Although the funded cases that tend to attract the most attention are those that are valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, there is clearly still an appetite for legal funding aimed at smaller cases that require less capital and faster turnaround times.

In a post on LinkedIn, Mark Sands, Head of Insolvency at Apex Litigation Finance, announced the launch of a new low-value litigation funding and ATE facility: Virtus. The new facility is being launched by Howden Insurance Brokers, with Apex and Ignite Speciality Risk acting as exclusive providers of litigation funding and ATE insurance, respectively.

The Virtus facility is designed to provide law firms and their clients with quick access to legal funding up to £750,000, along with ATE insurance cover up to £100,000. Sands explains that this new product is aimed at clients looking to unlock small to medium size commercial claims. In order to meet these requirements, the Virtus facility offers guaranteed turnaround times including funding sign-off within 10 working days and an ATE insurance offer within 5 working days.

Sands directs any parties looking for more information or to start an application for funding to contact: Katie.Armstrong@HowdenGroup.com 

As LFJ reported last month, Heirloom Fair Legal began the year by announcing that it is acquiring Hayes Connor Solicitors and launching its own law firm, HFL Law. Since then, the legal finance company has clearly indicated its plans for growth with the appointment of one senior team member amid a wider recruitment drive.

In a post on LinkedIn, Heirloom Fair Legal announced the appointment of Georgios Tzoumakas as Director of Capital & Investor Relations in the company’s Family Office division. The company explained that Tzoumakas will have oversight of all the division’s operations and be responsible for “developing tailored strategies to support the capital raising process, while fostering long-term relationships built on trust and excellence.”

In addition to the appointment of Tzoumakas, Heirloom has also posted several hiring notices in the weeks following the announcement of its major acquisition. These include London-based opportunities for a Controller and COFA, and a Senior Legal Finance Analyst, as well as a vacant Paralegal position in Manchester.

In a series of posts across LinkedIn yesterday, Burford Capital announced a range of promotions and appointments across its operations in the U.S. and UK, with promotions handed out in the funder’s Chicago, New York and London offices.

The full list of announced promotions are as follows:

• Chris Freeman, promoted from Director to Managing Director (Chicago)
• Alyx Pattison, promoted from Senior Vice President to Director (Chicago)
• Hannah Howlett, promoted from Vice President to Senior Vice President (London)
• David Helfenbein, promoted from Vice President, Public Relations to Senior Vice President, Public Relations (New York)
• Rupert Black, promoted from Senior Associate to Vice President (London)
• Avik Chattaraj, promoted from Patent Associate to Vice President (Chicago)
• Sam Bendit, promoted from Associate to Vice President (London)
• Suzie Butters, promoted from Marketing Manager to Senior Marketing Manager (London)
• Xingchao (Sean) Zhou, promoted from Senior Financial Accountant to Manager, Financial Accounting (New York)
• Larry Tao, promoted from Quantitative Investment Analyst to Quantitative Investment Associate (London)
• Orcun A., promoted from Treasury Analyst to Senior Treasury Analyst (New York)
• Olivia Otti, promoted from Compliance Paralegal to Senior Compliance Paralegal (London)

As LFJ reported earlier this year, a litigation funder based in Germany is looking to raise the profile of domestic litigation funding in the country and across continental Europe with ambitious plans to raise a €50 million fund.

An article in Handelsblatt provides new insights into the activities of FORIS AG, a German litigation funder headquartered in Bonn, providing an overview of its current case involvements and the funder’s plans for future growth. Up until now, FORIS has largely focused its investments on the mid-cap sector, targeting its financing across 100 cases which are valued at around €100,000 or more. The article explains that to date this has seen FORIS invest €10 million and seen an average success rate of 73%, with an expected multiple of three for its return on investment.

However, with plans to increase the scope and size of cases it can invest in, FORIS is now hoping to raise €50 million by the end of 2025 for its FORIS Centris Litigation Financing Fund I. Harald Steinbichler, head of the consulting firm Axessum, which is responsible for marketing the new fund, says that this will be FORIS’ “showcase project”. The funder plans to use this new capital to finance around 25 cases from across Europe, targeting disputes with much higher values to enable even greater returns.

One of the key issues raised around third-party litigation funding for patent disputes, is the level of involvement and control a funder may exert on proceedings, and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise from this involvement.

A blog post from Faegre Drinker highlights a patent dispute case in the District of New Jersey, where a magistrate judge disqualified two law firms from representing defendants due to the defense being funded by a non-party who had an interest in the patent. 

In the case of Harish v. Arbit et al, US Magistrate Judge André M Espinosa had allowed the plaintiff to raise a motion to disqualify counsel for the defendants, with the plaintiff alleging that there was a conflict of interest with the lawyers representing both the defendants and Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc, the company that the defendants had sold and assigned the patent rights to. The plaintiff therefore argued that the defense counsel had broken the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(f).

Applying the six-part test governed by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re State Grand Jury Investigation, 200 N.J. 481 (2009), the court found that there was evidence that Lincoln “is directing, regulating, and interfering with Defense Counsel’s professional judgment in its representation of Defendants.” Furthermore, the court found that there was an attorney-client relationship between the defendants’ counsel and Lincoln as a non-party, with a representative from Lincoln also participating in the settlement conference.

Despite objections from the defendants over the timeliness of having to bring in new counsel at this stage of the case, the ruling definitively stated that “Defendants and Lincoln, not Plaintiff, are responsible for creating the conflict of interest.” The decision concludes that “the severity of the conflict here is greater than the potential for hardship or prejudice to Defendants and warrants disqualification of Defense Counsel”

The full written decision handed down by the magistrate judge can be read here.

With the incredibly large sums of money at stake in class actions around the world, it is no surprise that funders and law firms alike are keen to keep a close eye on the trends and developments in these large group actions. 

Broadridge has recently released its 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, examining the common challenges and trends in this area of litigation across the past 12 months. The report draws upon analysis of 135 global cases involving securities and/or financial products with a claim filing deadline in 2024.

Broadridge’s deep-dive into the data behind these class actions also revealed valuable insights into certain aspects of this litigation landscape. For example, whilst class actions with institutional investors as plaintiffs accounted for only 36% of all case settlements, the average settlement in those lawsuits was 565% higher than those class actions in which individuals acted as lead plaintiffs.

Another interesting data point identified by the report is the average time it takes for these class actions to settle, divided by the type of litigation as well as the size of the eventual settlement. Broadridge found that  U.S. antitrust class actions typically take the longest to settle, with an average timeline of over 100 months, whilst the timeline to settlement in securities class actions across all jurisdictions averaged out at 45.4 months.

As part of its report, Broadridge also listed its top ten class action cases for 2024, which included two cases that could be publicly identified as having used third-party litigation funding.  At No.3 on the list is the European Government Bonds Antitrust Settlements and Opt-in Litigations, with the latter opt-in claims having received funding from Deminor. At No.2, Broadridge selected the Mesoblast Securities Litigation in Australia, which saw funding provided by Omni Bridgeway and ICP Funding Pty Ltd, with the end result being a A$26.5 million settlement.

More detailed insights into class action developments and trends can be found in the full Broadridge 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, which can be read here.