Express Legal Funding, a leading provider of pre-settlement funding services, proudly announces the establishment of the Legal Funders for Actually Fair Funding (LFAFF), a coalition dedicated to safeguarding consumers and law firms through strategic vendor partnerships and ethical pre-settlement funding practices.

A New Standard in Legal and Consumer Protection
LFAFF aims to redefine the legal funding industry by championing fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. This new trade organization is committed to ensuring that injured claimants, regardless of their background, can access the financial support they need to cover their living costs while pursuing justice, and law firms benefit from reliable, transparent vendors to accelerate their growth.

"At Express Legal Funding, our commitment has always been to support both our clients and the legal community with integrity," said Aaron Winston, Author and Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding. "With the launch of LFAFF, we're taking this commitment to the next level by establishing a trusted alliance that prioritizes ethical standards and transparency in all legal service industry vendor partnerships, reducing overhead expenses and protecting law firms from wasted SEO and marketing costs."

Core Objectives of LFAFF

• Industry Best Practices (B2C): Implement a higher standard for pre-settlement funding, providing plaintiffs access to financial resources without compromising their legal claims.
• Law Firm Support (B2B): Providing law firms with access to pre-vetted, trustworthy vendors to enhance their practice and client service, with potential discounts for member firms.
• Ethical Standards and Transparency: Promoting high ethical standards across all vendor partnerships, ensuring that the legal funding industry remains accountable and trustworthy.

Membership and Benefits
Expanding beyond the pre-settlement funding industry, LFAFF is open to law firms and vendors who are committed to upholding the organization's ethical standards and guidelines. Members will benefit from a network of like-minded professionals, access to exclusive resources, and the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing development of industry best practices.

About Express Legal Funding
Express Legal Funding is a nationally recognized and trusted pre-settlement funding company and brand based in Plano, Texas. As a premier provider of pre-settlement funding, it's dedicated to offering plaintiffs the financial support they need while they await the resolution of their cases. The company is committed to ethical practices and transparency, ensuring that its clients receive fair and equitable services.

About LFAFF
The Legal Funders for Actually Fair Funding (LFAFF) is a trade organization founded by Express Legal Funding to promote ethical standards, consumer protection, and strategic partnerships in the legal funding industry. LFAFF is committed to fostering a fair and transparent environment for both law firms and the consumers they serve.

Nakiki SE announces that it is investigating a capital market claim of up to EUR 400,000 against a company listed on the Open Market of the Düsseldorf Stock Exchange. Nakiki is thus opening up a new area of business: the financing of securities law claims.

With this step, Nakiki SE expands its expertise in the area of litigation financing and continues its growth strategy. The financing of securities litigation enables investors and shareholders to pursue potential claims against listed companies without financial risk. Nakiki SE assumes the full cost of the litigation and receives a share of the proceeds in the event of a successful outcome.

This new business area responds to the growing demand for specialised financing models for legal claims in the capital market. Nakiki SE is supported by an experienced team of lawyers and financial experts to ensure that cases are thoroughly investigated and the plaintiffs’ chances of success are maximised.

With the establishment of securities litigation financing, Nakiki SE is positioning itself as a leading player in a dynamically growing market. We see considerable potential here to facilitate investors’ access to capital market legal protection and at the same time to diversify our portfolio,” says Andreas Wegerich, CEO of Nakiki SE.

Today a leading competition law expert, Professor Barry Rodger, has filed a legal claim worth up to £1.04 billion against Google before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”). Google is accused of abusing its dominant position to the detriment of a large class of thousands of UK app developers who need to use its app marketplace, ‘Play Store’ or ‘Google Play’, to access their customers. The class action lawsuit seeks compensation for the losses in revenues suffered by those individuals and businesses, many of whom are SMEs, from August 2018 onwards. 

Professor Rodger alleges that Google has used a variety of technical and contractual restrictions to ensure that Google’s Play Store is the only place where UK app developers can market or sell apps designed for Android devices. The result is that UK app developers have little choice other than to use the Google Play Store if they want to reach a wide audience. Google has then used its dominant position in app distribution to require developers to pay excessive and unfair commissions (of up to 30%) on all their sales of digital content to customers. Professor Rodger claims that absent the combination of exclusionary and exploitative conduct, app developers would have paid less to distribute their apps and sell their digital content. 

Professor Rodger’s action follows significant litigation and regulatory scrutiny of Google’s Play Store conduct around the world, including by the European Commission, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority and the US Congress. 

A class action is needed in the present case because UK app developers would not individually have the means to each bring claims against Google. The UK’s opt-out class action regime in the CAT provides a mechanism by which these app developers can legitimately seek damages for the harm they have suffered as a result of Google’s conduct. 

Professor Rodger’s claim is backed by a legal team composed of competition litigation and digital markets specialists, Geradin Partners and a counsel team of Robert O'Donoghue (Brick Court Chambers), Daniel Carall-Green (Fountain Court Chambers) and Sarah O’Keeffe (Brick Court Chambers). The claim also relies on the expertise of Professor Amelia Fletcher CBE, Professor of Competition Policy at the University of East Anglia, who has been assisted in preparing her economic report by a team of economists at Fideres. The claim is funded by Bench Walk Advisors, a leading litigation funder with a team of multi awardwinning finance professionals and litigators. 

Professor Rodger said: “It is extremely important that the principles of fairness and equality of opportunity underlie our rapidly expanding digital economy by ensuring effective redress for those harmed by any abusive anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace. I am bringing this claim because I believe that Big Tech businesses like Google should not be allowed to run roughshod over small businesses. I teach my students every day about the importance of enforcement of competition law and I am now ‘practising what I preach’ by seeking redress in the form of compensation for significant business damage suffered by this class of Android app developers.” 

Founding Partner of Geradin Partners, Damien Geradin, said: “Google is one of the most powerful companies in the world. Regulators around the globe have scrutinised its Play Store conduct and consider it harmful. Yet Google continues to use its monopoly position to force out competition and to exploit app developers. It is imperative therefore that developers in the UK also have the opportunity to seek redress for Google’s wrongful conduct.” 

More information on the claim and regular updates for the proposed class can be found at: www.googleplaystoredeveloperclaim.com.  

McDonald Hopkins is proud to welcome John J. Hanley as a Member in the Business Department and the Litigation Finance Practice Group. John brings with him years of experience, a proven track record of success and an innovative spirit that will play a pivotal role at the firm.

“McDonald Hopkins is a great brand in the litigation finance space.” said John. “The goal here is to capture market share. We will continue to be among the best and most active in the litigation finance space, and I’m excited to contribute to it.”

John specializes in litigation finance and complex financial transactions. He has over two decades of extensive experience from highly esteemed East Coast law firms in first and second lien financings, private debt and equity placements, acquisition and sale of loans, securities, trade claims, and other illiquid assets. His clientele includes a diverse array of financial entities, such as litigation funders, business development companies, specialty lenders, investment banks, hedge funds and others. He attributes his success in the field to his client-focus and the way he approaches complex matters.

“I identify as a part of the client’s team. I use terminology like ‘our position,’ ‘our claims,’ ‘our proceeds,’ and I mean it. It may seem small, but I think it strikes a chord and makes a difference,” John noted.

John’s arrival is a strategic step in building upon the success and influence the Litigation Practice Group has achieved. His addition bolsters a powerhouse team of attorneys, including Marc Carmel and Edward Reilly, who have deep experience in this field. This addition aligns with the group’s recent Chambers ranking, which recognized it as one of five firms ranked in the 2024 Chambers Litigation Support Guide for Litigation Support Deal Counsel (USA-Nationwide) and Marc Carmel as one of eight attorneys ranked individually.

“With John, we truly are positioned to offer unparalleled expertise and service in the litigation finance realm. This not only affirms our leadership in the field but also demonstrates our ongoing dedication to expanding and enhancing the support we provide to our clients. We believe no other middle-market practice matches the scope of our engagements, and John’s arrival shows that the best in the business want to be here. We are thrilled to have him on the team,” said Marc Carmel, Chair of the Litigation Finance Practice and Managing Member of McDonald Hopkins’ Chicago office.

David Gunning, the Chair of McDonald Hopkins’ Business Department echoed Carmel’s sentiment.

"John is an invaluable addition to our Business Department,” said David Gunning, the Chair of McDonald Hopkins Business Department. “His experience will not only strengthen our Litigation Finance Group but will also enhance our broader finance capabilities. We’re excited to have John on board as we continue to grow our department and provide exceptional service to our clients across all areas of finance.”

John will be mostly remote from his home in New Jersey, but will be working closely with McDonald Hopkins’ Chicago office.

Unlike commercial patent owners, universities are not unitary organizations with a hierarchically-defined command and control structure. Universities can comprise several constituencies and legal entities, not all of whom have completely aligned intellectual property interests. Successfully representing a university requires being actively aware of each facet of its make-up and serving as a facilitator between them. For example, a university’s president may not view patent litigation positively, whereas its research sponsor considers patent enforcement to be an essential right that must be exercised under its exclusive license. Successful counsel and funders of university patent owners patiently seek out all interested parties within the university umbrella to ensure a litigation strategy and funding arrangement satisfies as many interests as practicable.

How do you address the potential conflicts of interest that might arise when public institutions enter into litigation funding agreements? Are concerns here legitimate, or are they overblown?

Politics may require consideration when public universities are involved. For example, is approval from the state attorney general required? Can the litigation funder represent that no foreign investors are involved? Should the university be a party to a litigation funding agreement? If so, which part of the university should engage with a litigation funder? If not, how can the university’s public interests be protected in a law firm-facing litigation funding arrangement? These considerations are extraordinarily important and cannot be glossed over.

Protecting institutional reputation is always the primary concern. A university may have spent decades or even centuries building its academic reputation. But reputations are fragile. A university will not risk ruining its reputation by its trial lawyer’s misconduct or funder’s lack of transparency. Everyone working with a university, including its counsel and funders, are de facto arms of the university and must be willing to uphold its high standards of ethics.

I predict that more funders will become interested in acquiring university-originated patents rather than just funding litigation. This affords a university much-needed up-front monetization while simultaneously providing the funder more control over strategic decision-making. I also predict that a commercially-run version of the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP) could be very successful in the funded patent litigation marketplace.

A diferencia de los titulares de patentes comerciales, las universidades no son organizaciones unitarias con una estructura de mando y control definida jerárquicamente. Las universidades pueden estar formadas por varias circunscripciones y entidades jurídicas, no todas ellas con intereses de propiedad intelectual completamente alineados. Representar con éxito a una universidad exige conocer activamente cada faceta de su composición y servir de facilitador entre ellas. Por ejemplo, el presidente de una universidad puede no ver positivamente los litigios sobre patentes, mientras que su patrocinador de investigación considera que la observancia de las patentes es un derecho esencial que debe ejercerse en virtud de su licencia exclusiva. Los asesores y financiadores de éxito de los propietarios de patentes universitarias buscan pacientemente a todas las partes interesadas dentro del paraguas de la universidad para asegurarse de que una estrategia de litigio y un acuerdo de financiación satisfacen tantos intereses como sea posible.

¿Cómo abordas los posibles conflictos de intereses que pueden surgir cuando las instituciones públicas suscriben acuerdos de financiación de litigios? ¿Son legítimas estas preocupaciones, o son exageradas?

La política puede requerir consideración cuando están implicadas universidades públicas. Por ejemplo, ¿es necesaria la aprobación del fiscal general del estado? ¿Puede el financiador del litigio declarar que no hay inversores extranjeros implicados? ¿Debe la universidad ser parte en un acuerdo de financiación de litigios? En caso afirmativo, ¿qué parte de la universidad debe comprometerse con un financiador de litigios? Si no es así, ¿cómo pueden protegerse los intereses públicos de la universidad en un acuerdo de financiación de litigios con un bufete de abogados? Estas consideraciones son extraordinariamente importantes y no pueden pasarse por alto.

Proteger la reputación institucional es siempre la principal preocupación. Una universidad puede haber pasado décadas o incluso siglos construyendo su reputación académica. Pero las reputaciones son frágiles. Una universidad no se arriesgará a arruinar su reputación por la mala conducta de su abogado litigante o la falta de transparencia de su financiador. Todos los que trabajan con una universidad, incluidos sus abogados y financiadores, son de facto brazos de la universidad y deben estar dispuestos a mantener sus elevadas normas éticas.

Preveo que cada vez más financiadores se interesarán por adquirir patentes de origen universitario, en lugar de limitarse a financiar litigios. Esto proporciona a la universidad la tan necesaria monetización inicial, al tiempo que proporciona al financiador un mayor control sobre la toma de decisiones estratégicas. También predigo que una versión comercial del Programa Universitario de Licencias Tecnológicas (UTLP) podría tener mucho éxito en el mercado de los litigios de patentes financiados.