Trending Now
Commercial People Moves

Apex Litigation Finance Announces the Retirement of Stephen Allinson as Head of Legal

By John Freund |
August 26, 2025

Apex Litigation Finance Announces the Retirement of Stephen Allinson as Head of Legal

Apex Litigation Finance has announced the retirement of Stephen Allinson from his role as Head of Legal, marking the end of a formal leadership chapter but not his association with the litigation funder.

Stephen is a highly respected Solicitor and Licensed Insolvency Practitioner with more than 40 years’ experience in business law, insolvency and debt recovery. Over the course of his career, he has combined practice with thought leadership, lecturing widely on credit and insolvency matters and serving in senior regulatory and educational roles.

His distinguished career includes:

  • Building and leading a nationally recognised insolvency and debt recovery practice at a large regional law practice, employing over 60 department staff and managing key national contracts.
  • Serving as Chairman of the Board of The Insolvency Service and Chairman of The Joint Insolvency Examination Board.
  • Holding senior tribunal and regulatory positions, including membership of the ICAEW Conduct Committee and more than a decade chairing disciplinary and appeal tribunals for the ACCA.
  • Chairing the Assessment Board of the Chartered Institute of Credit

Stephen first joined Apex in 2019 as a consultant, before becoming Head of Legal in 2022. In that capacity he has been instrumental in guiding Apex’s legal strategy, strengthening its market position and ensuring the company’s commitment to fair, practical and client-focused litigation funding.

While he will be stepping down from the Head of Legal role, Stephen’s association with Apex will not end. He will continue to serve the business as a trusted consultant, providing invaluable expertise and support to the team and Apex’s clients.

Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance, said: “Stephen’s contribution to Apex has been exceptional. His legal expertise, combined with his deep understanding of insolvency and credit law, has helped shape Apex into the funder it is today. We are delighted that while he is stepping down from his formal role, we will continue to benefit from his counsel as a consultant. We thank him sincerely for his leadership and look forward to our continued collaboration.”

Tim Fallowfield, Apex Chairman wrote:  “Apex would not be where it is today without Stephen’s contribution, his wide-ranging legal knowledge and passion for his work. He has mentored the legal team, led by example and been an integral member of the Apex Investment Committee. We wish him lots of luck for the next chapter and look forward to his future engagement with the Apex business. From all of us at Apex, a hearty thanks.”

Stephen commented: “It has been a privilege to be part of the Apex journey and contribute to the growth of the company. Access to justice has always been one of the guiding principles of my professional career and I look forward to the continuing growth of Apex and still playing my part, albeit in a different role.”

About Apex Litigation Finance

Apex Litigation Finance provides fast, fair and flexible funding solutions for small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes requiring between £10,000 and £750,000 of funding, on a non-recourse basis. By combining financial support with deep sector expertise, Apex enables access to justice for claimants while serving as a trusted partner to legal professionals and insolvency practitioners.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Merricks Urges UK Court to Reject Innsworth’s Challenge Over £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The class representative in the Merricks v Mastercard collective claim has urged a London court to reject litigation funder Innsworth Advisors' judicial review of the £200 million settlement distribution, in what observers describe as the first substantive test of a Competition Appeal Tribunal settlement decision.

As reported by Law360, Walter Merricks's legal team told the High Court on Wednesday that Innsworth has already received an adequate return from the CAT-approved settlement and that its challenge should be dismissed. Innsworth argued earlier in the week that the distribution scheme is "illogical" and "flawed," contending that the tribunal failed to properly assess the funder's recovery.

The CAT had divided the settlement into three pots. Pot 1, totalling £100 million, is ring-fenced for class members. Pot 2, approximately £45 million, covers Innsworth's litigation costs. Pot 3, approximately £55 million, allocates roughly £23 million to Innsworth as the profit element of its return, bringing its total recovery to around £68 million. Innsworth contends that this amounts to only a 0.5x return on more than £45 million invested, and disputes the methodology used to set the figure.

The case has drawn close attention from the UK funding sector. A judicial review of a CAT-sanctioned distribution could establish important parameters around how courts assess funder returns in collective proceedings, particularly at a moment when the tribunal has signaled heightened scrutiny of certification and take-up in entrepreneurial class actions.

Commercial

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice Imposes New Limits on Funders and Claim Aggregators in $590M Trucks Cartel Ruling

By John Freund |

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's Federal Court of Justice, has issued a closely watched judgment in the long-running Trucks Cartel litigation that upholds the use of collective claims vehicles in principle but sets significant guardrails around third-party litigation funding and claim aggregation.

As reported by Leaders League, the May 12, 2026 ruling addressed claims arising from the European Commission's 2016 cartel decision, brought on behalf of more than 3,000 entities across 21 jurisdictions and seeking approximately US$590 million. The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may be collectively aggregated and enforced by registered claims collection entities, reinforcing collective redress mechanisms in German private antitrust litigation.

The court imposed two material limits. First, third-party funders cannot exercise control that compromises the claims vehicle's obligation to act exclusively in the interests of the assignors, a conflict-of-interest standard that goes to funder governance rights. Second, claims aggregation cannot obstruct effective judicial review; excessive volume or complexity that renders proper assessment "impracticable" may violate the German Legal Services Act and result in dismissal for procedural abuse.

The BGH overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter, directing the lower court to examine whether the funding structure created incompatible conflicts and, if the assignments survive, to divide claims within six months. The decision is expected to shape the architecture of funded collective antitrust actions across Europe, particularly in jurisdictions modelling Germany's claims-collection framework.

Commercial

Michigan House Passes Third-Party Litigation Funding Bill 60–45, Sending Measure to Democratic Senate

By John Freund |

The Michigan House of Representatives has approved House Bill 5281, a Republican-sponsored measure that would impose registration, disclosure, and contracting restrictions on third-party litigation funders operating in the state, advancing the bill to a Senate where Democrats hold a narrow majority.

As reported by The Center Square, the bill cleared the chamber on a 60–45 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support: Tulio Liberati, Peter Herzberg, Angela Witwer, and Will Snyder. Sponsor Rep. Mike Harris framed the legislation in floor remarks by asking, "Who does it benefit to allow outside investors to influence decisions in Michigan courtrooms?"

The bill requires litigation funders to register with the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, pay a $10,000 application fee, and file annual reports on funding activity. It mandates a ten-day consumer cancellation window for funded contracts, prohibits kickbacks and referral fees, prohibits funder influence on case strategy, bans funding by foreign adversaries, and imposes caps on funder spending and recoveries from awards.

Backers cited industry analyses suggesting third-party litigation funding raises household costs through higher prices and lost tax revenue. The measure now heads to a Senate where Democrats hold an 20–18 majority and where the bill's path is uncertain. The House passage adds Michigan to the list of states considered most active on third-party funding regulation, alongside parallel efforts under way in Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania.