Trending Now

All Articles

3453 Articles

Woodsford Funding Australian Class Action Targeting Tesla

By Harry Moran |

Although Elon Musk’s name has become most prominent in stories about U.S. politics over recent months, in Australia, it Tesla that has attracted the attention of a new lawsuit alleging that it has marketed and sold vehicles that are defective.

An article in ICLG covers the launch of a new class action being brought against Tesla over allegations that the car manufacturer’s semi-autonomous driving system has put drivers at risk through its ‘phantom breaking’ phenomenon. Furthermore, the class action is targeting Tesla’s marketing of its vehicles, alleging that the company has mislead customers over the supposed range of its vehicles. The class action was filed by JGA Saddler and is being funded by Woodsford.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director of JGA Saddler, took aim at Tesla’s “so-called Autopilot” feature, arguing that the vehicles’ habit of applying the brakes at random “could, if it causes an accident, result in serious injury and/or death.” Jancauskas also painted the alleged false advertising of Tesla vehicles’ range as part of a wider picture of misleading behaviour from the car company, saying that she “hoped this claim underscores the importance for all EV manufacturers to be truthful in their marketing, deliver on their promises, and ensure their products are safe and reliable.”

David Haughan, investment officer at Woodsford, argued that Australian consumers who purchased Tesla vehicles “were sold a car based on promises about the vehicles’ self-driving capabilities, battery range, and safety features, and Tesla has not delivered.” Haughan stated the primary motivation behind the class action in plain terms: “Tesla customers have not got what they paid for.”

More information about the Tesla Motors Class Action can be found here.

An LFJ Conversation with Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Obaid Saeed Bin Mes'har: 1. The UAE has been expanding its legal landscape in recent years. How has the growth of the legal industry in the UAE impacted the demand for litigation funding?

I personally believe and during my professional experience I have seen that the UAE’s legal sector has experienced significant expansion, driven by economic growth, international investments, and regulatory advancements. This transformation has directly influenced the demand for litigation funding, as businesses and individuals seek financial support to navigate complex legal disputes without upfront costs.

Let me explain, what are few major factors driving demand in UAE market:

Increase in Commercial Disputes:

  • With the UAE’s rise as a global business hub, contract disputes have surged, particularly in high-stakes sectors like construction, real estate, and finance.
  • The growing reliance on arbitration and cross-border transactions has made litigation funding a strategic necessity

Dual Legal Framework:

    • The UAE’s unique system—onshore civil law courts and offshore common law jurisdictions (DIFC, ADGM)—creates a dynamic environment for litigation funding.
    • Offshore jurisdictions provide clear regulatory frameworks for third-party funding, increasing confidence among investors and litigants.
Escalating Legal Costs:
    • High litigation and arbitration costs often deter claimants from pursuing valid cases.
    • Litigation funding ensures businesses and individuals can seek justice without financial constraints, shifting the cost burden to funders.
Regulatory Support & Market Maturity:
    • The DIFC’s Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 and ADGM’s Funding Rules 2019 have legitimized litigation funding, fostering investor confidence.
    • This has encouraged global litigation funders to enter the UAE market, increasing competition and accessibility.
Greater Awareness & Adoption:

At WinJustice, we are committed to spreading awareness and advancing the adoption of litigation funding across the MENA region. Our commitment is reflected in various initiatives, including education, thought leadership, and industry awareness.

As part of this mission, we are excited to announce the launch of our LinkedIn newsletter, "Litigation Funding MENA Insight"—the first dedicated newsletter in the region focusing on litigation funding. This initiative is particularly significant as it is led by a UAE-based company, bringing deep regional expertise and global perspectives.

Our newsletter will serve as a trusted resource, providing insights, case studies, and expert discussions on litigation funding. To ensure accessibility and reach, it will be published in both Arabic and English, making it the go-to platform for businesses, legal professionals, and investors interested in this evolving field.

The key Impacts on the Legal Industry: 

  • There is Enhanced Access to Justice: SMEs and individuals can now challenge well-funded opponents without financial barriers.
  • Market Competitiveness: The entrance of international funders has led to the adoption of global best practices, benefiting claimants.
  • Stronger Negotiation Leverage: With financial backing, businesses can negotiate settlements more effectively, knowing they have the resources to litigate if necessary.

Also, there are reports that litigation funding in the UAE increased by 40% over five years, with SMEs as the largest beneficiaries. Hence, we can say that litigation funding has become a crucial tool in the UAE’s evolving legal ecosystem. As regulatory clarity improves and market awareness increases, its role in providing financial access to justice will only strengthen.

2. In your experience, how do cultural and legal nuances in the UAE influence the way litigation funding investments are sourced and structured?

According to my experience, The UAE’s litigation funding market is shaped by deep-rooted cultural values and a dual legal framework that integrates both civil and common law principles. For anybody, understanding these nuances is essential for structuring investments effectively.

I can say that broadly Cultural & Legal Influences includes factors such as:  

Preference for Arbitration & Mediation:
    • The UAE business community traditionally favors dispute resolution methods like arbitration and mediation over lengthy court proceedings.
    • Litigation funders must tailor their models to prioritize arbitration financing, particularly for high-value commercial disputes.
Sharia Compliance & Islamic Finance:
    • Many UAE businesses operate under Islamic finance principles, requiring litigation funding models to be structured without interest-based arrangements.
    • Alternative funding structures, such as success-based fees and equity-sharing, are gaining traction.
Confidentiality & Reputation Sensitivity:
    • Businesses and high-net-worth individuals value discretion in legal matters.
    • Litigation funders must implement strict confidentiality agreements and strategic case management to ensure reputational protection.
Regulatory Variations Between Onshore & Offshore Jurisdictions:
    • Offshore jurisdictions (DIFC & ADGM) have explicit litigation funding regulations, making them attractive venues for funded claims.
    • Onshore courts lack clear regulations, requiring funders to conduct extensive due diligence before financing claims.
Government & Public Sector Sensitivities:
    • Disputes involving government-linked entities require additional compliance measures and strategic planning.
    • Litigation funders must account for potential regulatory scrutiny when financing such cases.

If you research, you may find incidents like Dubai-based firms have secured litigation funding for a contractual dispute against a overseas partner, leveraging the ADGM’s favorable legal framework.

Precisely speaking, Cultural and legal nuances make the UAE a unique but highly promising market for litigation funding. Tailored investment structures that respect local customs, regulatory landscapes, and business preferences are key to success. In fact, we estimate that 60% of funded cases in the UAE involved arbitration, highlighting the preference for ADR.

3. What are the chief concerns that litigation funders have when it comes to investment in the UAE, and how would you allay those concerns?

Actually, if you see, The UAE is rapidly emerging as a key market for litigation funding, but as with any evolving legal landscape, obviously funders have legitimate concerns about investing in the region. Addressing these concerns requires a deep understanding of the regulatory environment, enforcement mechanisms, and legal complexities that define the UAE’s legal system.

Few genuine concerns for Litigation Funders could be: 

Regulatory Uncertainty:
      • Unlike jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia, UAE’s onshore courts lack a well-defined framework for litigation funding.
      • Offshore jurisdictions like the DIFC and ADGM have established regulations, but clarity is still evolving in onshore courts.
Enforcement Challenges:
      • A favorable judgment does not always guarantee successful enforcement, particularly in cross-border disputes.
      • UAE’s legal system allows for appeals and potential delays in execution, which can extend the time before a funder sees returns.
Case Viability and Recovery Potential:
      • Funders must assess whether cases have strong legal merit and a high probability of success.
      • There is also concern over whether claimants will be able to recover awarded damages, particularly if assets are difficult to trace.
Judicial Discretion and Precedents:

UAE courts do not always follow strict precedents, which creates unpredictability for litigation funders who rely on historical case outcomes for underwriting decisions.

However, the good thing is we can address these concerns through initiating appropriate measure, like:

Leverage Offshore Jurisdictions:
    • Encouraging claimants to litigate within DIFC or ADGM courts can provide a more predictable legal framework with explicit third-party funding regulations.
Comprehensive Due Diligence:
    • Litigation funders should conduct thorough case assessments, including analyzing asset recovery potential before committing to funding.
Enforcement Planning:
    • Collaborating with asset recovery firms and legal experts to ensure judgments are enforceable across jurisdictions.
    • Utilizing treaties such as the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Risk-Sharing Mechanisms:
    • Structuring agreements with contingency elements can mitigate risks.
    • Working with law firms that offer success-based fees ensures that all stakeholders are aligned in their objectives.

To summarise, The UAE is a lucrative but complex market for litigation funders. By strategically selecting jurisdictions, conducting robust due diligence, and leveraging international enforcement treaties, funders can mitigate risks and take advantage of the growing demand for litigation finance in the region.

4. How do you manage duration and collectability risk? Are these more acute in the UAE than in other jurisdictions, and if so, how impactful are these to your underwriting criteria?

At WinJustice, we firmly believe that managing duration and collectability risk is one of the most critical aspects of litigation funding. In the UAE, these risks can be more significant due to procedural timelines and enforcement challenges. However, with a structured and strategic approach, they can be effectively mitigated. This is precisely what we implement at WinJustice—ensuring that every case is managed with precision, minimizing risks while maximizing successful outcomes.

Lets understand Duration and Collectability risks:

Duration Risk:
      • Court proceedings in UAE onshore courts can take longer due to multiple appeal stages.
      • Arbitration cases tend to resolve faster, particularly within DIFC and ADGM jurisdictions.
Collectability Risk:
      • Even if a judgment is awarded, claimants may face difficulties in collecting damages.
      • Defendants may shift or conceal assets, making enforcement challenging.

Our suggested strategies to manage these risks are:

1. Prioritize Arbitration Cases:

      • Arbitration is often faster than litigation and provides clear enforcement mechanisms.
      • DIFC and ADGM arbitration courts have robust mechanisms for enforcing awards internationally.

2. Early Case Assessment & Due Diligence:

      • Before funding a case, funders must evaluate the financial stability of the defendant and whether they have recoverable assets.
      • Engaging forensic accounting experts helps in asset tracing.Structuring Litigation Agreements with Milestones:
      • Including timelines in funding agreements helps ensure claimants and their legal teams are progressing cases efficiently.
      • Phased funding disbursements can incentivize timely case resolution.Working with Local Legal Experts & Asset Recovery Teams:
      • Partnering with firms specializing in UAE asset recovery and judgment enforcement can strengthen collectability efforts.

If we compare UAE to Other Jurisdictions:

    • UAE vs. UK: UK has established litigation funding precedents, making duration risk lower.
    • UAE vs. US: US litigation is costly but has a well-defined process for class action and third-party funding.
    • UAE vs. Singapore: Singapore offers a structured approach similar to DIFC, making it a comparable market.

Therefore, while duration and collectability risks are slightly higher in UAE than in more mature markets, leveraging arbitration, strong due diligence, and phased funding agreements can significantly reduce risks for litigation funders.

5. How do you envision the future of litigation funding in the Middle East over the next 5-10 years, and what key trends or developments do you believe will shape this future?

In my opinion, Litigation funding in the Middle East is at an inflection point. Over the next decade, the region will witness increased adoption of legal financing, supported by regulatory advancements, growing market awareness, and technological integration.

Some of major trends & developments shaping the Future, are like

Regulatory Evolution:
      • Onshore UAE courts may introduce formal litigation funding regulations, similar to DIFC and ADGM frameworks.
      • Governments in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are exploring third-party funding regulations, expanding the regional market.
Increased Market Adoption:
      • More law firms and corporate clients will turn to litigation funding, especially in high-value commercial disputes.
      • The construction and real estate sectors, which are prone to disputes, will see a rise in funding demand.
Technology & AI in Case Evaluation:
      • Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play a key role in risk assessment, helping funders predict case outcomes with higher accuracy.
      • AI-powered analytics will enhance due diligence and underwriting processes.
Expansion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
      • Arbitration is expected to dominate litigation funding in the region due to faster resolution timelines and enforceability.
      • Growth of regional arbitration centers such as DIAC (Dubai

International Arbitration Centre) will further facilitate funded cases.

Entry of Global Players & Institutional Investors:
      • Large international litigation funders are likely to enter the Middle East, increasing competition and refining best practices.
      • Institutional investors, including hedge funds and private equity firms, will seek exposure to litigation funding as a diversified asset class.

Yes, there could be some challenges that may shape the future, like:

    • Ensuring ethical litigation funding practices to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
    • Balancing regulatory oversight with industry growth to maintain market credibility.

So, the next 5-10 years will see the Middle East, particularly the UAE, become a key hub for litigation funding. With regulatory progress, market maturity, and technological advancements, the region is poised for significant growth in third-party legal financing, offering both opportunities and challenges for funders and legal professionals alike.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Aisling Byrne, Co-Founder, Nera Capital

By John Freund |

Aisling Byrne is the Co-Founder of Nera Capital, a pioneering legal funding provider reshaping the landscape of litigation finance. Hailing from Ireland, she co-founded Nera Capital in response to the financial challenges following the 2008 global economic downturn, recognising the need for innovative funding solutions to support law firms and their clients.

With deep expertise in litigation finance, she has driven Nera Capital’s expansion into the UK consumer market while spearheading commercial litigation funding across Europe and the USA. Under her leadership, the firm has played a pivotal role in funding landmark actions in many jurisdictions. Beyond her professional achievements, Aisling is a passionate equestrian, competing internationally in showjumping with a talented string of horses.

Company Name: Nera Capital

Company Description: Founded in 2011, Nera Capital was established with a bold vision - to revolutionise legal finance by seamlessly integrating modern technology with traditional values. By funding essential disbursements, Nera Capital empowers law firms to pursue justice without financial constraints, ensuring that clients can access the legal representation they deserve.

With a proven track record of delivering pragmatic funding solutions, Nera has helped partner firms achieve remarkable growth in a short time. More than just a funder, Nera Capital serves as a strategic partner, leveraging its industry expertise, technology and extensive network to drive success for its clients.

Company Website: neracapital.com

Year Founded: 2011

Headquarters: Ireland, with offices in Manchester and The Netherlands

Areas of Focus: Nera Capital provides Law Firm funding across a diverse range of claim portfolios, including Financial Mis-selling, Data Breach, Personal Injury, and more. Always at the forefront of legal finance, Nera continually explores new claim types and remains open to innovative funding opportunities.

Member Quote: “When it comes to litigation funding, strategy and collaboration are key. A well-structured funding solution requires more than just financial backing - it demands a deep understanding of legal complexities, a forward-thinking approach, and a team that is both skilled and adaptable. At Nera Capital, we believe in building long-term partnerships with law firms, providing them with not just capital, but also the strategic guidance and support needed to navigate challenges and maximise success. By combining financial and technical expertise with a keen insight into evolving legal landscapes, we ensure that meritorious claims receive the investment they need to deliver justice.”

Understanding Pre-Settlement Funding: A Resource for Plaintiffs Facing Long Legal Battles

By Harry Moran |

Rockpoint Legal Funding has released a new educational overview on the role of pre-settlement funding for individuals involved in personal injury and other civil lawsuits. As court dockets swell and case timelines extend, plaintiffs often encounter mounting financial pressures that can influence their legal decisions. This overview examines the mechanics of pre-settlement funding, the considerations for deciding whether it is an appropriate option, and the broader context of litigation finance in the United States.

Pre-settlement funding—also known as legal funding or lawsuit advances—is a financial arrangement in which a provider offers immediate funds to plaintiffs who have an active legal claim. The advance is typically "non-recourse," which means that the plaintiff is only obligated to repay if the underlying case results in a monetary settlement or award. This structure aims to relieve short-term economic stress, such as covering medical bills or everyday living costs, without imposing the risk of personal liability if the case does not succeed.

Why Litigation Timelines Can Be Lengthy

In many jurisdictions, personal injury and other civil claims progress through multiple stages. The initial filing, discovery period, settlement negotiations, and potential trial can each introduce procedural delays. Moreover, defense counsel or insurance companies may seek extensions or engage in protracted negotiations, especially if the case is complex or involves substantial damages. These drawn-out timelines can place significant strain on plaintiffs who are juggling medical appointments, lost wages, or other unexpected expenses stemming from the incident in question.

How Non-Recourse Funding Operates

Non-recourse funding arrangements differ from traditional loans in two key ways. First, plaintiffs do not make monthly payments during the lawsuit's duration. Second, if the case concludes without a settlement or court award, the plaintiff typically owes nothing. However, if there is a successful outcome, the provider recovers its advance from the proceeds, plus any agreed-upon fees or charges. Because repayment depends on the lawsuit's success, funding companies evaluate the viability of a claim by reviewing documentation such as medical records, police reports, and legal filings. This vetting process helps determine both eligibility and the potential amount of funding offered.

Considerations for Plaintiffs

While pre-settlement funding can offer financial breathing room, it is not a universal solution for every litigant. Plaintiffs are advised to consult closely with their attorneys before deciding to move forward with an advance. An attorney can provide guidance on whether anticipated settlement amounts reasonably justify the costs associated with funding. Additionally, plaintiffs should take time to review any contract terms carefully, paying particular attention to fee structures and potential caps on interest. Regulatory requirements for transparency vary from state to state, and consumer protection advocates often encourage individuals to ask prospective funders for itemized disclosures that outline how expenses and interest accumulate over time.

Balancing Immediate Needs with Long-Term Outcomes

For many plaintiffs, the main appeal of pre-settlement funding lies in the ability to cover urgent expenses without feeling pressured to accept a premature or undervalued settlement. Financial stress can sometimes overshadow the pursuit of a fair legal resolution. Having access to funds to pay rent, medical bills, and utility costs can enable individuals to focus more effectively on recovering from injuries and collaborating with their legal teams. At the same time, the additional fees tied to funding must be weighed against the potential difference a plaintiff might receive if they negotiate a higher settlement by waiting. Striking a balance between meeting immediate needs and preserving future gains is a critical part of the decision-making process.

Regulatory Landscape and Industry Best Practices

The legal funding industry is subject to varying degrees of oversight. Several states have enacted or proposed regulations to ensure consumer protections. In some jurisdictions, legislators have mandated clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding interest rates, fee schedules, and any other costs that might be included in the repayment obligation. These efforts aim to safeguard plaintiffs from overextending themselves financially or unknowingly entering into agreements with unfavorable terms. Reputable legal funding companies generally support transparent industry standards, seeing them as essential for maintaining trust and helping plaintiffs fully understand the implications of the agreements they sign.

Potential Impact on the Legal Process

Plaintiffs considering pre-settlement funding often wonder whether accessing an advance will change how negotiations proceed. While the presence of funding does not directly alter the defendant's or insurance company's approach, plaintiffs who relieve their short-term financial hardships may feel less pressure to settle immediately. This dynamic can sometimes allow parties to conduct more thorough investigations, secure additional expert opinions, or wait for crucial evidence to come to light. Nonetheless, case outcomes depend on numerous factors—including liability assessments, the strength of the evidence, and judicial proceedings—and not solely on whether the plaintiff has opted for a funding advance.

Addressing Myths and Misconceptions

Despite growing awareness, misconceptions about lawsuit funding persist. One common myth is that plaintiffs give up control of their case when they secure an advance. In practice, a reputable funding provider does not direct case strategy or negotiations; plaintiffs and their attorneys maintain full authority over legal decisions. Another misconception is that high rates inevitably accompany all pre-settlement advances. While some companies may impose significant fees, others strive for more balanced terms. Conducting comparative research and consulting third-party resources can help plaintiffs identify funding options that align with their specific needs.

Informing Plaintiffs and Attorneys

Through its resource materials and ongoing educational initiatives, Rockpoint Legal Funding aims to clarify how pre-settlement advances fit into the broader legal landscape. Attorneys can benefit by understanding the various funding options available to clients, enabling them to offer well-rounded advice. Meanwhile, plaintiffs gain insight into navigating what can be a confusing world of financial products and services. Informed decision-making involves not only estimating the value of a legal claim but also realistically appraising personal financial requirements and the time it may take to resolve a case.

About Rockpoint Legal Funding

Rockpoint Legal Funding provides non-recourse cash advances to plaintiffs in personal injury and other civil cases. The company's primary goal is to help individuals facing extended litigation address pressing financial concerns so they can pursue a fair legal outcome. Through transparent practices, Rockpoint endeavors to equip both plaintiffs and their attorneys with clear information, enabling them to decide whether a funding advance is appropriate for their circumstances.

For more information about Rockpoint Legal Funding, visit rockpointlegalfunding.com.

Omni Bridgeway Announces Financial Close of Fund 9

By Harry Moran |

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) (Omni Bridgeway, OBL) is pleased to announce  Financial Close of its Secondary Market Transaction ,which was first announced upon signing on 18 December 2024 (link). The transaction involves the establishment of Fund 9 as a continuation fund, with funds managed by Ares Management Corporation (Ares) as the capital provider. Fund 9 has acquired a number of Omni Bridgeway’s co-investment interests in its funds.

An initial payment of A$275m has been received from Ares, which has been used to fully repay OBL’s outstanding debt of A$250m and to meet transaction costs, with the balance going to OBL to fund working capital requirements.

OBL is entitled to a further upfront consideration payment to reflect the balance of value of the interests acquired by Fund 9 at the time of signing.  This is due to be received from Ares at the end of March 2025. OBL expects the total upfront proceeds to be in the range of A$310m–A$320m, subject to interim FX movements.

1H25 results webcastFollowing the release of its results for the six months to 31 December 2024, OBL will host a market briefing at 9:30am AEDT on Thursday 27 February 2025. To access this event, please register at https://webcast.openbriefing.com/obl-hyr-2025/.

Federal Court of Australia Rules Against Claimants in Shareholder Class Action Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

Whilst Australia remains a top jurisdiction for litigation funders looking to support impactful class actions, there is no amount of due diligence or analysis that can guarantee the end result will be a positive one for the claimants or funder.

An announcement from Litigation Capital Management (LCM) revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has provided an unfavourable ruling in a shareholder class action that LCM had funded. The class action was brought against Quintis Limited and its auditors, Ernst & Young, over allegations that they had engaged in false or misleading conduct which resulted in shareholders suffering financial losses.

LCM noted that whilst the Federal Court ruled that both the above parties had “engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct”, the claimants had not been able to prove  that this conduct had directly resulted in loss and damage. In the ruling, Justice Sharrif concluded that he was “not satisfied that the Davis Applicants have established their case as to causation, such that they have not established their case as to recovery of causally-connected loss.”

LCM disclosed that it has invested A$13.2 million in the case, which is supported by an insurance policy to cover any adverse costs exposure. Furthermore, LCM stated that there is a 28-day window for any appeal against the judgment to be filed, with the funder and its legal team currently considering “the merits of any appeal.” 

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, provided the following statement on the Federal Court’s ruling: "In this shareholder class action, our funded claim established misleading and deceptive conduct by the director and the auditors on the facts before the court. The case did not succeed in determining loss caused by this conduct and we are considering carefully with our legal team why this is the case. It is an unusual outcome that the court found that the financial statements in question were misleading, but that this did not result in loss for the shareholders in Quintis. Our focus now is on assessing the Judgment and determining the best course of action alongside our legal team. We remain committed to our disciplined approach in managing risk and capital across our portfolio."

The full judgment from the Federal Court can be read here.

Competition Appeal Tribunal Approves £200m Settlement in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was the venue for one of the most interesting settlement approval hearings in recent memory, as the class representative and litigation funder found themselves at odds over a proposed settlement.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the news that the CAT has approved the £200 million settlement in the collective action brought by Walter Merricks CBE against Mastercard. The approval came following the end of a three-day hearing where the Tribunal heard arguments from counsel for Merricks, Mastercard, and for the litigation funder who had backed the legal action, Innsworth Capital. Hodge Malek KC, Chairman of the CAT, praised Merricks dedication to the case and noted that “the fact the outcome has been disappointing in the light of how the evidence and rulings have developed does not detract from that.”

Merricks welcomed the Tribunal’s approval of the settlement, explaining that while he had “clearly hoped to have recovered more”, given the way the case had played out over the last few years, the settlement represented “the best amount possible”. Merricks’ legal team similarly highlighted the positive result after the prolonged duration of the collective action, with Boris Bronfentrinker, partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, describing the settlement as the “culmination of more than eight years of hard work”. 

Bronfentrinker appeared to take aim at the litigation funder’s intervention to try and block the settlement, saying that it was “most unfortunate that Innsworth chose to fight the settlement and to also threaten Mr Merricks personally by starting litigation against him.” 

Mr Justice Roth, Acting President of the CAT, said that the final judgment on the collective action would be delivered within “the next three weeks.”

Legal-Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Company Renews Focus on FELA and Railroad Cases in Light of Newly-filed Wrongful Death Lawsuits Against Norfolk Southern Railroad

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay, the premier Pre Settlement Funding Company, announces today that they are expanding their FELA and railroad injury claims department due to an increase in railway worker personal injury claims and the recent wrongful death lawsuit filed against Norfolk Southern Railroad.

The Norfolk case was filed earlier this month on the second anniversary of the tragic East Palestine, Ohio train derailment and subsequent toxic spill where plaintiffs claim multiple lingering health issues, including seven deaths. The lawsuit also levels accusations against the EPA and CDC, alleging that neither organization carried out a proper cleanup, nor warned residents about the potential health risks, elevating fears that their sudden mysterious illnesses could progress into something more serious.

Train derailments are only one of many reasons railroad lawsuits are filed. Everyday commuters can be victims of criminal violence on subways, or be injured due to improperly maintained train cars or railway stations. Plaintiffs will normally file negligence suits against the rail line and even the city itself for failing to keep their passengers safe.

If you are a plaintiff in any type of active railroad injury litigation and need an immediate cash advance lawsuit loan against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Chris Janish, CEO, commented, "Our funding on FELA cases this year is up over 100%. Legal-Bay is putting a large focus on train accidents in light of recent national headlines. We have always been a leader in FELA cases because of our expertise and our ability to provide ample capital for the long haul on these cases."

In addition to passenger lawsuits, there has also been an increase in FELA funding requests from railway employees within recent months. Legal Bay has even launched a new website specifically built for railroad FELA claims and railroad workers. The lawsuit funding company also secured more capital for railroad workers and employees covered under the FELA Act of 1908, which provides financial relief for railroad employees seeking workers compensation for an injury sustained on the job or in the yard.

If you are (or were) a railroad worker who has filed a lawsuit because of injuries you've suffered due to no fault of your own, or if you were injured due to negligence of your rail company or supervisor, or if you were hurt on the job because of faulty equipment or unsafe working conditions, then you may qualify for legal funding.

If you are a plaintiff or attorney involved in an active FELA railroad injury lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance lawsuit loan against an impending settlement, please visit our specialized FELA website HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

While railway workers need to take a few extra steps, most everyday victims of railroad injuries can file personal injury lawsuits. Damages in railroad injury cases are in line with other personal injury settlement awards such as reimbursement for lost earnings, medical expenses, and physical as well as mental pain and suffering.

Legal-Bay has been funding train accidents for the last 15 years and focuses much of their attention to certain cities and states: New York, NY; Newark, New Jersey; Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta, GA; Nashville, TN; Chicago, IL; and Los Angeles, CA to name a few. 

They are often referred to as one of the best lawsuit loan companies out there and the best lawsuit funding provider for railroad workers, in part because the lawsuit settlement loan company offers the quickest approvals and lowest rates industry wide. Contact Legal-Bay today or visit our specialized FELA website HERE to find out why we are considered the top lawsuit money lender around.

Legal-Bay advocates for victims of railroad injuries, but they provide settlement loan funding for all types of cases including personal injury, dog bites, slip and falls, car accidents, boat accidents, motorcycle accidents, bike accidents, truck accidents, and more.

Legal-Bay provides some of the best rates and fastest approvals in the industry, less than 24-48 hours in some cases. They offer free lawsuit evaluation on your settlement amount or case value, along with no out-of-pocket expenses or upfront costs. Their settlement funding loans have helped numerous plaintiffs by providing immediate cash in advance of a lawsuit's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loans aren't really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To learn more about Legal-Bay's funding for FELA claims, railroad worker, railway passenger personal injury lawsuits, railroad lawsuit loans, rail worker personal injury pre settlement funding, railroad employees personal injury settlement loans, or railroad worker personal injury lawsuit loan funds, please visit the company's website HERE to apply right now or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where friendly and helpful agents are standing by to answer your questions.

CAT Hearing for £200m Mastercard Settlement Highlights Divide Between Funder and Class Representative

By Harry Moran |

Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class representative and funder over a proposed settlement shows that it is not always a relationship in which both parties see eye to eye.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of the ongoing hearing at the CAT, as the tribunal hears arguments as to whether the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard hearing should be approved or not. The hearing, which is scheduled to last until the end of the week, saw counsel for the claimant, defendant and funder each offer their arguments on whether the judges should proceed with the collective settlement approval order (CSAO).

Mark Brealey KC, counsel for class representative Walter Merricks CBE, stated that it was the position of both Merricks and Mastercard that the value of the settlement was “in a range that was fair and reasonable.” Responding to the intervention of Innsworth Capital, the litigation funder opposing the settlement, Brealey argued that “the funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings”.

Charles Bear KC, representing Innsworth as the intervener, highlighted the cost of the funder’s support for the case and argued that approval would mean that “the class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.” Bear went further and emphatically stated that Innsworth’s view is that “it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.”

Sonia Tolaney KC, counsel for Mastercard, suggested that it was the views of the class representative and defendant that should hold the most weight, arguing that “There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].” Tolaney also targeted Innsworth’s questioning of whether the £200 million settlement was the best possible outcome for the class representative, declaring that in Mastercard’s view, “that is the wrong question.”