Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles

CAT Rules in Favour of BT in Harbour-Funded Claim Valued at £1.3bn

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported yesterday, funders and law firms alike are looking to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as one of the most influential factors for the future of the UK litigation market in 2025 and beyond. A judgment released by the CAT yesterday that found in favour of Britain’s largest telecommunications business may provide a warning to industry leaders of the uncertainty around funding these high value collective proceedings.

An article in The Global Legal Post provides an overview of the judgment handed down by the CAT in Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC, as the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the telecoms company following the trial in March of this year. The opt-out claim valued at around £1.3 billion, was first brought before the Tribunal in 2021 and sought compensation for BT customers who had allegedly been overcharged for landline services from October 2015.

In the executive summary of the judgment, the CAT found “that just because a price is excessive does not mean that it was also unfair”, with the Tribunal concluding that “there was no abuse of dominant position” by BT.

The proceedings which were led by class representative Justin Le Patourel, founder of Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL), were financed with Harbour Litigation Funding. When the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) was granted in 2021, Harbour highlighted the claim as having originally been worth up to £600 million with the potential for customers to receive up to £500 if the case had been successful.

In a statement, Le Patourel said that he was “disappointed that it [the CAT] did not agree that these prices were unfair”, but said that they would now consider “whether the next step will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this verdict”. The claimants have been represented by Mishcon de Reya in the case.

Commenting on the impact of the judgment, Tim West, disputes partner at Ashurst, said that it could have a “dampening effect, at least in the short term, on the availability of capital to fund the more novel or unusual claims in the CAT moving forward”. Similarly, Mohsin Patel, director and co-founder of Factor Risk Management, described the outcome as “a bitter pill to swallow” for both the claimants and for the law firm and funder who backed the case.

The CAT’s full judgment and executive summary can be accessed on the Tribunal’s website.

Sandfield Capital Secures £600m Facility to Expand Funding Operations

By Harry Moran |

Sandfield Capital, a Liverpool-based litigation funder, has reached an agreement for a £600 million facility with Perspective Investments. The investment, which is conditional on the identification of suitable claims that can be funded, has been secured to allow Sandfield Capital to strategically expand its operations and the number of claims it can fund. 

An article in Insider Media covers the the fourth capital raise in the last 12 months for Sandfield Capital, with LFJ having previously covered the most recent £10.5 million funding facility that was secured last month. Since its founding in 2020, Sandfield Capital has already expanded from its original office in Liverpool with a footprint established in London as well. 

Steven D'Ambrosio, chief executive of Sandfield Capital, celebrated the announced by saying:  “This new facility presents significant opportunities for Sandfield and is testament to our business model. Key to our strategy to deploy the facility is expanding our legal panel. There's no shortage of quality law firms specialising in this area and we are keen to develop further strong and symbiotic relationships. Perspective Investments see considerable opportunities and bring a wealth of experience in institutional investment with a strong track record.”

Arno Kitts, founder and chief investment officer of Perspective Investments, also provided the following statement:  “Sandfield Capital's business model includes a bespoke lending platform with the ability to integrate seamlessly with law firms' systems to ensure compliance with regulatory and underwriting standards.  This technology enables claims to be processed rapidly whilst all loans are fully insured so that if a claim is unsuccessful, the individual claimant has nothing to pay. This is an excellent investment proposition for Perspective Investments and we are looking forward to working with the management team who have a track record of continuously evolving the business to meet growing client needs.”

Australian Google Ad Tech Class Action Commenced on Behalf of Publishers

By Harry Moran |

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

  1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
  2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
  3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
  4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process". 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

  • Law firm: Piper Alderman
  • Funder: Woodsford
  • Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter

Report Highlights ‘Substantial Benefits’ of Litigation Funding for Consumer Justice

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

Litigation funding provides ‘substantial benefits’ to claimant organisations, and robust funding mechanisms are ‘essential’ to secure justice for consumers, an authoritative report found last month.

The report, Justice Unchained, by European consumer organisation BEUC, also found many of the common criticisms of litigation funding were not backed up by evidence.

The study found that consumer organisations across Europe face significant financial challenges to starting collective redress actions. It noted that initiating a collective action is ‘complex, risky, and expensive’, often involving lengthy proceedings that need significant resources.

The report said: ‘Without sufficient funding, important cases will remain unaddressed and risk making the Representative Actions Directive (RAD)2 an empty shell’.

BEUC said that as public funding, membership fees and donations were often insufficient or unavailable, litigation funding had emerged ‘as a solution to bridge a funding gap’. Benefits for the claimant included access to necessary resources, risk transfer, and ‘a more equal playing field between consumer organisations and powerful defendants’, it said.

The report added that frequent criticisms of litigation funding, such as ‘the risk of frivolous litigation, undue influence by funders, or targeting competitors’ were ‘not well-substantiated’, and ‘insufficiently evidenced by specific cases’.

According to the report, the potential risks of litigation funding in the context of collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Actions Directive, which requires member states to establish a framework that includes procedures to prevent conflicts of interest and undue influence, with judicial oversight to ensure compliance.

The report found that additional regulation of litigation funding at EU level should therefore only be considered if it is necessary. It said: ‘Two-thirds of EU Member States have opted not to regulate [litigation funding] beyond the RAD’s requirements, finding these safeguards sufficient to govern [litigation funding] effectively for collective redress actions. Besides, [litigation funding] can be managed through judicial oversight, as is the case in several Member States with a longer history of using [it]’.

The BEUC report suggested that a set of ‘best practices’, jointly established and agreed by funders, claimant organisations and others, may provide for ‘a balanced solution, ensuring [litigation funding] remains viable while promoting fairness and transparency.’

It said such best practice could encompass transparency over the funder’s sources of capital; full decision-making autonomy for the consumer organisation and its legal counsel; clear agreements on all expenses covered by the funder; clearly defined funder’s remuneration; assurance of the funder’s financial adequacy to meet obligations; strict compliance with transparency requirements set by the law; effective detection and disclosure of any conflicts of interest; well-defined conditions for termination of the funding; and a robust dispute resolution mechanism.

Rockpoint Legal Funding Shines at Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Convention

By Harry Moran |

Rockpoint Legal Funding proudly participated in the annual conference hosted by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), showcasing its commitment to supporting legal professionals and their clients. As the only funding company endorsed by CAOC, Rockpoint Legal Funding leveraged this premier event to connect with new and prospective partners reinforcing its position as a trusted funder within California's legal community.

The CAOC is a prestigious network of attorneys dedicated to protecting the rights of California consumers. Each year, the organization hosts its annual convention, bringing together some of the brightest legal minds and innovators in the industry. For Rockpoint Legal Funding, this event was an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate its unwavering dedication to empowering attorneys and their clients through tailored legal funding solutions.

During the convention, Rockpoint operated a booth where team members engaged with attendees, offering insights into the company's services and how they benefit both legal professionals and consumers seeking justice. From new attorneys looking for funding solutions to established firms aiming to streamline their case workflows, Rockpoint provided personalized advice and showcased its comprehensive suite of legal funding options.

"Rockpoint is proud to partner with the Consumer Attorneys of California. We take a lot of pride in serving the attorneys and their clients of this prestigious organization," said Ramtin Ghaneeian, Founding Partner of Rockpoint Legal Funding. His statement highlights the company's commitment to strengthening its collaboration with CAOC and continuing to support its mission of safeguarding the rights of California consumers.

President of Rockpoint Legal Funding, Maz Ghorban, emphasized the value of building strong relationships at events like this, stating, "It's a privilege to connect with our law firm partners at the CAOC convention each year while ensuring our values align with protecting California consumers through legal recourse."

Rockpoint's presence at the CAOC annual convention underscores its dedication to fostering meaningful connections within the legal community. By being the only CAOC-endorsed funding company, Rockpoint reinforces its credibility and reliability in the legal funding landscape. This endorsement is a testament to Rockpoint's shared vision with CAOC in championing consumer rights and providing critical support to those navigating the justice system.

For attorneys and law firms, Rockpoint Legal Funding offers a variety of non-recourse funding solutions, ensuring clients have the financial support they need during ongoing litigation. This commitment aligns perfectly with CAOC's mission to advocate for justice and fairness for California consumers.

As Rockpoint continues to deepen its relationships with legal professionals, events like the CAOC annual convention remain a cornerstone of its outreach efforts. The company looks forward to future collaborations and furthering its impact within the legal community.

For more information about Rockpoint Legal Funding and its services, visit Rockpointlegalfunding.com or call (855) 582-9200.

About Rockpoint Legal Funding

Rockpoint Legal Funding is a leading provider of non-recourse legal funding solutions, serving attorneys and their clients with unparalleled expertise and care. With a mission to empower justice and support favorable case outcomes, Rockpoint is committed to providing financial assistance during critical times, ensuring no one is denied access to legal recourse due to financial constraints.

Ares Management Enters Agreement with Omni Bridgeway for 150+ Ongoing Investments

By Harry Moran |

Omni Bridgeway has entered into an agreement with Ares Management Corporation, for the alternative investment manager to acquire a stake over 150 of Omni Bridgeway’s ongoing investments. The agreement will see the creation of ‘Fund 9’ as a continuation fund to contain these investments, with Ares investing A$310 million for a 70% interest in the fund whilst Omni Bridgeway will retain a 30% interest.

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the news that “Ares has the option to acquire up to a A$35m equity stake in Omni Bridgeway through the issuance of warrants at an agreed strike price.”

Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director and CEO of Omni Bridgeway stated: “I am very pleased with this transaction as it delivers on all of our stated strategic objectives at once: validating the fair value of our book and the quality of our underwriting and valuation methodologies, improving the cost coverage rate, reducing debt to zero, and enforcing our position as the leading and institutional grade funds management platform for legal assets.”

Jan-Paul Kobarg, Partner at Ares Management added: “Leveraging our scale, structuring capabilities and flexible capital base, we are pleased to invest alongside OBL in this innovative structure for the asset class. During our due diligence process, we were impressed with the experience and quality of the OBL team. We believe this transaction accelerates OBL’s transition to a capital light funds management model in a growing asset class where it is a recognised global leader.”

More detail about the agreement between Omni Bridgeway and Ares can be found in the full announcement.

Pathways to Improve Alignment Between Funders and Claimants in Funding Structures

By Harry Moran |

Omni Bridgeway’s Gian Kull and Simon Latham explore the topic of ‘funding structures in opt-out CAT proceedings’, identifying key methods to improve alignment between litigation funders and claimants whilst ensuring a sustainable future for UK litigation funding.

In their LinkedIn post, Kull and Latham frame their analysis by stating that an optimal funding structure is one that “must balance the interests of funders, legal representatives and claimants, as well as consider the perspectives of defendants such that settlement is not impeded or overcomplicated.” 

The article lays out the following three options that funders could explore to improve this alignment:

  1. The Case for Funders Charging a Percentage of Damages
  2. Introducing Damages-Based Agreements in the CAT
  3. Making Invested Capital and Contingent ATE Premia Recoverable from Defendants

Kull and Latham explain not only the differing advantages of each of these options, but also suggest areas where safeguards or additional requirements could be introduced to ensure efficiency and protect claimants. With these options detailed, the authors conclude that a “hybrid approach, combining capped percentage-based funding with DBAs for legal fees and third-party funding for ancillary costs, alongside the recovery of invested capital and contingent premia from defendants, may offer the most balanced solution.”

The full analysis from Kull and Latham can be read here.

CAT Judgments and CJC Review to Define UK Litigation Funding in 2025

By Harry Moran |

An article in CDR looks ahead to the UK litigation landscape in 2025, speaking with funders, litigators and barristers to see what these industry insiders view as the most likely trends for the upcoming calendar year. When it comes to funding, the issues highlighted were the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the funding of group actions and the highly-anticipated Civil Justice Council (CJC) review into third-party funding which is expected to be completed in the summer of next year.

Gian Kull, investment manager at Omni Bridgeway, noted the headwinds around the “availability of capital in the UK has reduced because several funders have stopped funding new cases.” He also explained that the ongoing impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision is that funding has become more expensive, due to the required “change of pricing structures”. Moving forward, Kull emphasised that the most important thing was to gain “clarity from the CAT” through judgments handed down next year, which he suggests will “confirm whether it is a fundable pathway”. 

Sarina Williams, partner at Linklaters, described the CJC review as “the single biggest driver of how class actions develop in the UK”, with the CJC’s recommendations set to shape the government’s legislative approach to the PACCAR issue. Williams argues that if funders get their way and the CJC “says that self-regulation is working well”, then it is likely that the UK will continue to be “an attractive jurisdiction for funders.”

5 Ways to Retain Top Legal Talent: Why Employees Stay

By Richard Culberson |

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

The legal profession is evolving rapidly, and so is the workforce driving it. This makes retaining top talent critical to ensuring continuity, quality of service, and avoiding the costs and disruption of frequent recruitment.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 47 million Americans left their jobs in 2021 alone, with millions continuing to do so each month. For businesses , this turnover presents both a challenge and an opportunity to understand what employees truly value and how to build a workplace they won’t want to leave.

Here are five steps to guide you in creating a workplace where professionals feel supported, motivated, and committed to growing with your firm.

1. Hire for Culture and Potential

The stakes are high in legal recruitment, and hiring the wrong person can have a ripple effect on morale, productivity, and client relationships. So, let’s slow down and hire right.

Instead of focusing solely on technical skills and qualifications, look beyond the resume for candidates whose values align with your firm's culture and long-term goals. Diversity of thought and perspective is an asset in all business and adaptability is increasingly important. The first step is to revisit your hiring process to ensure you’re asking the right questions and seeking individuals who can not only excel in the role today but also grow with your firm in the future.

2. Invest in Their Professional Journey

Your people are your greatest assets, and just like your clients, they require attention and investment. You’ve spent time hiring right, now, it is time to invest in your choices, ensuring that they are set up to succeed from day one.

Make their onboarding experience seamless and engaging but also show them the culture and career path you promised during recruitment. Then, continue this thinking beyond the onboarding and provide opportunities for professional development through training, mentoring, and clear advancement pathways.

In the competitive legal sector, demonstrating a proactive commitment to employee growth and well-being is key to retaining top talent, ensuring your team feels valued and supported in reaching their full potential.

3. Foster Engagement Through Purpose

We all know that engaged employees are productive employees, but often it is forgotten that engagement starts with clarity. Do your team members understand how their daily work contributes to the firm's overall success?

Lawyers are often driven by purpose—whether it’s delivering justice, protecting client interests, or achieving innovative outcomes. So, make it a priority to connect their individual roles to the bigger picture and, in doing so, celebrate their contributions, involve them in decision-making, and foster an environment of trust and open communication.

By aligning their goals with the firm's mission, you create a workplace where everyone feels invested in the outcomes.

4. Lead with Empathy and Kindness

The legal world is often synonymous with high pressure and long hours, but that doesn’t mean kindness should take a backseat. Empathy and understanding go a long way in fostering loyalty and trust. It is important, therefore, to recognize achievements, whether big or small, and make time to connect with your team on a human level. From writing a personal thank-you note for a job well done to ensuring flexible working arrangements during challenging times, it’s often the little things that make the biggest difference.

Kindness isn’t a sign of weakness—it’s a powerful tool for building a resilient and loyal team.

5. Make Retention a Continuous Process

Retention isn’t a one-time initiative—it’s an ongoing commitment. Law is a people-centered business so embed employee well-being, recognition, and development into the core of your firm’s culture.

Create an environment where your people feel genuinely appreciated, understood, and aligned with the firm’s vision. By doing this, you’ll cultivate a culture of loyalty and stability, where your team thrives—and your clients benefit as a result.

Why Employees Stay

In a profession where your people are your greatest asset, putting them first is essential. A happy, engaged team isn’t just good for employee retention; it directly impacts client satisfaction and the firm’s reputation.

By investing in your employees, fostering connection, and leading with empathy, you can ensure your firm remains competitive, resilient, and ready to face the future with the best team by your side.

Nera Capital Secures Additional $25 million in New Funding Deal

By Harry Moran |

Top litigation finance firm Nera Capital is ending the year on a high with the announcement of yet another successfully closed funding deal, this time securing $25 million to bolster UK consumer protection claims.

The funding, secured through a US-based investment partner, reflects yet another significant milestone for the firm as it continues to build momentum and strengthen its foothold in the market. 

This recently closed funding deal builds on a prosperous year of growth for Nera Capital, further demonstrating its capabilities across the globe. The investment will be directed towards advancing claims that protect UK consumers, enabling greater access to justice for individuals seeking redress.

With offices in Dublin, Manchester, and Amsterdam, Nera Capital has consistently demonstrated its commitment to driving innovation and impact in litigation finance worldwide. This latest funding announcement underscores Nera Capital’s ability to forge strategic international partnerships that deliver meaningful results. 

In 2024, Nera have hit record numbers of settlements, deployment and company profitability but also grown major portfolio positions in Europe and the USA.

Aisling Byrne, Director at Nera Capital, commented on the announcement: “We are happy to have closed yet another significant funding deal, further cementing our position as a leading force in consumer protection litigation. We anticipate this initial facility figure will increase as our partnership strengthens and thrives over time.

She added: “This is not just about financial growth; it’s about expanding our ability to make a difference. With this funding, we are reinforcing our commitment to fairness and justice, empowering consumers, and holding organisations accountable.”

The announcement follows the recent launch of Nera Capital’s £250,000 Access to Justice Fund, aimed at providing legal and financial support to those who may otherwise face barriers to justice.

The firm’s efforts come at a time of heightened focus on consumer rights across the world, driven by evolving legal frameworks, increased attention to data privacy, and growing concerns about sustainability and corporate accountability.

“This funding is another step forward in a year of tremendous progress for Nera Capital,” Aisling continued.

“As we look to 2025, we remain committed to leveraging our resources and expertise to protect consumers and advocate for justice on both sides of the Atlantic.“ 

About Nera Capital 

·       Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.  

·       Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector. 

·       Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and Holland. 

·       Member of European Litigation Funders Association

.     www.neracapital.com

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

By John Freund |

Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There's been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what's good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn't say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift - if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that - and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don't think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that's right. What's interesting is, there hasn't been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we're seeing a lot of that. We're also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We've seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we've seen those deals - especially the ones that happened before Covid - there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you're debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we've seen a shift away more to - I won't say single cases - but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We've also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We're seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We're just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Joshua Libling, Founder & Managing Director, Arcadia Finance

By John Freund |

When not reading fantasy novels or torturing his family with off-key showtunes, Joshua Libling manages Arcadia Finance's operations and financial analytics. For clients, his focus is on translating subjective legal merits assessments into trackable risk data that informs Arcadia’s investment decisions and portfolio construction. It’s a topic he loves to discuss, so don’t ask him what that means if you’re looking for a short conversation.

He is also responsible for modeling and operations at Arcadia. Joshua joined the litigation finance industry at the beginning of 2020, quickly gravitating to risk analysis and control. For his work, he has been recognized among Lawdragon’s “Global 100 Leaders in Legal Finance.” Before co-founding Arcadia in June of 2024 with fellow Managing Directors Ronit Cohen and David Kerstein, Joshua served as a member of the senior leadership at Validity Finance, with primary responsibility for risk analysis and pricing tools. He was previously a litigator at Boies Schiller Flexner, where he was involved in some of the country’s highest-profile and highest-stakes litigations.  

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital - fast.

Led by industry veterans with over $425 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance's mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

Area of Focus: With a focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration, Arcadia Finance is open to the full spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross-border and offshore matters. We consider cases in all federal and state courts, as well domestic and international arbitrations.    

Member Quote: "At Arcadia Finance, we specialize in helping our partners find the path from a good legal claim to a good legal investment."

Express Legal Funding Launches Custom-Designed Website Redesign

By Aaron Winston |

The following was contributed by Aaron R. Winston, Strategy Director of Express Legal Funding.

Express Legal Funding, a nationally recognized pre-settlement funding company, is proud to announce the launch of its completely redesigned website. Built on a fully custom WordPress theme, the new website reflects the company’s commitment to innovation, usability, and educating clients through high-quality resources.

Custom-Built for an Exceptional Experience

Unlike generic templates, Express Legal Funding's new site is crafted from the ground up to provide a tailored experience for its users. The custom theme ensures superior functionality, faster load times, and an optimized design that serves both plaintiffs and attorneys. Key elements were developed to improve user engagement and make essential resources more accessible.

Highlighting the Blog: A Resource Hub for Legal Education

One of the standout features of the new site is the expanded and enhanced blog section. The blog serves as a comprehensive resource hub, offering expert insights, step-by-step guides, and practical advice for personal injury plaintiffs and attorneys. Articles are carefully curated and optimized for clarity, ensuring visitors gain valuable knowledge about legal funding and related topics.

Recent posts include:

Aaron Winston, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding, shared, “Our blog has become an indispensable tool for helping consumers make informed legal and financial decisions. With the redesign, we’ve elevated it to a new level, blending visually engaging content with highly relevant information.”

Key Features of the Redesigned Website:

  • Custom Theme Development: Tailored design and functionality to meet the unique needs of Express Legal Funding’s clients and partners.
  • Interactive Case-Type Summaries: A dynamic widget allows visitors to explore various case types and their funding options in detail.
  • Responsive Design: Built with mobile-first principles, ensuring a seamless experience across all devices.
  • Enhanced Blog: A centralized platform for high-quality, SEO-optimized content that provides actionable insights and legal education.
  • Transparent Pricing Comparison: A detailed section highlights how Express Legal Funding’s rates outperform competitors, reinforcing its commitment to affordability and fairness.

A Commitment to Transparency and User Empowerment

The new website demonstrates Express Legal Funding’s dedication to educating and empowering its audience. Each feature is designed with transparency and ease of use in mind, ensuring that clients have the tools and information they need to make confident decisions about pre-settlement funding.

“Our custom redesign reflects who we are as a company—dedicated, transparent, and forward-thinking innovators,” said Winston. “We’re excited to share our new look and continue to be a trusted resource for personal injury plaintiffs and attorneys.”

Visit the New Website Today

The newly redesigned website is now live at ExpressLegalFunding.com. Explore the updated features and discover how Express Legal Funding continues to bridge the gap between lawsuits and settlements through affordability, transparency, and client-centric services.


About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a pre-settlement funding company based in Plano, Texas, offering financial support to plaintiffs during their legal battles. With an emphasis on education, affordability, and transparency, the company empowers clients to cover essential living expenses while pursuing fair settlements.

Delta Capital Partners Welcomes Accomplished Professionals to C-Suite

By Harry Moran |

Delta Capital Partners Management, an SEC registered investment adviser specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce as additions to the firm Jason Searfoss as Chief Financial Officer, Elinoar Sofer as Chief Operations Officer, and Michael Ouliel as Chief Intelligence Officer. 

Mr. Searfoss will be responsible for Delta’s finance, accounting, and administrative functions and will oversee all capital market activities, tax and valuation matters. Ms. Sofer will oversee the day-to-day operations and management of Delta, while Mr. Ouliel will assist with business intelligence activities in the firm’s management and monitoring of the cases in its portfolio or under consideration for investment.

Mr. Searfoss, an advisor to numerous startup and growth-stage technology companies, is a Cofounder of and served as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Boomtown, a leading technology startup accelerator with more than 200 portfolio companies. A veteran of the litigation finance industry, Mr. Searfoss was also the founding Chief Financial Officer, a General Partner, and member of the Investment Committee of Longford Capital, a leading litigation funder. “I have known and worked closely with Chris DeLise and the Delta team for well over a decade and I am excited about the future of the organization. Litigation finance is an attractive and evolving asset class, and Delta’s strengths stand out in the industry,” said Searfoss.

Prior to joining Delta, Ms. Sofer previously served as the Chief Operating Officer of BlackSwan Technologies, a leading global technology AI startup. In this capacity, she scaled the company across six subsidiaries within the US, EMEA and Asia and successfully raised capital and secured valuable commercial partnerships with leading Fintech companies. “I am thrilled to be joining the very talented team at Delta and I am looking forward to collaborating with Chris DeLise and the senior team in building on their ongoing success and executing Delta’s ambitious growth plans,” said Ms. Sofer.

Before his tenure at Delta, Mr. Ouliel founded and acted as the CEO of Ripples Homeland Security Group. Ripples was a global technology company with a focus on building large and complex intelligence and investigation systems for governments and large multinational enterprises globally. Mr. Ouliel was also the founder and CEO of BlackSwan Technologies, where he was named among the Top 50 AI CEOs of 2021 by Technology Innovators magazine. In recent years, Mr. Ouliel has been acting as a special advisor to multiple governments and federal agencies in the area of technology, primarily focused on intelligence, counter terror, HUMINT, and extremism. Mr. Ouliel expressed that he is “thrilled and excited to join the excellent team at Delta” and that the opportunity presented an “outstanding value proposition and business model for which his “skills and expertise will bring unique opportunities to the litigation funding market.”

Christopher DeLise, Delta’s founder, CEO and Co-CIO stated that he is “very proud to have such esteemed professionals join Delta as it is continues its growth and development in dynamic markets and verticals. The litigation finance industry has significantly changed over the past 14 years, which necessitates bringing on board very seasoned professionals to best enable the firm to adapt and profit from these developments. I have known each of Jason, Michael and Elinoar for over a decade, frequently collaborating on one-off projects, and therefore it made great sense to have them join the Delta team on a permanent basis as we embark on our latest set of growth initiatives and new product offerings.”   

About Delta

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global asset management firm specializing exclusively in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery.  Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants to enable them to investigate claims, pursue litigation or arbitration, recover assets, enforce judgments or awards, and more effectively manage their risks, cash flow, and capital expenditures.

Burford Capital Funds Competition Claim Against Google

By Harry Moran |

Law firm Geradin Partners has revealed that, alongside Dr Or Brook, they will be filing an opt-out competition damages claim against Google in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim, which is being brought on behalf of UK-domiciled advertisers, focuses on allegations that Google abused the market dominance of its search engine services and engaged in anticompetitive behaviour to charge unreasonably high prices for these advertisers.

Geradin Partners said that the claim is estimated to be valued at over £5 billion, with the action being supported by litigation funding from Burford Capital. Alongside Geradin Partners, Dr Brook has engaged a legal team including: Robert O’Donoghue KC (Brick Court), Kieron Beal KC (Blackstone Chambers), and Daniel Carrall-Green (Fountain Court). The announcement did not specify a date, but said that the claim would be filed in the CAT “shortly”.

Dr Brook explained the reasoning behind bringing the action, saying: “Google has adopted a deliberate strategy to maintain its dominance in online search through a range of anticompetitive behaviours aimed at excluding its rivals, to the severe detriment of advertisers. I am bringing this litigation to ensure that advertisers in the UK are given the opportunity to be compensated for the harm they have suffered at Google’s hands as a result of these unfair practices.”

Damien Geradin, Founding Partner of Geradin Partners, provided the following statement: “Google has eliminated rivals on the general search services and general search text advertising markets through a variety of exclusionary practices, which has led UK-domiciled advertisers to be overcharged by billions of pounds. We are committed and well-resourced to obtain redress on their behalf.” 

Omni Bridgeway Funds Class Actions Targeting Mining Companies’ Sexual Harassment

By Harry Moran |

Two class actions have been filed against BHP Group and Rio Tinto Group, over claims that their Australian mining sites created environments of sexual harassment and gender discrimination against female employees. The class actions, which were filed earlier this week in the Federal Court of Australia, allege that the female employees put at risk and also punished via demotion or dismissal when these issues were reported to the companies.

BNN Bloomberg reports that the class actions are being funded by Omni Bridgeway, with JGA Saddler providing legal representation for the claimants. The amount of funding provided by Omni Bridgeway has not been publicly reported.

Joshua Aylward, director at JGA Saddler, said that in the process of bringing these lawsuits they “have heard reports of everything from unwanted touching and sexual harassment to rape, violence and physical threats.” He went on to explain that the class actions are both about seeking justice for the victims and will also “give a voice to these women, many of whom have been too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or workplace reprisals.”

In statements from the companies targeted by the class actions, BHP said they “deeply regret and apologize unreservedly to anyone who has ever experienced any form of harassment,” whilst Rio said that it would treat these claims with “the utmost seriousness”.

Sarama Resources Commences Arbitration Against Burkina Faso, Funded by Locke Capital

By Harry Moran |

Third-party legal funding continues to be the tool of choice for companies looking to pursue arbitration proceedings against nation states, with corporations in the mining and exploration sector repeatedly appearing as users of outside funding.

An announcement from Sarama Resources reveals that the company has formally commenced arbitration proceedings against Burkina Faso, seeking at least A$180 million in damages. The arbitration claim is centred on allegations that the government of Burkina Faso illegally withdrew the Sarama’s permit for the Tankoro Deposit, which was the focus of the company’s Sanutura Project.

As LFJ previously reported in October, Sarama has secured A$6.7 million in funding from Locke Capital, which Sarama’s President and CEO, Andrew Dinning said would “cover all expenses related to the Company’s arbitration case.” Sarama has brought on Boies Schiller Flexner to provide legal representation during the proceedings.

As part of its formal commencement of proceedings, Sarama has submitted a Request for Arbitration (RFA) to the International Centre for Investment Disputes (ICSID). The company noted that the RFA has been submitted following the end of the 60-day consultation period, which was required after Sarama had provided Burkina Faso with its Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration. Sarama explained that the consultation period had passed without any response from the Government of Burkina Faso, and therefore no settlement had been achieved.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea, Founder & CEO, RIDER Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea—a Mexican lawyer with international experience, business executive, and entrepreneur—has come up with a technological solution that aims to transform the litigation funding space by streamlining and optimizing the traditionally time-consuming funding process.

With a Law Degree from Mexico’s prestigious Universidad Panamericana, a Business Degree from IPADE Business School, and a Master’s in Finance from Duke University, Gabriel brings extensive expertise in arbitration, capital raising, private equity, and litigation finance. Recognizing a critical gap in the industry, he designed a democratized, efficient platform that empowers investors of all sizes to participate while providing owners of legal rights, across a broader spectrum of claim values, with accessible funding opportunities.

Company Name:   RIDER LITIGATION FINANCE, L.L.C.

Company Description:  Built on proprietary technology, RIDER’s automated and efficient processes address a critical need: simplifying and expediting deal sourcing, closing, and post-closing updates. Acting as a matchmaker within its carefully curated network, RIDER connects claimholders, law firms, and investors already registered on its platform.

By democratizing litigation funding, RIDER makes the industry accessible to investors of all sizes while empowering claimholders with large, medium, and smaller-scale claims to secure the financial support they need. This disruptive model expands the litigation finance ecosystem, delivering fairness and efficiency to all stakeholders. RIDER serves as the ultimate dealmaker enabler on a global scale.

  1. Tailored Applications: RIDER meticulously prepares Funding Applications in a format funders prefer, presenting key financial and material aspects with clarity and precision.
  2. Rigorous Filtering: We pre-select cases with a high likelihood of success, backed by double Legal Opinions, ensuring funders are presented with only the most compelling opportunities.
  3. Aligned Expectations: Before negotiations begin, all stakeholders are fully informed about financial expectations and other critical terms, fostering transparency and reducing delays.
  4. Streamlined Negotiations: RIDER’s assistance during negotiations accelerates agreement finalization, providing funders and claim holders with a seamless experience.

Year Founded:   2022, Launching Operations in November 2024.

Headquarters:  Mexico City, although with Global reach.

Area of the Company:   Founder & CEO

Member Quote:   "Democratizing Justice, Empowering Investment on a Global scale".

LCM Announces Appointment of Chief Financial Officer to the Board of Directors

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, is pleased to announce the appointment of David Collins, Chief Financial Officer, to its Board of Directors, effective immediately.

David has brought significant expertise and fresh perspective to LCM during his first five months as CFO, making a positive impact on the company's financial operations and strategic planning. David is a Chartered Accountant and brings more than 20 years' experience in senior finance and capital markets roles across a range of leading institutions including EY, Morgan Stanley, Och-Ziff Capital (now Sculptor Capital) and Prudential plc.

Jonathan Moulds, Chairman of LCM, commented: "David's appointment to the Board reflects our confidence in his capabilities and his contributions to the business in a short period. We look forward to leveraging his experience as we continue to execute on our strategy for growth and value creation."

The following information is disclosed in accordance with Schedule 2(g) of the AIM Rules for Companies:

David Andrew Collins, aged 47, holds/has held the following directorships/partnerships in the last five years:

Current directorships:Previous directorships held in the past 5 years:
Greatham Advisors LimitedHoway Investments Ltd
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader, Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance, Alliant Insurance Services

By John Freund |

Jason is a former litigation funder who now leads Alliant’s Global Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance team.  He designs and brokers bespoke policies that cover a range of legal and regulatory exposures, and he regularly assists litigants, law firms, litigation funders, private equity clients, and other stakeholders in structuring and obtaining cutting-edge contingent risk insurance solutions.

Jason is a Chambers Band 1-ranked litigation insurance broker and he has placed some of the largest and most creative contingent risk insurance policies, including multiple nine-figure policies. Jason frequently assists clients in monetizing contingent risk insurance policies and structuring transactions that incorporate insurance policies as investment collateral. Leveraging his background as a front-office finance analyst, Jason has helped clients obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing collateralized by contingent risk insurance policies.

Prior to joining the contingent risk insurance industry, Jason was a member of the Litigation Investing team at the D. E. Shaw group, a global investment and technology development firm with more than $60 billion in investment and committed capital. He is a former litigator at Susman Godfrey LLP, and a former law clerk for the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Company Name and Description:  Alliant Insurance Services is one of the nation’s leading distributors of diversified insurance products and services. We operate through a network of specialized national platforms and local offices to offer our clients a comprehensive portfolio of solutions built on innovative thinking and personal service. The business of managing risk is getting more complex, and Alliant is meeting this complexity head-on, not with more layers of management, but with more creativity and agility. Alliant is changing the way our clients approach risk management and benefits, so they can capitalize on new opportunities to grow and protect their organizations.

Alliant is recognized as a leading destination for top-tier brokerage talent in the U.S, attracting brokers and specialists across a diverse spectrum of disciplines who are eager to advance their careers. With the advantage of being majority employee-owned, professionals choose Alliant for autonomy, unparalleled resources, and a unique equity ownership opportunity. As a testament to our commitment to excellence, Alliant maintains an impressive 99% producer retention rate and has earned Forbes’ prestigious title of one of America’s Best Large Employers.

Company Website: https://alliant.com/

Headquarters:  Jason is based in New York, NY

Area of Focus:  
Litigation and contingent risk insurance 

Member Quote:  As a former litigation funder, I believe that litigation funding and contingent risk insurance are complementary products. Combining the two can unlock enormous value for funders and their counterparties.  And designing creative insurance solutions for litigation funders is one of the most rewarding parts of my job.

Litigation Funding in the UAE: WinJustice Leading the Way

By Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har |

The following was contributed by 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.


Understanding the UAE’s Legal Landscape

Onshore Jurisdictions

In the UAE’s onshore courts, the legal framework is based on federal laws and elements of Sharia law. While there are no explicit rules prohibiting litigation funding, the absence of clear regulations requires careful navigation. Key considerations include:

  • Principles of Good Faith: Parties must ensure that funding agreements align with the core principles of UAE law and avoid speculative transactions (Gharar).
  • Sharia Compliance: Agreements must balance financial interests with the broader public good (Maslaha), enabling parties to pursue valid claims ethically.

Offshore Jurisdictions

Offshore jurisdictions, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), offer a more structured environment for litigation funding. These jurisdictions follow common law principles and have implemented specific guidelines:

  • DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017: Requires disclosure of funding agreements to promote transparency and grants courts the authority to impose cost orders on funders.
  • ADGM Funding Rules 2019: Ensures that funded parties receive independent legal advice and fosters ethical practices in third-party funding.

WinJustice operates across both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, leveraging its expertise to guide clients through the complexities of litigation funding in the UAE.


How Litigation Funding Benefits UAE Businesses

Litigation funding provides a lifeline for businesses facing high-stakes legal disputes, particularly in sectors like construction, real estate, and finance. Key benefits include:

  1. Access to Justice: Enables businesses to pursue claims without worrying about upfront legal costs.
  2. Risk Mitigation: Shifts the financial burden to the funder, allowing clients to focus on their core operations.
  3. Leveling the Playing Field: Empowers smaller businesses to compete with larger opponents in complex disputes.

The Role of Arbitration in Litigation Funding

Arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution method in the UAE, governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 and updated regulations in the DIFC and ADGM. Notably:

  • Both DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and arbitrateAD guidelines emphasize transparency by requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements.
  • Arbitration proceedings offer a flexible and confidential framework, making them ideal for cases involving third-party funding.

WinJustice specializes in funding arbitration cases, ensuring our clients have the financial support needed to achieve favorable outcomes.


Why WinJustice is the Right Choice

As the pioneer in UAE litigation funding, WinJustice offers:

  • Expert Guidance: Decades of combined experience in navigating UAE’s legal systems.
  • Custom Solutions: Tailored funding arrangements to meet the unique needs of each client.
  • Ethical Standards: Commitment to transparency, fairness, and compliance with UAE regulations.

Whether you are pursuing a commercial dispute, arbitration claim, or high-value litigation, WinJustice provides the financial resources and expertise to secure justice.


Conclusion

Litigation funding is transforming the UAE’s legal landscape, and WinJustice is proud to lead this change. By bridging the gap between justice and affordability, we are enabling businesses and individuals to take control of their legal challenges with confidence.

Visit WinJustice to learn more.

Hausfeld & Co LLP: Confirmed – Collective Action Seeking More Than £1.5bn from Apple Set for January Trial

By Harry Moran |

Dr Rachael Kent’s over £1.5bn collective action against Apple for alleged overcharging in relation to the Apple App Store will go to trial on 6 January 2025. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed the trial will run for eight weeks, with the first week reserved as a reading week. Hearings will commence on 13 January 2025 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Salisbury Square House, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP.

The claim, which seeks compensation for millions of UK consumers and businesses, alleges that Apple breached competition law by abusing its dominant position through its conduct relating to its App Store. According to the claim, Apple has excluded competition and charged unfairly high commissions of up to 30% on app and in-app purchases (including subscriptions) made on iPhones and iPads.

Dr Kent has issued a revised Trial Hearing Notice, available here, which confirms the trial schedule and provides further information about the case. For more information on the claim, visit www.appstoreclaims.co.uk/Apple. Class members are encouraged to check the website for updates about the claim, including access to Tribunal orders and further guidance. The Notice can also be found in the “Documents” section of the claim website.

For those interested in observing the trial, it will be open to the public both in person and online via the Tribunal’s website. A “Watch Now” link will be available under the Diary section on the Tribunal’s homepage (www.catribunal.org.uk) on the trial commencement date.

Further information on the claim

The legal claim applies to purchases made on many popular apps on iPhones and iPads, including Fortnite, YouTube and Tinder. It does not apply to apps providing “physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app”. These include Deliveroo and Uber, which are not required to use Apple’s payments system or pay Apple the disputed 30% commission on every purchase of and/or within their apps.

Affected app purchasers, on whose behalf the collective action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by Vannin Capital, a global litigation funder. The action is insured, which means that class members have no financial risk in relation to the claim.

Dr Kent is represented by Lesley Hannah, Sofie Edwards, Kio Gwilliam, Emma Poland, Jonathan Amior, Natalie Jukes, Jake Henderson, Abigail Masters and Kazi Elias at law firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP, with barristers Mark Hoskins KC and Matthew Kennedy from Brick Court Chambers, and Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia Fitzpatrick from Monckton Chambers

About Hausfeld & Co. LLP

Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of collective redress and group claims.

GAO Publishes Report on Patent Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

The role of third-party funding in patent litigation has remained a contentious issue in the United States, with it often being targeted by critics of litigation finance as a prime example of the dangers of foreign interference. However, a new report from an independent government agency may provide some useful context for this ongoing debate, and balance the viewpoints of those on each side of the argument.

A new report published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) shines a spotlight on the world of third-party funding for patent disputes, reviewing recent developments in the sector and garnering insights for industry stakeholders. The report, which is titled ‘Intellectual Property: Information on Third-Party Funding of Patent Litigation’, was delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.

The GAO study was compiled over the last 12 months using interviews with a range of industry representatives including litigation funders, technology companies that were frequently defendants in patent litigation, law firms, inventors who had used third-party funding, and court judges. The report also reviewed third-party reports from Unified Patents, RPX, and Westfleet Advisors, whilst also analysing data from  the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Furthermore, the GAO reviewed a dozen patent litigation cases and reviewed academic literature on the subject.

Explaining why the study was conducted, the GAO highlighted the ‘limited’ amount of publicly available data on third-party funding of patent litigation, and the concerns raised by stakeholders around the extent of the practice amid the general lack of formal disclosure of funding.

In its interviews with litigation funders, the GAO found there were ‘multiple factors that inform their decision on whether to invest in a particular lawsuit’, from the strength of the patent in question to the existence of information exchange between the patent owner and the defendant company. Separately, representatives from these defendants suggested that ‘more than half of all patent infringement lawsuits filed against them had confirmed or suspected third-party funding.’

The topic of disclosure requirements was unsurprisingly a focus of the GAO’s research, with stakeholders identifying both benefits and concerns around the introduction of more stringent transparency rules. Among these identified benefits of enhanced disclosure were the ability of judges to discover conflicts of interest, shedding light on the involvement of foreign entities in patent litigation, and the possibility of facilitating case resolution in situations where the presence of a funder may encourage defendants to reach a settlement. When it came to the concerns around mandating disclosure of funding, stakeholders questioned the relevance of this detail to the underlying litigation, the potential of biasing any litigation towards defendants by providing information around the plaintiff’s financial resources, and finally the issue of increasing the burden on the court system by adding these additional measures.

The full report can be read here.

Burford Capital CEO says Government Inaction Over PACCAR is ‘Perilous’

By Harry Moran |

Over 16 months have passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR which caused upheaval in the UK litigation funding sector, with few signs of encouragement that a legislative solution will come into force before the two-year anniversary of the judgment. Whilst the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) ongoing review into litigation funding is laying the foundations for eventual government action, it is increasingly clear that funders are growing impatient with the lack of urgency from Westminster.

Speaking with City AM, the CEO of Burford Capital, Chris Bogart offers his views on the new government’s approach to litigation funding and expresses dissatisfaction at the “uncertainty” caused by its cautious approach to addressing the impact of PACCAR ruling. Bogart cautioned that delaying a legislative solution whilst waiting for the outcome of the CJC’s review could endanger London’s “very strong global reputation for legal services.”

Bogart explained that with Burford’s position as a global litigation funder, they have both the opportunity and the need to prioritise certain markets, meaning that the government’s inaction is resulting in Burford being “less focused on using dispute resolution in London” than in past years. Bogart highlighted the strength of dispute resolution jurisdictions in New York, Paris and Singapore, and Burford are “migrating some dispute resolution activity away from London and towards New York.”

Bogart explained the company’s position through a rational financial framework, saying that he is “in the business of allocating capital to places that are reliable and deliver returns for shareholders.” In closing, Bogart sent what appeared to be a direct message to policymakers in London, warning that “it is perilous for the new government to take action or to exist in inaction that moves that capital away from London.”

A Radical Idea: What if We Restructured the Insurance Industry for the Public Good?

By Reid Zeising |

The following was contributed by Reid Zeising, CEO & founder of Gain.

Health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods, yet the insurance industry is structured on a for-profit model, which focuses on increased profits and shareholder returns, often over the needs and welfare of policyholders and claimants. Today’s largest insurers, especially third-party liability carriers, reap over $100 billion in annual profits, [1] while premiums and costs are on the rise for those depending on the policies that they issue for their financial protection. The insurance industry has a moral responsibility and a duty as a corporate citizen to prioritize its policyholders and claimants. By transitioning to a public utility model, the industry can refocus its priorities without jeopardizing liability carrier’s needs to cover operating costs and pay shareholder returns. By thinking like – and actually being – a public utility, insurers can fulfill their duties as a provider of an essential public good without imperiling their own financial health.

Transitioning to a Public Utility Model

The insurance industry predominantly operates on a for-profit model, emphasizing profit maximization[2] and shareholder returns.[3] This model, however, often neglects the welfare of policyholders and claimants.[4] It also does not reflect the reality that health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods. A public good is a benefit or service that should be available to all citizens and that ultimately contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole.[5] One proven and effective model for delivering public goods is the public utility company, which is privately owned by investors, but committed to the provision of public good. A public utility company oversees essential services, ensuring their accessibility, reliability, and affordability.[6] By restructuring third-party liability carriers along these lines, we can elevate the role of insurance carriers from profit-centric entities to institutions focused on consumer welfare.[7] Similar to utilities, carriers could receive a fixed, reasonable return,[8] enabling investments in increased technology and efficiencies and sustainability while preventing the accumulation of excessive profits at the expense of policyholders.

Benefits of the Public Utility Model

Enhanced Payouts: Transforming the current model would necessitate that carriers pay out all remaining premiums to claimants, after covering operational costs, guaranteed returns and dividends. This fundamental change would translate to increased payouts for claimants, alleviating their financial burden and ensuring adequate compensation. This contrasts with the present situation, where substantial portions of premiums are often reserved for investments and increased profit margins, limiting the resources allocated to claimants. The Affordable Care Act sought to cap profits by mandating that health insurance companies could spend no more than 20 percent of revenue from premiums on administrative costs, marketing, and profits. However, insurers have skirted these rules by increasing overall costs and raising premiums, boosting revenues.[9] Therefore, further reform, along the lines proposed here, is needed.

Industry Shift to Public Good: By orienting the industry towards the welfare of policyholders and the larger community, we can establish a new standard of corporate responsibility within insurance carriers. This alteration fosters a climate where the pursuit of public good[10] becomes inherent, eclipsing the erstwhile emphasis on profit maximization. Under this paradigm, carriers become stewards of societal welfare and financial responsibility, ensuring equitable distribution of resources and safeguarding policyholder interests.[11]

Policyholder Centric: In this reimagined model, policyholders would be the primary beneficiaries, receiving enhanced protections and services. This framework mandates a focus on policyholder needs and aspirations, catalyzing the development of consumer-centric policies and practices. Additionally, the compulsory dividend payouts would ensure that policyholders receive tangible, financial benefits, contributing to economic stability and welfare.

A More Equitable Economy: The proposed transition has profound economic implications, marking a departure from purely capitalistic orientations to a more balanced, equitable economic structure. The substantial increase in payouts would stimulate consumer spending and economic activity, while the emphasis on public good would promote social cohesion and mutual responsibility. Moreover, this shift would mitigate the socioeconomic disparities[12] emanating from the current profit-driven model, fostering a more inclusive and equitable economic environment.

Redefining the Insurance Industry

The transformation of the insurance industry -- particularly third-party liability carriers – into a public utility model is a radical yet necessary step towards creating an equitable and consumer-oriented industry. By guaranteeing returns and mandating the allocation of remaining premiums to claimants, we can ensure the industry serves the public good and prioritizes policyholder welfare. This transition is not merely a structural adjustment; it symbolizes a philosophical shift, redefining the purpose and responsibilities of insurance carriers in a way that recognizes that third-party liability insurance carriers are essential public goods. This revolutionary approach promises increased payouts, enhanced policyholder benefits, and a collective pursuit of societal well-being. The pivot from a profit-centric paradigm to a model centered on public welfare, where the interests of consumers are placed above unchecked profit accrual. In the long term, this alteration can be a catalyst for more claims being paid and funds being utilized for the purposes they were intended.  Insurance is in place to reimburse those who have suffered through no fault of their own, and a utility model can assure that more monies are paid to consumers and less goes into the coffers of companies beyond what is needed to service these portfolios.


[1] “Visualizing the 50 Most Profitable Insurance Companies in the U.S.,” HowMuch.net, https://howmuch.net/articles/top-50-most-profitable-us-insurance-companies-2020. Data is based on Fortune 500 listings.

[2] Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Insurance policy: How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit,” Stanford Medicine Magazine, May 19, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit/.

[3] Nathalia Bellizia, Davide Corradi, and Jürgen Bohrmann, “Profitable Growth Is King: The 2022 Insurance Value Creators Report,” Boston Consulting Group, September 2, 2022, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/insurance-total-stakeholder-return-value-creation-report/.

[4] Rosenthal, “Insurance policy.”

[5] National Consumer Law Center, Access to Utility Service, 6th ed. 2018, 1.1.5, www.nclc.org/library; Jason Fernando, “What Are Public Goods? Definition, How They Work, and Example,” Investopedia, March 20, 2022, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp.

[6] David E. McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure,” in Social and Political Science 2016, October 28, 2016, 3-18, Elgar Online, https://www.elgaronline.com/display/9781785365522/chapter01.xhtml.

[7] Jonathan D. Washko, “It’s Time to Resurrect the Public Utility Model Concept–But This Time for Healthcare,” Journal of Emergency Medical Services, October 18, 2017, https://www.jems.com/news/it-s-time-to-resurrect-the-public-utility-model-concept-but-also-for-healthcare-this-time/.

[8] McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure.”

[9] Marshall Allen, “Why Your Health Insurer Doesn't Care About Your Big Bills,” NPR, May 25, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/25/613685732/why-your-health-insurer-doesnt-care-about-your-big-bills.

[10] Samuel S. Flint, “Public Goods, Public Utilities, and the Public's Health,” Health & Social Work, Volume 36, Issue 1, February 2011, 75–77, https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-abstract/36/1/75/659133?redirectedFrom=PDF.

[11] Carter Dredge and Stefan Scholtes, “The Health Care Utility Model: A Novel Approach to Doing Business,” NEJM Catalyst, July 8, 2021, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0189.

[12] Samuel L. Dickman, David U. Himmelstein, and Steffie Woolhandler, “Inequality and the health-care system in the USA,” America: Equity and Equality in Health 1, The Lancet, April 8, 2017, Volume 389, 1431-1441, https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/US-equity-and-equality-in-health-1491475717627.pdf.

UK Facebook Users Could Benefit from £2.1 Billion Class Action as Case Proceeds to Trial

By Harry Moran |

Competition law expert Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s multi-billion pound case against Meta has been certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. Meta failed to prevent the case from proceeding as neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the Court of Appeal granted Meta leave to appeal.

The case is now proceeding to trial, opening up the prospect of compensation for 46 million UK Facebook users.

Every Facebook user who were domiciled in the UK on 15 February 2024 and accessed Facebook at least once in the period between 14 February 2016 and 6 October 2023 will be automatically included in the case unless they opt out by 5 March 2025.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen says: “We welcome the opportunity to hold Meta to account for abusing its dominant position by exploiting 46 million UK users’ data. Meta abused its market dominance by imposing unfair terms and conditions on UK users and imposing an unlawful price. We are very pleased that the Tribunal has approved me to go ahead and represent the class in our pursuit of redress for each individual affected”

The Tribunal ruled Meta’s attempts to challenge Dr. Lovdahl Gormsen’s claims were “insufficient” after expert testimony from leading economist Fiona Scott Morton, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Whilst Meta attempted to appeal this decision, the Court of Appeal in October refused permission for them to do so.

Class action claims have risen in the UK in the past three years but do not always receive a Collective Proceedings Order. As of November 2024, only a third of all cases have reached this stage, underscoring the importance of this decision.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s case argues that Meta set an ‘unfair price’ for UK Facebook users. The “price” set for granting access to the social network was the surrender of UK users’ highly valuable personal data on a take-it-or-leave-it basis for access to the network. In return, users only received “free” access to Facebook’s social network, and zero monetary recompense whilst Facebook generated billions in revenues from its users’ data. This unfair deal was only possible due to Meta’s market dominance, meaning users had no other social network they could use to get the same service.

The claim seeks damages of at least £2.1 billion, plus interest, on aggregate for all UK consumers affected.

Kate Vernon, partner and Head of Competition Litigation Practice at law firm Quinn Emanuel, representing Dr Lovdahl Gormsen said: “This groundbreaking case promises to redefine the application of competition law in the context of data exploitation. It sets a legal framework for approaching this pivotal matter and represents a significant shift in how we address the associated critical issues.”

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s legal action is an opt-out class action brought under the Competition Act 1998 and the first to protect individuals’ data rights against Meta under competition law in England and Wales. The case is backed by some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers and economists, such as the Rt. Honourable Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, Professor Richard Whish, Honorary Kings Counsel, economist Chris Pike, and Peter Vicary-Smith, former CEO of Which?.

A notice of the collective proceedings order, which sets out how users may opt out of the claim, can be found here.

About Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen

The case is being led on behalf of the class by Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the director of the Competition Law Forum.The Competition Law Forum is a noted centre of excellence for European competition and antitrust policy and law.

In addition, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is a Board Member of the Open Markets Institute and sits on the advisory board of the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (OUP).

As an international expert in the field, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen co-authored the paper “Facebook’s Anticompetitive Lean in Strategies” (2019) and “Facebook’s Exploitative and Exclusionary Abuses in the Two-Sided Market for Social Networks and Display Advertising” (2021). The latter argues that antitrust enforcement is required to prevent the company from reinforcing its data-driven abuse of market power.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, one of the UK’s leading competition law specialists. The case is spearheaded by Quinn Emanuel partner Kate Vernon, a highly respected competition law specialist, and assisted by partner Leo Kitchen, and associates Megan Hiluta, Aadil Master and Alexander Groes. Also advising Dr Lovdahl Gormsen are counsel Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Tom Coates of Blackstone Chambers, Greg Adey of One Essex Court and Ian Simester of Fountain Court Chambers.

The case is being funded by Innsworth, one of the world’s largest civil litigation funders.

Federal Court of Australia Rules Against LCM Funded Party in Energy Class Action

By Harry Moran |

LFJ reported earlier this week on the impressive financial returns that can be achieved by funders backing high-value class actions, and now we have another reminder of the inherent risk behind all these investments when the eventual outcome is unknown.

An announcement from Litigation Capital Management (LCM) reveals that the Federal Court of Australia has ruled against the applicant it had funded in a class action brought against Stanwell Corporation Ltd and CS Energy Ltd. The judgment handed down by Justice Sarah Dennington found that the two electricity generators had not engaged in market manipulation to illegally raise prices for their customers. The class action, which was led by Piper Alderman and brought on behalf of over 47,000 customers, had alleged that the two government-owned entities had manipulated Australia’s National Energy Market (NEM) bidding system to create an artificially scarce supply.

LCM had provided A$25m in funding from its own balance sheet capital to support the class action and the funder said it is considering the judgment before deciding to make an appeal before the deadline in 28 days. LCM’s CEO, Patrick Moloney provided the following comment on the outcome: “We will carefully review the Federal Court's decision and, with the legal team, will assess the prospects of a successful appeal from the judgment. Our expectation has always been that an appeal in this case was likely, regardless of the initial outcome. We remain confident in the strength of the underlying claim."

An article from ABC News covering the judgment included statements from both Stanwell and CS Energy, with the Stanwell spokesperson saying that the allegations were “wrongly levied against Stanwell by the international litigation funders and their representatives behind this misconceived action."

The full written judgment from Justice Dennington in the case of Stillwater Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Stanwell Corporation Ltd can be read here.

Settlement Agreement in Mastercard Claim Sees Divided Reactions From Class Representative and Funder

By Harry Moran |

Although a settlement is often seen as the ideal outcome in collective proceedings backed by a litigation funder, as it provides compensation for the claimants and a return on investment for the funder, this does not always mean that all parties will naturally agree on what such a settlement should look like.  

Reporting by the Financial Times reveals that a settlement agreement in principle has been reached in a consumer claim brought against Mastercard, with the provisional settlement reportedly reaching around £200 million. The legal action, which was brought by class representative and former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, focused on allegations that the payments company had been charging excessive fees on card transactions. With the claim representing up to 46 million consumers, the settlement is reportedly worth around £40 to £50 for each class member. 

A separate article in The Law Society Gazette provided additional reporting on the reactions of the various parties to the provisional settlement.

Merricks expressed his enthusiasm towards the agreement, saying that it will “deliver meaningful compensation to class members who chose to come forward to participate in the distribution of the damages.” In a similarly positive statement, a Mastercard spokesperson said that that company is “pleased to have reached an agreement”, subject to the review and approval of the settlement by the CAT.

However, the Gazette also reported that the praise for this agreement was not unanimous, with vocal opposition from the claim’s funder Innsworth. A spokesperson for the litigation funder said that the settlement was reached without their agreement, and that “it is both too low and premature.” The spokesperson went on to say that despite the fact Merricks and his legal representatives have previously asserted the claim was valued in the billions, “they seemed to have rushed to settle for a reported £200 million raising some serious questions.” Most strikingly, the Innsworth statement clarified that the funder “will be challenging this agreement and have already written to the CAT.”

Boris Bronfentrinker, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher who represents Merricks in the proceedings, said that “Innsworth’s opposition, and its desire that Mr Merricks continue with risky litigation that could result in UK consumers recovering significantly less, or even nothing .” Bronfentrinker went further and questioned the motives behind Innsworth’s objections, arguing that their objection “has to do with advancing the interests of UK consumers, and is all about funder greed.”

Harris Pogust Steps Down from Chairman of Pogust Goodhead

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Pogust Goodhead announced that Harris Pogust has retired from his role as Chairman of the global law firm, following his move to step back from being actively involved in UK cases in March of this year. The announcement explained that Mr Pogust will continue working with his US law firm and as President of the non-profit organisation Trial Lawyers For A Better Tomorrow, which works to raise money to help children and support access to education.

Mr Pogust provided the following comment on his departure: “Over the past six years we have built Pogust Goodhead into the world’s premier group litigation firm. We have helped defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves against the misdeeds of big business. 

At this time in my life, I want to devote more time and energy to my philanthropic endeavours including a charitable organization we have just launched to assist children all over the world reach their fullest potential, their hopes and their dreams. Throughout my career I have been lucky enough to visit communities and make friends all over the world. I have increasingly felt pulled to focus my search for justice and fairness on helping children who are disadvantaged and lack the basic resources to access education.

I look forward to watching Tom lead the firm for many more years and obtain success on behalf of millions of people who would otherwise not have access to justice.”

Thomas Goodhead, global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead, also provided the following statement celebrating Mr Pogust’s contribution to the firm: “Without Harris, founding this firm would never have been possible. He has played a fundamental part in getting us to where we are today. I cannot thank Harris enough for everything he has done for me personally, for the firm and for our clients.

Harris’ generosity of spirit, his constant encouragement and support to myself and everyone in the team have been invaluable. Thanks to him we are taking on some of the biggest companies in the world to make a difference to the lives of millions of people. Harris has had an extraordinary career and while he is retiring from his role as Chairman, we know he will continue to use any means necessary to help improve real people’s lives through his new charitable foundation and his US law firm.”

The announcement did not state who would replace Mr Pogust as chairman of the firm.

UK Government Minister Says Litigation Funding ‘Plays a Critical Role’

By Harry Moran |

Whilst industry commentators noted that litigation funding would likely not rank highly among the new government’s priorities following this year’s general election, there has been renewed interest in the government’s approach to third-party funding as the Civil Justice Council (CJC) continues its review of the sector.

In a speech to the Civil Justice Council’s 13th National Forum, Heidi Alexander MP highlighted the ongoing work of the CJC’s review of litigation funding and reinforced the government’s message to the third-party funding industry. In a speech that covered a wide range of issues under the new government’s approach to civil justice, Ms Alexander highlighted the CJC’s recently published interim report and its working group, which she described as “expertly chaired by Mr Justice Simon picken and Dr John Sorabji.”

She once again laid out the government’s position, saying that “third-party litigation funding plays a critical role in enabling access to justice and as a government we want to make sure it’s fair for all.” Acknowledging that there was some disappointment they had not picked up the previous parliament’s legislation to solve the PACCAR judgment, Ms Alexander said that “we want to consider this issue carefully and holistically.”

Before moving onto other issues, she highlighted the ongoing review of third-party funding as “incredibly valuable”, and encouraged interested parties to engage with the consultation before it closes at the end of January.

The recording of all the forum’s speakers, including the minister’s remarks, can be found on YouTube.