlements.' By covering essentials, CLF allows clients to consider their lawyer’s advice based on legal merits, not immediate financial desperation.

9) Compliance in Contracts

Standard CLF contracts reflect the law:
- Providers have no authority over legal decisions.
- Attorneys owe duties solely to clients.
- Terms granting control are void and unenforceable.

National providers adopt these clauses uniformly, even in states without explicit statutes, creating a strong industry baseline.

10) Enforcement and Oversight

Regulators can discipline providers, void unlawful terms, or impose penalties. Attorneys risk ethics sanctions if they allow third-party interference. Consumers may also have remedies under statute. These enforcement tools make attempted control both illegal and unprofitable.

11) Policy Rationale

Legislatures designed CLF frameworks to achieve two goals:
1. Preserve litigation integrity by keeping decisions between client and counsel.
2. Expand access to justice by giving consumers breathing room while claims proceed.

The explicit statutory bans on control ensure both goals are met.

Conclusion

Consumer legal funding is a support tool for people, not a lever over lawsuits. Statutes across the country make this crystal clear: CLF providers cannot influence litigation strategy, cannot veto settlements, and cannot practice law. The product is non-recourse, small in scale, and tightly regulated.

For consumers, CLF offers stability during difficult times. For the justice system, it preserves the attorney–client relationship and the independence of litigation. The result is access to justice without interference—because control of litigation is not only absent, but also expressly banned by law.