Trending Now

All Articles

3775 Articles
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Backs Landmark UK Apple Pay Class Action

By John Freund |

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.

Commercial

Insurers vs. Legal Funders: Fresh Data Fuels the Debate

By John Freund |

An increasingly loud tug-of-war between insurers and litigation financiers is getting new oxygen from fresh analysis arguing that third-party funding is reshaping pricing and availability across commercial lines.

An article in CIR Magazine contends that legal funding has evolved from a niche alternative asset into a structural feature of modern disputes finance, citing estimates of roughly $18.9bn invested by year-end 2025 and a potential $67bn annual market by 2037. The piece situates TPF alongside other cost drivers facing carriers and notes that, for claimants and contingency-fee firms, non-recourse capital can be the bridge to pursue meritorious, multi-year claims that would otherwise stall.

Beyond the headline numbers, the analysis tracks the now-familiar clash of narratives. On one side, insurers and some trade groups attribute part of premium pressure to the availability of third-party capital and the resulting expansion in claims severity and duration. On the other, funders argue TPF is a risk-sharing tool that expands access to justice and, in commercial matters, helps rationalize corporate legal spend by shifting costs off balance sheet.

If carriers continue to publicly scrutinize TPF while capital keeps flowing into legal assets, expect better disclosure frameworks where appropriate, closer alignment between ATE and funding, and refined risk pricing. The friction itself may accelerate product innovation — including structures that blunt insurer concerns without sacrificing access to justice.

Commercial

Global Litigation Funding Alliance Launches to Bridge Cross-Border Gaps

By John Freund |

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.

Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: Support for People, Not Control Over Litigation

By Eric Schuller |

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.

Case Developments Commercial

Justice Charity Gets £3.7M Unclaimed Settlement Windfall After Rail Fares Case

By John Freund |

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ordered that £3.7 million in unclaimed damages from a £25 million rail fare settlement be transferred to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF), citing what it called a “very low rate of take‑up” among eligible claimants.

An article in The Global Legal Post reports that the case involved Stagecoach South West Trains, which had been accused of abusing its dominant position by failing to make boundary fares accessible to Travelcard holders, resulting in some passengers being double-charged for parts of their journeys.

Though around 1.4 million passengers were estimated to be eligible, only about £216,500 was claimed by class members. The CAT allowed an intervention by the campaign group Fair Civil Justice (FCJ), which challenged whether the claimant law firms and funders were acting in the best interests of consumers. The tribunal noted that the take‑up was “very much short of the level predicted by the class representative.” The ATJF was praised for its ability to deploy the unclaimed funds in a way that benefits the public, including its grantees. There is still a pending determination by the tribunal on how much of the remaining settlement fund should go to claimant lawyers and the litigation funder.

This development throws into relief tensions in UK class actions between the potential scale of recoveries and the actual engagement of harmed consumers. For litigation funders and law firms, it raises fundamental questions: are cases structured and promoted in ways that reach those harmed; should unclaimed funds automatically divert to charity; and how should oversight and claims notice provisions be strengthened?

For the wider legal funding industry, this could signal pushback on low participation, increased regulatory attention, and pressure to ensure that collective actions are both meaningful and accessible to their intended beneficiaries.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

IEA Calls for Reform of UK Class Action System, Citing £134 Billion in Claims

By John Freund |

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has issued a call for major reform of the UK’s collective proceedings regime, warning that the current system invites economically inefficient claims and undermines justice for consumers.

An article in ICLG reports that the IEA estimates over £134 billion in pending class action claims are currently before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, involving approximately 655 million potential claimants—more than ten opt-out claims for every person in the UK. While the regime was initially designed to allow consumers to pursue redress in competition cases, the IEA argues it has increasingly been used for speculative litigation, often delivering poor outcomes. The report cites the Merricks v Mastercard case, which originally sought £14–17 billion but ultimately settled for just £200 million, or less than two percent of the original amount.

The IEA’s critique also extends to the litigation funding models supporting these cases. Following the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in PACCAR, which restricted certain types of litigation funding agreements, the IEA contends that funding arrangements still misalign incentives and may delay compensation to claimants. Among the reforms it proposes are: requiring early payments to a portion of class members before a case is certified; establishing a public valuation mechanism to promote competition among funders; enhancing the economic analysis applied at the certification stage; and simplifying damages assessments by focusing on first purchasers rather than tracing harm down complex supply chains.

While the IEA acknowledges that the opt-out class action system has value, it argues that without reform, it risks damaging business confidence, overburdening the courts, and eroding trust in the legal system. Critics of the report, including funder Winward Litigation Finance, suggest some of the recommendations are impractical and fail to grasp the realities of litigation finance.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Ciarb Finalizes Third-Party Funding Guideline for Arbitration

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has finalized a guideline intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to the use of third-party funding (TPF) in international arbitration. The document addresses practical touchpoints that routinely surface in funded cases, including disclosure expectations, funder–party control, conflicts management, security-for-costs, and termination provisions.

An article in Global Arbitration Review reports that Ciarb’s move follows a multi-year effort to codify best practices as funding becomes a normalized feature of international disputes.

The guideline frames TPF as non-recourse finance that can enhance access to justice, while underscoring the need for transparent guardrails around influence and information-sharing. It also emphasizes tribunal discretion: disclosure should be targeted to the issues actually before the tribunal, with the goal of mitigating conflicts and addressing cost-allocation (including security) without converting funding agreements into mini-trials.

In parallel materials, Ciarb stresses that funded parties need not be impecunious and that funding may extend beyond fees to case-critical costs such as experts and enforcement.

For funders and users alike, the practical effect could be fewer procedural detours and more consistent outcomes on recurring questions (what to disclose, when to disclose it, and how to handle costs). If widely adopted in practice — by counsel in drafting and by tribunals in procedural orders — the guideline may reduce uncertainty premiums in term sheets and, in turn, lower the effective cost of capital for meritorious claims. It also sets a useful marker as regulators and courts continue to revisit TPF norms across key jurisdictions.

Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing, Moneypenny

By John Freund |
Kris Altiere is the US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, the leading provider of customer conversation solutions for the legal sector. With more than 20 years of experience in marketing and brand development, she is an award-winning strategist who helps law firms and legal service providers enhance client experience, strengthen reputation, and drive growth.  Kris is passionate about blending creativity with data-driven insight, ensuring attorneys and their teams benefit from smarter, more efficient ways to connect with clients while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Kris: Litigation funders and firms are under pressure to respond instantly to client inquiries. From your perspective, how can they meet these expectations without overburdening staff or creating burnout? Across both funding companies and law firms, clients expect clear, informed answers almost immediately. The solution isn’t to expect internal staff to be ‘always on’, that leads to fatigue and errors. Instead, the answer lies in building an intake structure that blends smart technology and AI with flexible human support. At Moneypenny, we see huge success when firms use tools like intelligent call routing or secure live chat to capture every inquiry, triage urgency, and pass only relevant conversations to specialists. By combining in-house capability with trusted outsourced teams, organizations maintain round-the-clock responsiveness without compromising staff wellbeing. Moneypenny’s model offers outsourced communication support. What role can outsourcing play in ensuring consistent, high-quality client interactions, and how do you balance personalization with scalability? Outsourced communication support should never feel outsourced. The best providers act as a seamless extension of your team. At Moneypenny, our receptionists are trained to represent the companies brand, understand escalation paths, and client sensitivities, so every caller feels known and valued. This hybrid model means law firms and funders alike can deliver a highly personalized experience, while still having the scalability to absorb surges in demand. That balance is what protects reputation in high-stakes, time-sensitive matters. What best practices have you seen for maintaining responsiveness while also protecting the wellbeing of in-house teams—especially in high-stakes, time-sensitive legal funding matters? 
  • Define clear service levels: agree internally which inquiries require immediate attention and which can wait.
  • Use shared dashboards and call logs so tasks are visible and distributed fairly.
  • Rotate responsibilities for after-hours or urgent coverage and protect genuine downtime.
  • Partner with specialists like Moneypenny for overflow support during campaigns, press interest, or large case volumes.
  • Celebrate client praise so people see the impact of their professionalism, reframing responsiveness as value, not just pressure.
As the litigation funding market becomes more competitive, pricing alone no longer sets players apart. How important is the client journey—from first inquiry through to resolution—in shaping brand reputation? As competition intensifies, fees alone won’t win loyalty. Clients are looking for reassurance and transparency from the very first call through to resolution. Whether it’s a funder evaluating a claim or an attorney guiding a litigant, the speed, clarity, and empathy of your communications define how your brand is perceived. At Moneypenny, we’ve seen firms use exceptional communication to build loyalty, generate referrals, and justify premium pricing, because a smooth, human-led journey builds trust that competitors can’t easily replicate. Many funders struggle to align their communications, marketing, and operations. What practical steps would you recommend to ensure a seamless and empathetic experience across every touchpoint? To align marketing, communications, and operations:
  1. Map the lifecycle for funded matters and legal cases, capturing every stage from inquiry to closure.
  2. Set a consistent tone and language so outreach, intake, and case updates are aligned.
  3. Adopt shared technology (CRM, case management, call notes) to prevent siloed touchpoints.
  4. Monitor & refine: listen to sample calls, gather client feedback, and adjust scripts or processes to stay aligned with brand values.
Moneypenny partners with firms at each of these steps, ensuring consistency across touchpoints and allowing legal teams to focus on the matters that really need their expertise.  
Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with Ankita Mehta, Co-founder, Lexity.ai

By John Freund |
Ankita Mehta is the co-founder of Lexity.ai, a platform that accelerates deal execution. It enables leading litigation funds to vet 3x more opportunities and expand capacity with a plug-and-play AI-powered solution tailored to how funders operate. A seasoned entrepreneur, Ankita has built and scaled technology-driven businesses to multi-million-dollar revenues across nine countries. She brings deep expertise in bridging technology with business outcomes, with a sharp focus on adoption, measurable impact, and scaling innovation in high-stakes industries. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ankita: While AI is increasingly common in legal practice, litigation funders have been slower to adopt it. From your vantage point, what makes funders uniquely positioned to benefit from AI right now? For funders, time is capital. Every extra week in case assessment means idle capital and lost deals.  AI inverts that dynamic, trimming assessment cycles by up to 70% and standardizing evaluation criteria. This allows investment teams to vet 3-4x more opportunities with their existing headcount, directly increasing capital deployment velocity. Unlike law firms, funders don’t bill hours - they monetize disciplined throughput and risk pricing. That’s why AI isn’t peripheral here; it’s a direct lever on ROI. In a market growing quickly and attracting more competition, speed and consistency aren’t just efficiency gains - they’re competitive advantages. Larger funds are using AI to handle more deals, while new funds can build scalable systems from day one. How do you see these two paths diverging—and what does that mean for competition and efficiency in the funding market? These two paths- larger funds integrating AI into existing operations versus new funds building AI-native systems from the outset, likely lead to a more stratified and competitive funding market, ultimately driving greater efficiency across the board. Big funds are bolting AI into legacy workflows. Gains are incremental but powerful: less manual grind, faster diligence, more disciplined portfolio monitoring. Their primary advantage lies on their established market presence, larger capital pools, and existing deal flow. AI will help them process their high volume of cases more efficiently and potentially expand their capacity without a proportional increase in headcount. New funds, by contrast, have a distinct advantage-they are now able to be AI-native from day one: lean teams, tech-driven, scalable assessment without additional overhead. Their challenge will be establishing a track record and building trust in the market, but their AI-native approach will give them a significant edge in speed and cost-efficiency. The divergence will lead to increased market share: incumbents defend market share with volume and more precise investment decisions, leveraging AI, while challengers will disrupt with velocity, lower overheads and faster decision-making cycles. What’s clear is that “manual first” funds will be squeezed from both sides, leading to consolidation in the market or decline in profitability with less technologically advanced firms. In essence, AI acts as an accelerator - faster deal cycles, sharper risk calls, healthier portfolios, pushing the whole market toward higher efficiency and eventually, increased access to justice. In your experience, which areas of deal assessment, diligence, or monitoring are already seeing measurable efficiency gains from AI integration, and which areas are still more hype than reality? In our work with litigation funders, we see a clear and effective division of labor emerging. AI is delivering transformative efficiency in the early, data-intensive stages of deal assessment and diligence, while the core strategic decisions and the art of funding remain firmly in the hands of expert funders. Where AI Is Delivering Measurable Gains Now:
  • Intake & Triage: Instantly extracting and structuring key data like parties, claims, and timelines from initial documents.
  • Diligence Support: Automating timeline creation, document clustering, and red-flag analysis in minutes, not days.
  • Portfolio Monitoring: Delivering automated docket alerts and portfolio-wide signals without consuming analyst hours.
Where Expert Judgment Remains Paramount:
  • Predicting Final Outcomes: No algorithm can accurately price in the nuance of judicial temperament, witness credibility, or complex negotiation dynamics. AI can surface the data, but the final risk assessment is a human judgment call.
  • Automating Core Legal Strategy: The core elements of persuasion and legal argument require a human touch. AI serves as a powerful tool for the strategist, not a replacement of the strategist.
In short, AI is proving invaluable for automating the routine, data-intensive tasks that precede an investment decision. This frees up funders to focus their expertise on the strategic, judgment-heavy calls where they create the most value. Lexity is not a fund, but you work directly with funders to process more opportunities consistently. Can you share a concrete example of how Lexity has improved throughput or accuracy for a fund without requiring additional headcount One fund put it simply: “95% of an investment manager’s day is reviewing cases we’ll never fund. Can Lexity solve that?” Lexity Clickflows do exactly that. In practice, analysts upload documents, and within minutes Lexity outputs structured summaries: parties, jurisdictions, claims, damages, timelines, and red flags. The impact for their team was immediate: Review times were cut by 70%, from hours to minutes. As a result, they can now vet 3-4x more cases with the same team, applying consistent criteria to every opportunity. This increased capacity significantly for the fund. Instead, their existing team could focus on the 5% of cases that truly mattered. That’s technology acting as a force multiplier. Litigation funders often ask about tangible returns before adopting new tools. What real-world ROI have you seen from funds already using Lexity’s platform, whether in terms of faster decision cycles, better risk assessment, or portfolio monitoring? The ROI from integrating AI is immediate and manifests in several key areas of the funding operation:
  • Accelerated Decision Cycles: The 'time to a yes/no' is a critical metric. We've seen funds cut this down by weeks, allowing them to pursue more opportunities and deploy capital faster.
  • Early Loss Prevention: The system automatically flags fatal flaws like expired statutes of limitation or critical missing documents during intake. This saves enormous costs in wasted diligence and external counsel fees on deals that were never viable.
  • Increased Operational Leverage: Funds can significantly increase their deal vetting capacity without a proportional increase in headcount or overhead costs.
Ultimately, the goal is to use an outcome-focused, plug-and-play solution that’s so simple and intuitive, users don’t even realize they’re working with AI. Lexity delivers funder-focused automation that is structured, auditable, and tied to outcomes. It is a practical capacity expansion that makes funders faster, sharper allocators of capital. In litigation finance, that is the difference between keeping pace and leading.