Whilst last week saw a flurry of activity in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as trials began in multiple collective proceedings, this week has seen the Tribunal hand down a ruling in a carriage dispute between two claims both targeting Amazon for allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.

A press release from Geradin Partners highlights the judgment from the CAT in a carriage dispute, which saw the Tribunal find in favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in collective proceedings being brought against Amazon. The carriage dispute related to the parallel claims brought by Professor Stephan and by the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA), over allegations that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed third-party sellers on the online marketplace. Professor Stephan’s proceedings had instructed Geradin Partners and secured litigation funding from Innsworth, whilst BIRA had instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher and agreed to funding from Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

In its ruling, the CAT found that whilst BIRA had an advantage in its suitability to act as the class representative, “this was clearly outweighed by the factors which favour Prof Stephan”, which it identified as “the scope of the claims and the expert methodology.” Although the CAT highlighted that the breadth of Professor Stephan’s claims “would no doubt enlarge the scope of a trial and therefore make it more complicated”, the ruling cited case law in emphasising that his claims “more consistent with the goals of access to justice by capturing more viable claims”.

The published judgment also shed light on the details of the funding arrangements in the claims. Professor Stephan’s litigation funding agreement (LFA) with Innsworth committed a maximum of £32.9 million to cover costs and expenses, with an additional commitment “to pay adverse costs of £5 million until the grant or refusal of a CPO and of £20 million thereafter.” As to the returns outlined in the funding agreement, Professor Stephan’s LFA with Innsworth “provides for a total multiple rising from 4 up to 10 (if the recovery is after the commencement of the substantive trial).” The CAT noted that the returns from Professor Stephan’s LFA were higher than for the funder in the BIRA claim, in the conclusion of its examination the Tribunal noted that “the funding arrangements of the two applications are a neutral factor in choosing between them.”

The CAT’s full judgment in the carriage dispute can be read here.

Additional analysis of the CAT’s ruling and its implications for future carriage disputes for funded proceedings can be found in a LinkedIn post from Matthew Lo, director at Exton Advisors.

Ayse Yazir has started a new position as Managing Director at Bench Walk Advisors. This latest promotion comes in the seventh year of Yazir’s tenure at the market-leading litigation funder, having joined the firm in 2018 as a Vice President and most recently having served as Global Head of Origination.

In a post on LinkedIn, Yazir reveals that her work at Bench Walk Advisors incorporates a wide range of matters across the litigation funding industry including international and commercial arbitration, insolvency, class actions and global litigation matters as well as law firm and corporate portfolio arrangements and defense funding.

Yazir also expressed her delight at starting the new role and thanked her fellow Bench Walk Advisors’ managing directors Stuart Grant and Adrian Chopin for the opportunity.

As we enter yet another year in the story of the $16.1 billion award in the case funded by Burford Capital against the YPF oil and gas company, a US judge has ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information about the country’s financial assets to the funder as part of its efforts to collect on the award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald provides an update on the ongoing fight to recover the $16.1 billion award in the YPF lawsuit, as a New York judge ordered Argentina to comply with a discovery request for information around the Argentine Central Bank’s gold reserves. The order handed down by Judge Loretta Preska followed the request made by Burford Capital in October of last year, with the litigation funder citing media reports that Argentina’s Central Bank had moved a portion of its gold reserves overseas.

Lawyers for Argentina’s government had submitted a letter last week arguing against the discovery request on the grounds that the Argentine Republic and Central Bank are legally separate entities, and that any such gold reserves have “special protection from execution under [United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] and UK law.” Responding to these arguments in her order, Judge Preska stated plainly that “regardless of whether the gold reserves are held by [the Central Bank], the Republic shall produce its own documents concerning the reserves.”

Judge Preska also ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information concerning its SWIFT data on its overseas accounts and for documents from another lawsuit brought against the Republic, saying that all this information could “lead to other executable assets.”

When looking for those jurisdiction most amenable to class actions supported by litigation funders, the Netherlands remains at the top of the list, as has been demonstrated once again today by a court’s approval of a privacy claim brought under the WAMCA regime.

An article on DutchNews covers the news that an Amsterdam court has approved the approach of a Dutch foundation to bring a claim against Google over allegations that the tech company violated the privacy of Android phone users. The court ruled that the Stichting Massaschade & Consument meets the admissibility requirements of the Act on Collective Damages in Class Actions (WAMCA). The court’s approval of the foundation’s structure and its involvement of a litigation funder means that the parties can now move forward with the class action which has reportedly registered over 100,000 consumers since 2023.

According to the foundation’s website, the class action is being financed by Eaton Hall Funding LLC, with the agreement allowing for the funder to receive 17.5% of the proceeds after costs, if the claim reaches a settlement or favourable ruling. Rubicon Impact & Litigation, an Amsterdam-based law firm, is providing legal representation for the claimants.

Frank Peters, co-founder and head of impact & litigation at Rubicon, emphasised the importance of working with a litigation funder on the case, stating that “you need very deep pockets to expose what Big Tech is trying to hide.” He explained that working with this funder, “our client was able to expose what information Google takes from Android phones, even when you are careful with your privacy settings”, and that the court’s ruling “makes clear that it is perfectly fine that  class actions come about like this.”More information about the claim can be found on the foundation’s website.

When it comes to funded class actions, most attention is paid to those proceedings underway in the UK, US and Australia. However, a recent ruling from New Zealand’s highest court has once again highlighted its position as a welcoming jurisdiction for funders and plaintiffs pursuing these group proceedings.

In an article on Lexology written by Nina Blomfield, James Caird, Jania Baigent, and Alice Poole from Simpson Grierson, these litigators analyse the impact of a recent decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court to reject a challenge to common fund orders (CFOs) in class actions. The ruling handed down at the end of 2024 saw the Supreme Court deny ANZ and ASB’s application for leave to appeal a lower court’s decision, which had reaffirmed the courts’ ability to allow CFOs to be made at an early stage of proceedings.

The origin of this appeal came from a 2022 High Court ruling, which confirmed the court had the jurisdiction to make a CFO in a class action but also ruled that it was too early to make a CFO prior to the conclusion of the stage 1 hearing. Two years later, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision on jurisdiction and went a step further in ruling that CFOs being made at an early stage of the litigation was beneficial in furthering access to justice.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found that both lower courts had ruled correctly, and when it came to the issue of timing re-emphasised the importance of access to justice. The justices highlighted the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that “access to justice is best achieved through a CFO being made as early as possible in a proceeding”, which in turn “gives the litigation funder a degree of assurance in relation to its return on its investment”.

The authors describe this decision as “a significant win for litigation funders and class action plaintiffs” and highlight the courts’ repeated “strong focus on access to justice in representative proceedings.”

The Supreme Court’s full judgment on the application for leave to appeal can be read here.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has continued to dominate the legal funding headlines this week, as we have already seen two class actions commence at the Tribunal. However, a new judgment released yesterday provided an unexpected and disappointing result for another claim, as the Tribunal refused to certify the collective proceedings after raising concerns about whether the class representative “has the appropriate expertise and is supported by appropriate advice” to lead the claim.

Reporting by Reuters covers the decision by the CAT to deny certification for the collective proceedings brought by Professor Christine Riefa against Apple and Amazon, which alleged that the companies had colluded to remove resellers of Apple products and thereby inflate the prices of these products for consumers. The claim, which was valued at around £494 million, sought to represent a class size of over 36 million people, including any consumers who purchased Apple or Beats products from any retailer in the UK from 31 October 2018.

The decision to refuse the application for certification had its origins in the funding arrangements between Asertis and Hausfeld & Co to support the proceedings, and Prof Riefa’s ability as the Proposed Class Representative (PCR) to act in the interests of the class members balanced against the terms of the funding agreement.

The Tribunal’s judgment largely focused on the role of Prof Riefa as the PCR, and what they described as “considerable doubts about whether we could be satisfied that the PCR would fairly and adequately act in the interests of the class members, for the purposes of the authorisation condition.” The judgment provided a detailed account of the various iterations of the litigation funding agreement and the witness statements provided by the parties involved in the proceedings, with particular emphasis on Prof Riefa’s role as the PCR. 

At the centre of the judgment, was the CAT’s view on whether Prof Riefa had satisfied the authorisation condition, finding that when it came to the funding arrangements, she did not “have a good understanding” of both the “terms being offered” and “the overall context in which it is being advised”. In their conclusion to their assessment on the authorisation condition, the Tribunal’s panel said that their “key concern in this case is that Prof Riefa has not demonstrated sufficient independence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests of the class.”

As to the further implications that this ruling might have on other collective proceedings, the Tribunal emphasised that they were neither “seeking to impose any specific conditions on the types of PCRs that are put forward”, nor were they “seeking to impose specific obligations on future PCRs as to the manner in which funding arrangements are negotiated.” However, the judgment made clear that the CAT’s primary concern “is for each PCR to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that it is suitably qualified to act for the class, and that the manner in which it has approached the funding arrangements reflects sufficient regard to the interests of the class members.” The judgment made clear that Prof Riefa had not demonstrated that she met those requirements in the application for the CPO. 

More information about the case, Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others, can be found on the CAT’s website, with the full judgment available to read here

More information about the UK Apple and Amazon Claim can be found on its website.

As LFJ reported yesterday, the start of 2025 has seen a flurry of activity at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), with two major class actions backed by litigation funders going to trial this week.

An article in City AM covers the start of the trial in the Car Delivery Charges class action at the CAT marking the first time that a follow-on cartel proceedings has gone to trial in the UK. The claim, which began in 2020, focuses on allegations that five shipping companies acted as a cartel between October 2006 and September 2012, raising the cost of shipping new vehicles to the UK and Europe. The trial against the two remaining defendants, MOL and NYK, follows the CAT’s approval of a settlement with CSAV in December 2023, and separate settlements with WWL/EUKOR and “K” Line in December 2024. 

Mark McLaren, a former executive at consumer group Which?, is acting as the class representative on behalf of UK consumers and businesses who were overcharged for vehicle purchases. Scott+Scott has been instructed as the solicitors for the claim, with Woodsford providing the litigation funding for the class action. The counsel team for the trial includes Sarah Ford KC and Sarah O’Keefe from Brick Court Chambers, and Nicholas Gibson from Matrix Chambers.

Belinda Hollway, lead partner at Scott+Scott, emphasised that “this trial marks a very significant milestone in the case and is the culmination of five years of hard work and dedication.” Holloway also highlighted the CAT’s approval of the previous settlements in the case, which she argued “demonstrates the power of the UK opt out regime to secure compensation for class members”.

In a post on LinkedIn, Woodsford said that they are “proud to be supporting Mark McLaren in the landmark Car Delivery Charges class action trial”, and that they “remain committed to the consumers affected by the cartel with settlements, in respect of 3 out of the 5 cartelists, in excess of £38m having already been reached in the course of 2023 and 2024.”

The trial is provisionally expected to last for ten weeks, with the claimants seeking to achieve around £100 million in compensation from the two remaining defendants.

More information about the class action can be found on the Car Delivery Charges website.

Past orders, judgments, transcripts and notices in Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others can be found on the CAT’s website.

Whilst the new year is now in full swing and industry leaders are fully focused on their strategic priorities for 2025, it is still an apt time to recognise the work and achievements of law firms and litigation funders across the previous year.

The inaugural Chambers UK Awards is set to be hosted in London on Thursday 13 February. Building upon the firm’s work highlighting the world’s top legal professionals through its guides, Chambers' first annual awards event will celebrate the top legal teams across the UK. The awards categories cover a range of practices, from commercial disputes to international arbitration, with only a select few firms shortlisted for each award.

As part of this inaugural awards ceremony, Chambers will be honouring the top litigation funders in the UK and has already announced the five funders who are shortlisted for this award:

• Bench Walk Advisors 
• Harbour 
• Manolete Partners 
• Therium Capital Management 
• Woodsford  

Those firms selected have already been recognised in the 2025 Chambers UK Guide, with the awards recognising each legal team for their outstanding legal work and achievements, impressive strategic growth and excellence in client service delivery. The awards are not exclusive to national law firms, with teams shortlisted in the ‘Regional Firm of the Year’ and ‘Scottish Firm of the Year’ categories.

The inaugural event is already sold out, but the full list of firms shortlisted across each category can be found on the Chambers website.

Harvey and LawPage, two legal tech companies, are sponsoring the event.

The influence of multinational technology companies has unsurprisingly made them targets for collective proceedings brought on behalf of consumers and businesses, who allege that their positions of market dominance have been leveraged to unfairly raise prices. In what is likely to be the first of many in the UK, a lawsuit brought against Apple has commenced at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. 

An article in Reuters covers the start of the trial in the UK Apple App Store claim, with the claimants seeking up to £1.5 billion in compensation for Apple’s alleged abuse of its market dominance in charging app developers a 30% commission on its digital store and thereby causing customers to be overcharged for their App Store purchases. The claim is representing UK consumers who purchased an app, content, services or subscriptions from the App Store since 1 October 2015 whilst using an iPhone or iPad device, with the class action reportedly representing around 20 million customers.

Dr Rachael Kent, a researcher and senior lecturer at King’s College London is acting as the class representative, with Hausfeld & Co. providing legal advice and Vannin Capital financing the class action. The trial is expected to continue for seven weeks and conclude on February 27, with the Tribunal’s ruling to follow at some point in the next year.

More information about the class action can be found on the UK Apple App Store Claim website.

Past orders, judgments, transcripts and notices in Dr. Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd can be found on the CAT’s website.

In recent years, the alternative business structure (ABS) model for law firm ownership is one that has mostly been discussed in relation to the US, where individual states have relaxed restrictions on these kind of hybrid legal services models. However, a new company launched in the UK demonstrates that this jurisdiction may still be leading the way for innovative partnerships between funders, law firms, insurers and legal marketing services.

Exclusive reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the launch of the new legal funding venture Legatus Holdings Limited, whose subsidiaries include Asertis, KP Law, Toremis Speciality, and Cavis. This new business aims to provide a holistic approach to the funding of mass tort and group claims, with funding, legal services, insurance, and claims marketing and acquisition contained under one organisation. Whilst this new group will allow for these services to be aligned, the subsidiary businesses are reportedly not required to work exclusively within the Legatus business.

Speaking with Bloomberg Law, Legatus’ CEO Philip Holden said that the new company is unique within the UK in having “those four subsidiaries vertically integrated into legal assets.” Holden emphasised that “each operating business is led by market-leading professionals with established pedigrees in their respective fields”, and that forming this new venture will allow Asertis “to grow more rapidly”.

With the launch of Legatus, the internal structure and leadership of these subsidiary companies is evolving. As mentioned above, Holden has taken on the chief executive duties at Legatus, having previously joined Asertis in 2022 as general counsel for the funder. Duncan Hedar, partner at KP Law, will be assuming the role of CEO at Asertis, whilst the previous incumbent Ian Madej, will be taking on the position of chief commercial officer at Legatus. Nathan Hull, previously head of contingent and litigation risk at Vale Insurance Partners, will be leading the insurance services component in Toremis Speciality. Whilst, Neil Gee will be doing the same for the new mass tort marketing arm, Cavis.

Legatus’ newly launched website does not provide any additional details on the venture, but provides a registered address for Brabners LLP in Manchester.

Although litigation funding has grown into an increasingly mainstream sector of the broader legal services industry, the strategies that shape funders’ business models are often quite opaque to those outside the funding market.

A recent episode of the Alternative Fund Insight (AFI) podcast provided useful insights from Fabian Chrobog, founder of NorthWall Capital, who discussed the firm’s approach to legal assets and their strategy for scaleability in a wide-ranging discussion.

In the interview, hosted by Will Wainewright, Chrobog outlined NorthWall’s overall legal assets strategy: “We’ve had a lot of fun running that strategy, it’s been hugely successful. It’s generated some fairly outstanding returns for LPs and it’s something we continue to be very active in. So really what we are looking for, what we are good at, is the underwriting of complex collateral. Sometimes it’s a situational complexity, it could be these asset-backed situations which are fairly complex. 

In this case we provide loans to law firms that are secured by very large pools of potential proceeds from legal assets claims. These could be litigations that could generate in some cases hundreds of millions of revenues per case or over a dozen different cases. So, what we do is we can provide working capital to the law firm without taking security over any specific case, just saying we will get paid back from the first one, two, three cases you win or settle. 

This is not exactly rocket science because you can tell which cases are most likely to settle, because there is a lot of legal precedent or there might have already been settlement discussions. So, you provide that working capital and you effectively just underwrite the cases that you have a high degree of confidence could be successful, you zero everything else, and then you severely haircut the cases that you believe could be won or settled, and you lend against those at a very low loan to value.

At the end of the day, you just have to believe that one, maybe two, of these cases resolve and sometimes these dockets have 12, 15, 20 different cases where you should have a very high degree of certainty that you’re going to get repaid. We got into this because we started looking at one of these situations and we realised there was more to do, and we’ve been very successful in originating deal flow here.”

Asked by Wainewright about NorthWall’s decision-making process when it comes to choosing which legal situations to focus on, Chrobog said: “You’re trying to remove yourself from having to be right more frequently than you’re wrong. You’re trying to create a situation where there is really a very asymmetric risk-reward profile.

But then the way that you do it is, and what is different about NorthWall and how we approach this space, is that we’re credit investors predominantly. We’re looking at how can we reduce our downside. We always pair a credit analyst with a lawyer internally, and then we get external litigation advice to help us with the individual cases.

The credit analyst’s job is to make sure the firm doesn’t run out of money, the lawyer’s job is to make sure that we really truly understand these cases, and then the investment committee’s job is to make sure that we’ve been conservative in our underwriting process.”

Prompted by Wainewright on this being an example of the idiosyncratic strategy that you find within alternatives, Chrobog went on to expand on how NorthWall’s ensures its approach is attractive to investors.

“What you have to remember is that scalability is important. Scalability is important because the people that we have are very good and they expect to be compensated, so it’s a relatively expensive strategy to run. But our investors don’t want to invest small capital, they want to invest substantial amounts of money and they want to see it deployed. 

So, what we are really focused on is we only finance large portfolios of cases because it provides downside protection, a diversification of potential revenue streams, but it also allows for a certain element of scalability. There’s no point being in a niche strategy that you can’t scale to be meaningful.”

The full interview is available on the AFI website.

Whilst Germany is not a jurisdiction that is traditionally seen as a prime market for third-party legal funding, one litigation funder based out of Bonn is reporting that it has continued to see plentiful demand for dispute funding in 2024.

In an overview of its 2024 activities, Foris AG revealed that it has financed 29 new cases from almost 450 financing requests, maintaining the funder's average volume of funded cases over recent years. These new funded cases were from a range of different dispute areas including medical malpractice, inheritance, corporate and commercial contracts. The funder also saw a rise in the number of cases resolved, rising from 24 in 2023 to 33 in 2024, with FORIS AG's CEO, Frederick Iwans stating that around 80 percent of these cases reached successful resolutions.

In order to support this growth in the number of cases that FORIS AG is financing, the litigation funder and its partners launched a fund for professional investors. The fund, which has a target volume of 50 million euros, has already received its first subscriptions with Iwans saying that the high level of interest in the fund shows that litigation financing has struck a chord with potential investors.

The funder also announced that the submission of the annual report of FORIS AG with the audited annual results for 2024 is scheduled for March 28, 2025.

The changing landscape of patent litigation in Delaware’s federal court is being driven by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly’s standing order requiring the disclosure of third-party funding involved in these lawsuits. That is according to research conducted by Jonas Anderson, a professor at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, which studied third-party litigation funding in Delaware and New Jersey. 

An article in Bloomberg Law examines the paper, ‘From Patents To Guns: Examining Third-Party Litigation Funding’, which found that in the two years following Judge Connolly's standing order from April 2022, the number of patent cases filed has totaled 1,121. This is a significant drop from the previous two-year period, which saw 1,899 patent lawsuits filed in the Delaware court. Similarly, in the New Jersey district court that also requires disclosure, Anderson found that since June 2021, only 88 cases out of 40,000 had disclosed that they were backed by third-party funding. 

Commenting on his findings, Anderson said that “from the evidence we’ve amassed, there’s a pretty good argument here that what’s going on is litigation funders don’t like disclosure.” He also noted that the result of this drop in cases being filed in Delaware resulted in an inverse rise in the number of patent suits filed in two district courts in Texas where there is no mandatory disclosure requirement for outside funding.

Michael Gulliford, managing partner and co-founder at litigation funder Soryn IP Capital Management, suggested that one of the reasons for a drop in the volume of cases in Delaware could be the court’s backlog of processing these suits. Gulliford explained that “the ability to get to trial in a speedy period of time” is a priority for funders, and that court backlogs in Delaware and other jurisdictions could pose a significant obstacle for litigation funders. William Marra, director at Certum Group, said that Anderson’s research supported his first-hand experience that “only a very small percentage of cases” are backed by litigation funders.

The full research and paper from Mr Anderson can be found here.

A new class action in the Federal Court of Australia is targeting General Motors Australia and New Zealand over the alleged sale of Holden vehicles with faulty transmissions. The class action is being brought on behalf of consumers who purchased certain models of Holden vehicles between 1 January 2011 and 24 December 2024.

Reporting by 9News covers the class action, which is being led by Maurice Blackburn. Balance Legal Capital is providing litigation funding for the claim. The vehicles allegedly affected include a range of 13 models that were equipped with GM 6L 45, GM 6L 50, or GM 6L 80 transmissions. The claim alleges that General Motors engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of these vehicles, and that it failed to meet the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law.

Kimi Nishimura, principal lawyer and executive director at Maurice Blackburn, stated: “Through this class action, we are seeking to recover compensation for those consumers who experienced loss and damage related to the transmission system in the affected vehicles.”

In response to the reporting, General Motors Australia and New Zealand did not provide a comment on the class action, with a spokesperson reiterating that “GM does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

Detailed information on the Holden Transmission Class Action can be found on Maurice Blackburn’s website.

A class action was recently filed in the Federal Court of Australia, targeting Johnson & Johnson over allegations that a number of its oral cold and flu medications are ineffective when taken orally. The claim covers 20 separate products sold by Johnson & Johnson across three brands of medication: Codral, Sudafed, and Benadryl.

An article in Lawyers Weekly covers the class action being brought by JGA Saddler, with funding for the case provided by Omni Bridgeway. The pharmaceutical giant is accused of falsely marketing and selling these products as effective treatments, with the claim seeking to represent any Australian customer who has bought one of these products since 2005.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director at JGA Saddler, stated that “Johnson & Johnson has manufactured and marketed a medication that decades of evidence have shown doesn’t work as claimed.” She also emphasised the importance of the claim in seeking compensation by saying, “customers should be able to confidently buy medicines that work as advertised and when they don’t, the company involved should be held accountable.”

Niall Watson-Dunne, investment manager at Omni Bridgeway, said that “for around 19 years, Australians have been sold cold and flu products to relieve their symptoms, despite studies and scientific evidence showing their key ingredient phenylephrine is ineffective when taken orally.”

More information about the class action can be found on Omni Bridgeway’s website.

The Second Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict in Carroll v. Trump, rejecting President Trump’s claims of trial court errors, including the handling of litigation funding evidence. Trump’s legal team argued that litigation funding for E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit, provided by an anonymous nonprofit, was relevant to her credibility and potential bias. The court disagreed, emphasizing that such evidence had minimal probative value.

As reported in Reason.com, the court noted that Carroll’s case was primarily taken on a contingency fee basis, with supplemental funding obtained by her legal team in 2020. Carroll had little involvement with the funding arrangement, learning about it after the fact and having no subsequent discussions with her counsel about it for years. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Carroll’s lack of engagement with the funding made it irrelevant to assessing her credibility.

Trump’s team had argued the funding demonstrated bias or a politically motivated agenda, but the court dismissed this, highlighting that Carroll publicly accused Trump of sexual assault long before the funding was secured. Additionally, Carroll and her key witnesses had openly acknowledged their political opposition to Trump, making the funder’s potential political affiliations redundant in establishing bias.

The court emphasized that litigation funding rarely impacts credibility and that introducing such evidence risks unfair prejudice and jury distraction. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to litigation funding disclosure in trials.

Emmerson PLC, the mining company focused on the development of the Khemisset potash project in Morocco, has secured $11 million in legal funding for its dispute against the Moroccan government.

As reported in Business Insider, Emmerson obtained the funding from an unnamed legal funder. The proceeds will be used to commence with arbitration proceedings, with white shoe law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP being appointed litigation counsel.

LFJ recently reported on Emmerson's search for litigation funding, including that it is pursuing an investment dispute over the government’s alleged breaches of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Morocco and the United Kingdom. Emmerson is seeking to establish itself as a low-cost, high-margin supplier of potash on the African continent.

We will keep you updated as this story progresses.

Leading funders in the US and UK have been asked to identify the challenges that they are facing, as well as the opportunities they are looking towards in 2025. Respondents included senior executives at Omni Bridgeway, Therium, Parabellum Capital, Harbour Litigation Funding, Balance Legal Capital, Burford Capital, and Bench Walk Advisors.

An article in Legal Business explains that the continued calls for tighter regulation and oversight of litigation finance were top of mind for many of the funders interviewed. This was particularly highlighted in the United States, where opposition to third-party funding was characterized by Therium’s Neil Purslow as “a hostile approach to the industry from US corporates”. Matthew Harrison of Omni Bridgeway and Dai Wai Chin Feman from Parabellum were both clear in saying that the actual regulators are not inherently adversarial towards funders, with Feman stating that “there is a lot of noise but there is always noise” from those who would seek to restrict third-party funding.

Meanwhile, UK funders are growing increasingly frustrated with the new government’s gradual approach to resolving the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, as the industry must now wait until the completion of the Civil Justice Council’s report next year. Purslow lamented the government’s inaction and pointed towards the previous parliament’s Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill as the obvious solution, arguing that “there was a fix available and it could and should be done”. Oliver Hayes from Balance Legal Capital similarly described the current situation as “undesirable”, but expressed hope that “the government provides a fix which clarifies the position and resolves the questionable challenges being run by defendants around the legality of funding agreements.”

Looking ahead to the opportunities open to funders, Omni Bridgeway’s Harrison suggested that the perception of funding has shifted away from only being a solution for ‘David versus Goliath’ situations, as “many CFOs, GCs, and big firms understand that litigation finance is a very valuable risk and cost mitigation tool.” As funders continue to look to diversify their investments, Mark King at Harbour noted that in the UK, “we are seeing an increased interest in credit finance facilities with law firms”.

A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that EU member states can block law firms from accepting external investment in order to protect lawyers’ independence and comply with their professional obligations. The court found that EU directives governing the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital, “must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation” that prohibits third-party ownership of law firms.

Reporting in Legal Futures explains that the ruling arose following preliminary questions submitted by a German court which was overseeing a dispute between law firm Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft and the Rechtsanwaltskammer München (Munich Bar Association). Halmer had informed the Munich Bar Association that it had sold 51 of its 100 shares to an Austrian company called SIVE Beratung und Beteiligung GmbH (SIVE). The bar association responded by informing HR that the transfer of shares was prohibited under the German Federal Lawyers’ Code, and subsequently revoked Halmer’s registration with the bar association. 

The Court of Justice’s ruling on these questions found that it was permissible for member states to block this kind of outside investment, noting that “economic considerations focused on a purely financial investor’s short-term profit could prevail over considerations guided exclusively by the defence of the interests of the law firm’s clients.” André Haug, vice-president of Germany’s Federal Bar Association, welcomed the European court’s decision and highlighted that its ruling concurred with the German government’s position that “the ban on third-party ownership is justified in order to guarantee the independence of lawyers.”

The case that came before the court was of sufficient significance that it attracted attention from member states across the continent, with observations submitted on behalf of the German, Spanish, French, Croatian, Austrian and Slovenian Governments.

The CJEU’s full judgment can be found here.