Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles

Australian Class Action Brought Against McDonald’s Secures Favourable Judgements 

Whilst class actions in the UK, US and Europe often receive more coverage, Australia continues to demonstrate its place as one of the top jurisdictions for class actions, particularly those cases that benefit from third-party funding. This is once again demonstrated by news today that a major class action brought against McDonalds has scored two significant victories. In a post on LinkedIn, Michelle Silvers, CEO of Court House Capital, provided an overview of two major developments in the class action being brought against McDonald’s in Australia by Shine Lawyers.  Court House Capital is providing funding for the claim. Firstly, the Federal court of Australia rejected an application to stay the class action, allowing the case to proceed to a case management hearing in 21 days. Secondly, the Full Court of the Federal Court ruled that it had the power “to order that a portion of settlement monies be paid to the litigation funder, Court House Capital, supporting the action, upon approval of any settlement – a so called Settlement Common Fund Order.” The class action focuses on allegations that McDonald’s failed to give its workers a paid 10-minute break when they were working shifts of four hours or more. This refusal to provide paid breaks was in contravention to McDonald’s Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013 (EBA) and the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 (Award). The class action is also being supported by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU). Commenting on the ruling, Silvers said, “We now look forward to progressing the class action for the thousands of group members represented by Shine Lawyers and funded by Court House Capital.”

The European Litigation Funding Association (ELFA) Adds Litigium Capital

The European Litigation Funding Association (ELFA) is delighted to announce that Litigium Capital has become the latest member to join the organisation.  “Joining ELFA is a natural step for Litigium Capital. From a European perspective, the legal financing market is still evolving and, as such, subject to continuous development and innovation. It is essential that key players within the market set standards for, and monitor, responsible operations. By joining ELFA, we continue our commitment to industry best practice in our mission to further develop litigation funding in our home markets”, says Litigium Capital’s CEO, Thony Lindström Härdin.  Omni Bridgeway Managing Director and ELFA Chairman, Wieger Wielinga commented: “I am delighted to welcome Litigium Capital as the latest ELFA member and first Nordic based litigation funder. Litigium’s core mission to establish litigation funding as a well-recognised and widely used form of financing in the Nordics, aligns perfectly with ELFA’s aims. We look forward to collaborating with Litigium founders, Thony Lindström Härdin and Oscar Holm.”  About ELFA:  ELFA was founded by three leading litigation funders with a European footprint, Deminor, Nivalion AG, and Omni Bridgeway Limited. ELFA's current directors are Charles Demoulin (Chief Investment Officer, Deminor); Marcel Wegmüller (Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Nivalion AG); and Wieger Wielinga (Managing Director EMEA, Omni Bridgeway), who is ELFA's Chairman. The intention of the association is to be inclusive for all professional litigation funders of larger or smaller size.  About Litigium:  Litigium Capital is a Swedish investment company dedicated to legal financing. Litigium Capital focuses on funding litigation and arbitration disputes in the Nordics, as well as funding Nordic clients globally. Combining legal and financial expertise for superior risk www.elfassociation.eu 2 assessments and customer service, Litigium Capital’s vision is to make legal financing a natural tool for companies of all sizes in the Nordics.

Woodsford-Funded ‘Car Delivery Charges’ Claim Reaches Settlement with One Defendant

Despite the ongoing discussions around the fate of litigation funding for class action claims in the UK, we are still seeing positive outcomes in ongoing claims before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).  Reporting by Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) provides an update on the Car Delivery Charges claim, which has seen the impressive milestone of a settlement being reached today. Although the claim has been brought against five separate shipping companies, this settlement is between only one company, CSAV, and the class representative Mark McLaren.  In the opt-out claim that is funded by Woodsford, McLaren is representing both UK consumers and businesses who had bought or leased vehicles from one of five international shipping companies: MOL, “K” Line, NYK, WWL/EUKOR and CSAV, between 2006 and 2015. The claim alleges that these companies engaged in a price-fixing scheme, following a European Commission ruling in 2018 which found that these corporations had violated the European Union’s competition laws and issued a fine of €395m. Now that the settlement with CSAV has been reached, both the law firms representing the claimants and CSAV have submitted an application for the CAT to approve the settlement. The CAT will consider the application at a hearing on 6 December 2023.  However, it is important to note that CSAV’s market share is the smallest of all five defendants, at only 1.7%, with the other four defendants set to continue to fight the claim at trial in 2025. McLaren highlighted that the settlement was important not only for this case, but was “also a significant development for the wider UK collective action regime.” Steven Friel, CEO of Woodsford described the outcome as a “pioneering settlement, which demonstrates the power of litigation funding to help hold large companies to account for their wrongdoing, in this case cartel behaviour.”

Burford Capital Releases Latest Quarterly Journal of Legal Finance

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases its latest Burford Quarterly, a journal of legal finance that explores the top trends impacting the business of law. The latest issue of the Burford Quarterly 4 2023 includes:
  • Data analytics and litigation: How Artificial Intelligence (AI) will (and won't) change the economics of law Key takeaways from a recent discussion with leading players in integrated data analytics and AI, moderated by Co-COO David Perla.
  • Macroeconomic trends affect how GCs think about dispute costs and risk Burford Co-COO Aviva Will analyzes key considerations top in-house lawyers face around the world, leveraging new insights from a survey of 66 GCs, heads of litigation and other senior lawyers.
  • Best practices for building risk-based practices Senior lawyers from Gibson Dunn, Morgan Lewis, Mayer Brown and Proskauer Rose discuss best practices for law firms expanding their risk-based practices with Burford Director Evan Meyerson.
  • New data shows judgment and award enforcement remains a perennial problem Vanishingly few senior in-house lawyers (2%) recover the full value of their judgments and awards. Burford Vice President Victoria Fox explains how this problem is only exacerbated by difficult economic conditions.
  • Case study: $325 million corporate deal A recent portfolio financing arrangement with a Fortune 500 company demonstrates how businesses benefit from building—and financing—affirmative litigation recovery programs.
  • Arbitration data analytics Third-party funding of investor-state and international commercial arbitration is on the rise. Burford Director Jeffery Commission examines key arbitration dispute data.
  • As US bankruptcy filings increase, legal finance is set to play an important role Burford Managing Director Emily Slater explores recent US bankruptcy activity and explains how the legal finance industry is increasingly playing a role.
Setting a new standard for legal finance reporting and transparency Burford's CFO Jordan Licht describes Burford's new industry-standard approach for valuing legal finance asset values, which gives clients and investors greater transparency into the performance of legal finance partners.

The Pivotal Role of Funding for Climate Litigation

Recent years have demonstrated that issues around climate change and environmental protection are becoming a more central part of decision-making for governments and businesses alike. However, for those individuals and groups looking to advance positive change in this area by using the courts to build momentum, they face the underlying issue of raising funds to support this kind of litigation. An article in Energyworld examines the growing prominence of litigation focused on climate change, highlighting the difficulties faced by plaintiffs, and looking at how the prospect of litigation funding could prove to be a game changer for both the volume of lawsuits, and their probability of success.  Demonstrating the ongoing growth in climate-focused litigation, Reuters cites research from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law which found that “the cumulative number of cases globally has more than doubled since 2015 to nearly 2,200.” However, additional research from the Grantham Research Institute shows that around 90% of these cases are being brought by individuals or NGOs.  With an increase in the volume of climate change cases and the associated litigants lacking the financial resources of a government or corporation, it is apparent why the issue of financing becomes so crucial. Francois de Borchgave, investment specialist and plaintiff in the Klimaatzaak (Climate Affair) case in Belgium emphasises that “funding is a barrier in the sense that it limits the ability of any group of citizens to do it.” With philanthropy and crowdfunding offering limited solutions, the article examines the opportunities for litigation funders to take on an active role in the climate litigation fight. Ana Carolina Salomão Queiroz, chief investment officer at Pogust Goodhead, suggests that taking legal action against companies who harm the environment is an effective method, stating that “by holding corporations accountable, it is increasing the cost of non-compliance with environmental regulations.” Dr Noah Walker-Crawford, research fellow at University College London, cautions that whilst litigation funders can support these cases, he notes that there may be a disparity in the kind of cases they will fund. He explains that this is because “if there’s a profit motive, there might be a financial incentive to look more toward cases brought by wealthy homeowners who are threatened by sea level rise.”

Have Litigation Funders Downplayed the Impact of the PACCAR Decision?

The Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision has provoked a wide range of reaction and analyses from across the legal sectors, with most funders stating that they either have solutions in place, or are actively working towards those solutions with clients. However, a recent analysis argues that “the litigation funding industry is very much playing down the decision”, whereas the real impact could be much more severe. In a new piece for The Law Society Gazette, costs lawyer Jim Diamond, takes a look at the PACCAR judgement and its potential impact on the litigation funding industry, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling is “a catastrophic decision.” Diamond identifies the four main types of cases in which litigation funding agreements could, and likely will, be challenged because of the PACCAR decision: cases funded in the CAT, cases funded solely with a multiple return, cases with both a multiple and a percentage return, and historical concluded cases. Each of these types of cases will have their own nuanced issues to tackle and require tailored solutions, with Diamond predicting that the scale of this upheaval will mean that “a number of UK funders will not survive the challenges.” Diamond poses the potential situation in which “a funder that has been advising investors for a number of years, but now has to revert to them and ask for funds paid over to be returned on the basis that the agreements they used are unenforceable and the profits made have to be reimbursed.” Faced with such a prospect, Diamond argues that it is unsurprising that funders have issued statements that largely played down the potential impact of the PACCAR decision. Additionally, Diamond examines additional issues that may arise from “further satellite litigation on the multiple instead of percentage-based LFA agreements”, arguing that funders “who use the term ‘reasonable legal costs’ in their LFA may not fully understand the consequences of that term.” He concludes by suggesting that both funders and lawyers are likely to face “some very turbulent times ahead.”

High Court Trial Begins for Clydesdale Bank Loans Case

Group actions remain powerful tools for small businesses to seek justice and financial compensation when they feel that they have been wronged. The start of a trial in the English High Court over the mis-selling of fixed rate loans, once again shows the potential of these claims. Reporting in the Australian Financial Review and the Financial Times provides an overview of the opening day of the High Court trial for a group action brought against Clydesdale Bank, part of Virgin Money, and its former owner, National Australia Bank (NAB). The case has been brought by four businesses who are alleging that the Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank mis-sold them fixed-rate loans. They claim that NAB and CYB falsely represented the fixed-rate for these ‘tailored business loans’ (TBLs) as a market rate and later charged unlawful break fee costs after early loan repayment. The case is being coordinated by RGL Management, a litigation funder based in London and founded by James Hayward, an Australian lawyer and investment banker. RGL’s ‘sueClydesdale’ case has registered around 900 businesses who took out TBLs between 2000 and 2012. According to the claim website, RGL aims to “commence legal proceedings on behalf of business customers of Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks, claiming meaningful compensation for the losses sustained (including consequential losses where relevant).” During the trial’s opening day on Monday, the plaintiffs’ barrister Andrew Onslow KC, argued that the banks “were charging large sums by way of break costs on what we say was an illegitimate basis”, and that the claimants were seeking compensation for “for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.” In the defendants’ written response to the allegations, Bankim Thanki KC stated that the banks “did not act fraudulently, negligently, or unfairly or otherwise (in CYB’s case) in breach of contract”. Furthermore, he asserted that the TBLs’ terms allowed CYB to demand the borrowers pay those break fee costs. The trial is ongoing and will seek to determine whether the banks are liable for any damages.

Is the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR really clashing with the Litigation Finance industry? An overview of the PACCAR decision and its potential effects

The following is a contributed article from Ana Carolina Salomão, Micaela Ossio Maguiña and Sarah Voulaz of Pogust Goodhead On 26 September 2023, a new case was filed in the High Court of England and Wales on behalf of a claimant who, despite having received damages from a successful lawsuit, refused to pay litigation funders for funding previously sought. Legal representatives of the Claimants in this case are seeking a declaration from the Court that the clients’ LFAs “fall under the PACCAR regime as non-compliant DBAs” and have added that in reaching its decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28 (“PACCAR”), the Supreme Court has recognised “the importance of statutory protections for clients.” Is this the case? On 26 July 2023, the English Supreme Court (the “SC”) ruled in the widely awaited decision of PACCAR that litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) where the litigation funder’s remuneration is calculated by reference to a share of the damages recovered by claimants classify as damages-based agreements (“DBAs”). DBAs are defined within s.58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) as agreements “between a person providing either advocacy services, litigation services or claims management services” and are subject to statutory conditions, including the requirement to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (the “2013 Regulations”). DBAs that do not observe those conditions are held to be unenforceable. By ruling that the Respondents’ LFAs would fall within the express definition of “claims management services,” the SC in PACCAR extended the statutory condition relevant to the DBAs to the LFAs that provide a percentage of damages to the funder. As the funding agreements used in PACCAR were generally not drafted to meet those conditions, the Court essentially rendered unenforceable all LFAs linking the return to a percentage of the compensation recovered by the client. This article seeks to provide a critical analysis of the PACCAR decision by considering, firstly, the stance taken by the SC in its statutory interpretation of the definition of what amounts to a DBA and an LFA. Secondly, this article focuses on how the market will likely react to the PACCAR decision, including whether it will adjust and adapt to the changes that this decision brings to the table. Background to PACCAR Issues in PACCAR have arisen in the context of collective proceedings being brought against truck manufacturers for breaches of competition law. By way of a decision dated 19 July 2016, the European Commission had found that five major European truck manufacturing groups, including DAF Trucks N.V. (“DAF”), infringed competition law. Based on this decision the Road Haulage Association Limited (“RHA”) and UK Trucks Claim Limited (“UKTC”) (together, the “Respondents”) each sought an order from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) authorising them to bring separate collective claims for damages on behalf of persons who acquired trucks from DAF and other manufacturers. As both RHA and UKTC had LFAs in place by which the funder’s remuneration would be calculated by reference to a share of the damages ultimately recovered in the litigation, DAF contended that such LFAs p amounted to being “claims management services” constituting DBAs. As RHA’s and UKTC’s LFAs constituted DBAs, these would consequently become unenforceable, as such LFAs did not meet the DBAs’ statutory requirements set out in s.58AA of the 1990 Act. DAF’s argument was rejected by the CAT and the Divisional Court (Henderson, Singh and Carr LJJ)[1] and the truck manufacturing groups (the “Appellants”) sought to file an appeal. The appeal was leapfrogged to the SC to assess whether LFAs in which a funder is entitled to recover a percentage of any damages would fall within the meaning of the legislation regulating DBAs. The Supreme Court decision in PACCAR The relevant issue regarding the definition of DBAs related to whether the Respondents’ LFAs would involve the provision of “claims management services” as defined in s.4 of the Compensation Act 2006 (the “2006 Act”).[2] s.4 of the 2006 Act defines “claims management services” as services which are “advice or other services in relation to the making of a claim” (emphasis added). Within this definition, “other services” would also include a reference to “the provision of financial services or assistance.” The appeal was allowed by a 4-1 majority (Lord Sales, Reed, Leggatt and Stephens). Lord Sales gave leading judgment, ruling that the terms “claims management services” as read according to their natural meaning were capable to cover LFAs. Lord Sales argued that this was based on the definition of “claims management services” being wide and “not tied to any concept of active management of a claim.”[3] In her dissenting judgment, Lady Rose agreed with the approach taken by the CAT and the Divisional Court, who had instead interpreted the terms “claims management services” as only applicable to someone providing such services within the ordinary meaning of the term.[4] Lady Rose did not however explicitly state what she interpreted to amount as “ordinary meaning”. Although the SC’s decision in PACCAR affects litigation funded by damage based LFAs, it more pronouncedly impacts opt-out competition claims in the CAT. In CAT’s opt-out collective proceedings DBAs are unenforceable pursuant to s.47C(8) of the Competition Act 1998, which states that “[a] damages-based agreement is unenforceable if it relates to opt-out collective proceedings.” This may be more problematic for ongoing litigation which was allowed to proceed in the CAT and Collective Proceedings Orders granted in such cases will have to be revised for funding to be permitted. Notwithstanding the particular consequences of this decision for competition claims, this article delves on its role in shaping a crescent market.
  1. The SC’s interpretation of LFAs as “claims management services”: a way for the law to shape a new market
By ruling on a widely accepted definition of what constitutes an LFA, the SC is presenting a new statutory interpretation of what amounts to an LFA that provides a percentage of damages to the funder. Historically, common law has been hostile to arrangements where third parties would finance litigation between others. Such arrangements were generally considered as being contrary to public policy according to the doctrines of champerty and maintenance.[5] However, the last 30 years have seen a major increase in the development of instruments whereby a third party agrees to finance litigation between different parties. With an initial increase in popularity of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) when these were firstly introduced in the 1990s, a major growth of the litigation funding industry followed, together with the more recent introduction of DBAs. Could it then be argued that the PACCAR decision represents a response by the courts to deliberately bring certainty to an area and a market that is growing and continuously changing? In PACCAR Lord Sales held that, as Henderson LJ also observed, “funding of litigation by third parties is now a substantial industry which, although driven by commercial motives, is widely acknowledged to play a valuable role in furthering access to justice.”[6] To this he further added that the “old common law restrictions on the enforceability of third party funding arrangements have been relaxed in various ways, with the result that this industry has developed.”[7] There is thus a clear understanding from the Supreme Court of the lack of restrictions surrounding third party funding, and an awareness of the role which litigation funding plays in furthering access to justice. If this was the background leading to the decision, how could one assess the impacts of a new statutory interpretation of what constitutes an LFA? In the PACCAR judgment, Lord Sales also referred to Parliament’s intention when legislating on Part 2 of the 2006 Act, which relates to claims management services. He held that what Parliament intended to do was “to create a broadly framed power for the Secretary of State to regulate in this area.”[8] This would entail the Secretary of State being able to “decide what targeted regulatory response might be required from time to time as information emerged about what was then a new and developing field of service provision to encourage or facilitate litigation, where the business structures were opaque and poorly understood at the time of enactment.”[9] In accordance with Parliament’s intention when legislating on Part 2 of the 2006 Act, the SC’s interpretation of LFAs as “claims management services” also broadens the powers of Parliament to “regulate” in this area. Lord Sales stated that although participants in the third-party funding market may have assumed that the LFA arrangements in the case were not equivalent to DBAs, “this would not justify the court in changing or distorting the meaning of ‘claims management services’ as it is defined in the 2006 Act and in section 419A of FSMA.”[10]
  1. Will the litigation finance market adjust and adapt?
As Shepherd & Stone have put it “litigation financiers provide capital that allows law firms to litigate plaintiff-side cases that they otherwise would be reluctant to pursue on a purely contingent fee basis.”[11] This is because, as also specified by Bed and C Marra in The Shadows of Litigation Finance, litigation finance starts from the premise that a legal claim can also be framed as an asset, as litigation finance “allows claimholders, or law firms with contingent fee interests in claims, to secure financing against those assets.”[12] The value of a legal claim as an asset is a function of the amount in dispute, the likelihood that this amount will be awarded and the ability to recover the award, all discounted by certain risk metrics. It can be argued that the rise of litigation finance as an asset class has provided funding specifically dedicated to addressing claimholders’ liquidity and risk constraints. Claimholders who had previously been unable to obtain various other forms of third-party funding may now obtain other forms of litigation funding.[13] This logic of sharing risk between claimholders and funder, while passing liquidity from funders to claimholders, has improved access to justice, as the scarcity of liquid funds are not an unsurmountable obstacle to litigate a meritorious claim. The PACCAR decision will certainly influence litigation funders’ choices when designing their funding arrangements, but it is unlikely that it that it will “throw litigation funders under a truck”[14] or prevent the funding of meritorious claims or the pursuit for liquidating those financial assets. To the contrary, the PACCAR decision could be interpreted as a trigger for this market to adjust, adapt and thrive. Litigation funders may explore new ways to structure funding agreements to ensure compliance with this decision and a more secure return on investment. The new interpretation of LFAs falling within the definition of “claims management services” will likely force all players in litigation finance to take into consideration the drafting of agreements not only for recovery and execution of judgments, but also when contracting and/or thinking of potentially defaulting an agreement. Litigation funders may and should interpret the PACCAR decision as a natural development for the industry. This decision, which has been widely awaited, can now also bring more clarity to the negotiation tables. Interested stakeholders who have been preparing for how PACCAR would impact the industry will now be provided with more confidence and guidance on entering LFAs. This leads to conclude that the PACCAR decision, whether it will be overruled or not, is a milestone to the growing relevance of litigation finance in England and Wales rather than a “blow”[15] to this industry. The mere existence of a Supreme Court decision in this niche area of law and finance marks per se the relevance of litigation finance as an asset class. Additionally, the PACCAR decision also shows that regulating on this alternative asset class can drive the behaviour of the contracting parties. Imposing further regulation may close the gap on information asymmetries and reduce entry barriers for funders and their investors, fostering competition and promoting a more balanced financial ecosystem. Conclusion  The PACCAR decision does not entail that access to third party funding will necessarily be hampered in England and Wales. As set out in this article, litigation funding is maturing in the country, and a rapidly growing market. Although this decision will mean further compliance with DBA regulations, it should not undermine access to justice and the pace of litigation funding growth. Nonetheless, as the decision does impose a new statutory interpretation of the law, law firms, claimants and litigation funders will all inevitably face additional scrutiny when entering into funding agreements and they will be compelled to revise their current LFAs to make sure they do not fall within the definition of a DBA and, therefore, become unenforceable. These revisions are expected to be easily cured in most cases, with restructured compliant agreements when needed. Citations: [1] [2021] EWCA Civ 299, 1 WLR 3648. [2] s.58AA of the 1990 Act incorporates the definition of “claims management services”2 set out in the 2006 Act (and subsequently the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”)). [3] PACCAR [63]. [4] PACCAR [254]. [5] PACCAR [11]. See also PACCAR [55] which provides that in “the Arkin decision in 2005 the Court of Appeal confirmed that an arrangement whereby a third party funder who financed a claim in the expectation of receiving a share of any recovery, under an arrangement which left the claimant in control of the litigation, was non-champertous and hence was enforceable.” Note that whilst the doctrines of maintenance and champerty are now obsolete in England and Wales, in countries such as Ireland there is a continuing prohibition on maintenance and champerty, which has meant an effective prohibition on third party funding of litigation in those jurisdictions, save in limited circumstances. [6] PACCAR [11]. [7] PACCAR [11]. [8] PACCAR [61]. [9] PACCAR [723] [10] PACCAR [91] [11] Joanna M. Shepherd & Judd E. Stone II, Economic Conundrums in Search of a Solution: The Functions of Third Party Litigation Finance, 47 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 919 (2015) at 929-30. [12] Suneal Bedi and William C. Marra, The Shadows of Litigation Finance, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vo. 74 Number 3 (April 2021) at 571. [13] Suneal Bedi and William C. Marra, The Shadows of Litigation Finance, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vo. 74 Number 3 (April 2021) at 586. [14] PACCAR – Supreme Court throws Litigation Funders under a truck, Simmons+Simmons, 26 July 2023. [15]  UK's Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Litigation Funding, Law International, 26 July 2023.

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Settlement Funding Launches New Site for Commercial Litigation Loans

Legal-Bay LLC, The Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, a leader in lawsuit funding services and legal funding with the fastest approval process in the industry, announced today that they have launched a new site for commercial litigation case funding and will be focusing on funding more commercial litigation cases for the foreseeable future. For over a decade, Legal-Bay has been dedicated to funding large and complex commercial litigation cases. However, they have now expanded to accommodate more clientele as they've seen a surge in cases where clients have been disqualified for advances from other funding companies. Legal-Bay specializes in complex business and commercial cases and has a team of attorneys and large institutional investors ready to evaluate cases in an expedited manner in effort to grant plaintiffs their requested funding amount. Whether you are looking for $10,000 or up to $10MM, Legal-Bay can assist you with getting the capital or lawsuit cash advance you need to see your case through to final settlement payment. Chris Janish, CEO commented on the company's new focus and target on commercial litigation pre settlement advances, "Although we have been very active in the commercial litigation funding industry for over a decade for cases ranging over $500K in funding, we have found that the lower end of the market is underserved.  Plaintiffs who need smaller funding amounts in the range of $10K to $500K is something our in-house underwriting team can process quickly and fund within a week of due diligence.  We believe that we are the only commercial litigation funder that is dedicated to this specific target market at this time."  To apply for funding on your commercial litigation case with Legal-Bay—known as "one of the best lawsuit loan companies"—or if you're looking for a loan on lawsuit, to get started with the 24 to 48-hour approval process on your settlement or pre-settlement funding request, please call 877.571.0405 or visit: https://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com/commercial-lawsuit-funding.php