With the UK funding industry awaiting the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s review of third-party litigation funding, most of the commentary about what direction the government should take has come from those professionals practicing inside the UK. However, in an example of transnational solidarity between funding markets, the head of Australia’s industry association has spoken out to encourage the UK government to act to protect its legal funding sector.

In an opinion piece for The Law Society Gazette, John Walker, chairman of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF), presents a strong argument that the UK government must avoid following Australia’s past mistake of overregulating the legal funding industry. With the prospect of the CJC’s review soon reaching its conclusion, Walker argues that the government’s “priority must be addressing the uncertainty created by the PACCAR decision”, rather than acceding to the demands of “the powerful, well-resourced and disingenuous minority perspective of the US Chamber of Commerce.”

Walker points to the recent history of legal funding in Australia, where the strength of these critics’ views led to the previous governments introducing strict regulations that created an environment where “access to justice for claimants was denied, corporate wrongdoers were protected, and claims started to dry up.” As Walker explains, the true lesson from Australia was the reversal of these regulations by the new government in 2022, which has seen funding rebound and drive a wave of class actions representing Australians seeking justice once more.

Taking aim at the opponents of the litigation funding industry, Walker highlighted the “myths pedalled” by groups like Civil Fair Justice as being “built on falsehoods that risk clouding reality and choking off access to justice.” Putting the often-repeated claim of funders supporting frivolous claims in the crosshairs, Walker notes “in reality, funders in the UK fund as few as 3% of the cases they're approached about.”

Litigation funding startups are a common occurrence, especially in recent years. However, the rebranding of an established funder is less common, yet worth keeping an eye on.

In a new blog post, the litigation funder formerly known as Qanlex announced that it is rebranding and will now operate under the name: Loopa Finance. The funder emphasised that it is still “the same team, the same values, and the same focus”, but with a new name that represents  the adoption of a “a clearer, more modern, and more memorable identity.”

The blog post goes on to provide a fuller explanation of the new name: “Loopa refers to our way of working: examining each opportunity with a magnifying glass and creating virtuous loops of funding, access to justice, and efficient conflict resolution.” The announcement also clarifies that the rebranding “does not imply any structural, corporate, or operational modifications.”

Loopa was founded as Qanlex in 2020, offering litigation finance services for cases in Latin America before expanding its funding solutions to commercial claims and arbitrations in continental Europe. As LFJ reported in January of this year, the funder revealed that it was refining its Latin America strategy using new technologies and focusing on specific sectors within individual jurisdictions in the region. Examples of this sector focus include energy cases in Ecuador, real estate development matters in Costa Rica, and oil and energy cases in Colombia. 

More information about Loopa Finance can be found on its website. 

Class actions in Australia continue to be viewed as desirable opportunities for litigation funders, with the first half of 2025 already seeing a number of funded claims brought on behalf of consumers wronged by the state or large corporations. 

A joint media release from Echo Law and Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that they are pursuing a new class action against Toyota Finance in Australia, this time over the sale of “junk” add-on insurance to consumers. The claim, which has been brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleges that Toyota Finance and insurer Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia (ADICA), engaged in “unjust, unfair, misleading and unconscionable” conduct that breached the Corporations ACT, ASIC Act, and National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

The class action has been filed on behalf of any consumers who took out a car loan with Toyota Finance and were sold a Toyota branded add-on insurance policy between 1 January 2010 and 5 October 2021. The allegedly “junk” insurance policies covered by the class action include Toyota Payment Protection Insurance, Toyota Finance Gap Insurance, and Toyota Extended Warranty Insurance.

Alex Blennerhassett, Principal Lawyer at Echo Law, said that “this class action is about holding Toyota Finance and ADICA to account for knowingly selling junk insurance to everyday Australians, even though these policies offered no value.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Emma Colantonio, Chief Investment Officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a strong example of litigation funding enabling access to justice and supporting consumers in holding major financial players to account.”

This class action is separate to the Flex Commissions claim which was filed by Echo Law against Toyota Finance in February 2024. That class focuses on allegations that car dealers secretly inflated the interest rate on consumers’ car loans, resulting in additional interest fees. The Supreme Court has ruled that these separate class actions can be managed together, and Ms Blennerhassett said that they expected “there to be a significant number of persons who are group members in both proceedings”. 

LLS is providing funding for both class actions brought against Toyota Finance. More information on both class actions can be found on Echo Law’s website.

In an announcement posted by Invenio LLP, the law firm revealed the appointment of Drew Kelly in an Of Counsel role. Kelly brings a wealth of knowledge to the Invenio team, with nearly two decades of experience across the legal and litigation finance sectors.

Kelly joins Invenio having most recently served as General Counsel at litigation funder Delta Capital Partners with responsibility for oversight across a wide range of areas including legal affairs, fund governance and portfolio transactions. Prior to his time at Delta, Kelly gained valuable experience as an attorney at both Husch Blackwell and K&L Gates. In addition to these roles, Kelly founded Modernist Law LLC in June 2024.

In a separate post on LinkedIn, Kelly said, “My affiliation with Invenio allows me to broaden my reach while staying focused on the same hands-on, business-minded service my clients have come to expect.” He went on to say that “Invenio brings deep experience and an entrepreneurial mindset”, while highlighting the approach taken by Ed Gehres and Blake Trueblood at Invenion for “their commitment to innovative, business-first legal solutions”.

Kelly also clarified that he would “continue to serve clients directly” through his work at Modernist Law, with his new role at Invenio allowing him “to offer expanded capabilities and deeper bench strength to clients who can benefit from it.”

Invenio’s announcement also noted the hiring of Kelly as another addition to its team being composed entirely of former General Counsels, emphasising that this collective experience gives the firm a unique perspective in offering business-focused legal advice.

As LFJ has covered over recent months, the movement to limit the use of third-party litigation funding or to impose restrictions on the practice has seen several successes with state legislatures bringing new rules into force. However, a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate has taken a different approach by looking to impose a targeted tax on funders’ profits from financing civil lawsuits. 

Last week Senator Thom Tillis, (R) from North Carolina, announced that he has introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act. The bill differs from those introduced at the state level in that it does not seek to create new restrictions around the use of third-party funding, instead it is focused on imposing a new tax on any profit that funders receive through the funding civil litigation. 

The current draft text of the article would create a new chapter in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, imposing a tax on ‘any qualified litigation proceeds’ received by a funder. The amount of tax is proposed to be set at ‘the highest rate of tax imposed by section for such taxable year, plus 3.8 percentage points.’ The bill would apply this tax on any litigation financing arrangement, regardless of whether the funder was a domestic or foreign entity.

In the announcement of the bill, Senator Tillis said, “This legislation will bring much-needed transparency and accountability by taxing these profits and deterring abusive practices that undermine the integrity of our courts.”

Representative Kevin Hern, who has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, argued that “taxing these third-party entities will limit unmeritorious lawsuits and provide economic relief to the middle class.”The full text of the Tackling Predatory 5 Litigation Funding Act can be read here.

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.

When it comes to medical and personal injury group claims, the financial resources that litigation funders provide is often a vital component of their potential success. However, a new initiative tackling a specific medical claim in France also demonstrates the importance of funders working with specialist law firms and local associations who have the requisite knowledge and experience to support these patients.

In a post on LinkedIn, litigation funder LitFin announced the launch of an initiative to support women in France who have suffered or are suffering health complications related to the Essure contraceptive implant. 

The Essure implant is a non-surgical, permanent method of contraception which was introduced in 2001, but in the years following its use has seen thousands of women develop serious health complications from the implant. Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure, stopped the sale and distribution of the device in 2018.

The initiative launched by LitFin is in collaboration with RESIST, an independent French association founded in 2016 that has been campaigning for and supporting women who have been affected by issues following the use of the implant. Legal support for the initiative is being provided by JVL & Associés, a French law firm located in Rouen, Normandy, that specialises in health law and has 20 years of experience in medical accident claims and patient law.

More information about the initiative and upcoming public events hosted by RESIST can be found on the Implant Compensation Claim website.

When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct by the law firm entrusted with a funder's financial resources.

An article in Reuters covers the approval of a settlement between MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates) and two litigation funders, which will see the bankrupt law firm sell more than 6,000 cases to repay debts owed to the funders. Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund had sued MMA in Texas state court, and under the new settlement will receive a minimum of $18 million from the sale of the cases. The settlement brings the dispute between the funders and law firm to a close, following years of court battles over MMA’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent.

The settlement, which was approved by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez, requires that 75% of the proceeds from the sales go to the two funders, with the remaining percentage of proceeds distributed to MMA’s other creditors. The $18 million figure set as a minimum return for the funders under the settlement is still significant below the nearly $38 million that they claim to be owed by MMA. The mass tort cases include claims related to pharmaceutical drug, a weed killer, and a baby formula.

The troubles facing MMA go back several years, with LFJ reporting back in 2023 on a petition lodged by the same two funders in a Louisiana court over MMA’s improper filing of claims on behalf of property owners who suffered damage to their properties from hurricanes. The law firm and its founder, Zach Moseley, were reported to be under investigation by the FBI over these filings of claims but there is currently no update as to the status of that investigation. 

The settlement also allows MMA and Moseley to continue working on other cases on its books, on the condition that the latter does not receive any form of salary increase or bonus before the funders have been repaid.

The prolonged duration of investor-state treaty disputes often means that updates on these claims are few and far between. However, the presence of litigation funding allows these claims to proceed at their own pace without the claimant being concerned over the significant financial resources needed to support these disputes. 

In an announcement released today, Panthera Resources Plc provided an update on the arbitration claim being brought by its subsidiary company, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL), against the Republic of India over the Bhukia project. The announcement revealed that IGPL has issued its Memorial to the arbitration tribunal, which includes a claim for damages totalling $1.58 billion. 

The filing of the memorial and statement of claim to the tribunal follows IGPL’s formal issuance of a Notice of Arbitration to India in July 2024, and the tribunal’s later order to file the memorial by 16 May 2025.

As LFJ previously reported in August 2023, Panthera Resources has secured litigation funding through LCM Funding, a subsidiary of Litigation Capital Management. The funding agreement provides for up to $13.6 million in financing to support the dispute through to a conclusion.

The claim being brought by IGPL centres on alleged breaches of the 199 Australia-India Bilateral Investment Treaty, claiming that the Government of Rajasthan ‘denied and frustrated’ IGPL’s right to be granted a prospecting license over the Bhukia mining project. Furthermore, IGPL’s claim alleges that it suffered a total loss of investment following the passing of new legislation in 2021 which amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 2015 and thereby revoked the preferential right to a prospecting license and mining lease.

One of the common talking points at industry events is the need for increased standardisation in legal funding, with a set of agreed upon best practices often viewed as an important step forward for the maturation of the industry.

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) announced that it has created and released a Template Insolvency Litigation Funding Agreement. AALF explains that the template is designed ‘to optimise efficiency for lawyers and insolvency practitioners involved in funded insolvency litigation’, providing a practical industry baseline for the use of such funding agreements in Australia. 

The ‘insolvency claim funding deed’ template as shown in the announcement offers a basic layout for the details of the funder, claimant, insolvency practitioner, and lawyers. The deed structure then outlines the following four key components that the deed will be comprised of: commercial terms, funding deed – general funding terms, definitions, and three annexures. The annexures include an insolvency practitioner’s report, a lawyer’s report, and a payment claim report for other funded costs.

AALF expressed its thanks to its members who contributed to the completion of this template with special thanks to the following individuals: Frances Dreyer (Johnson Winter Slattery), Doug Hayter (Ironbark Funding), Heather Collins GAICD (Court House Capital), Stuart Price (CASL), Lisa Brentnall (Clover Risk Funding), John Walker (CASL), Michelle Silvers (Court House Capital), and Kelly Trenfield (FTI Consulting).

The template can be viewed here, and AALF encourages any parties interested in using this resource to contact them.

Alexander Wolfson, a highly experienced barrister of more than 25 years standing, has issued an opt-out class action claim against software giant Microsoft. He is issuing the claim on behalf of all UK-domiciled natural and legal persons (including public bodies) that purchased licences for certain specified Microsoft software products (including Microsoft Office and Windows). 

The claims allege that the software giant abused its market dominance and engaged in conduct that restricted competition to its new licences from pre-owned licences for Microsoft products. That conduct affected and inflated the prices of both new licences and pre-owned licences. 

The claim is one of the most significant class action cases currently underway in the UK, with a potential value reaching into the billions. 

Wolfson has retained the services of the Head of Competition at Stewarts, Kate Pollock, alongside partners Stuart Carson and Marc Jones (and others), and is instructing Counsel teams at both Monckton and Matrix Chambers, together with a team of experts to provide testimony on the economics of the case. The claim is funded by Harbour. 

Alex Wolfson, Proposed Class Representative, said: “Microsoft’s actions have had a significant and far-reaching impact on UK consumers, businesses and public bodies. This claim seeks to hold Microsoft to account and to secure compensation for the many affected members of the class. With billions of pounds potentially at stake, this case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules.”

Kate Pollock, Head of Competition Litigation at Stewarts, said: “Microsoft’s conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organisations that rely on its software for daily business operations. We believe that Microsoft abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices. We’re proud to be supporting Alexander Wolfson in bringing this claim. With our specialist experience in complex competition litigation, we are well placed to help secure justice for the millions affected. This case has the potential to restore greater fairness and accountability to the UK’s increasingly digital economy.” 

Ellora MacPherson, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer at Harbour, which is funding the case, said: “We are delighted to be able to support Alex Wolfson, Kate Pollock and the rest of the Stewarts team by funding this important case which will give access to justice to tens of thousands of individuals and public and private organisations in the UK. This action is likely to be one of the largest the UK has seen and is an example of how big corporate entities can be held to account.” 

For more information about the case, visit MicrosoftClaim.com

For litigation funders in their early years of growth post-founding, the ability to continue to raise capital and expand to new markets are often key signs of strengths in these businesses, as demonstrated by an Australian family law funder with its latest announcement.

In a post on LinkedIn, JustFund revealed that it has launched funding services for family matters in New Zealand, marking its first expansion outside of Australia since the funder’s inception three years ago. The announcement explained that JustFund is looking to support both lawyers who need support for their clients or an individual who needs the financial assistance to secure legal representation.

This expansion follows JustFund’s $92 million capital raise in November of last year, with the funds consisting of a combination of seed round financing, a senior debt facility, and additional mezzanine funding. At the time of the capital raise, JustFund said that in the two years since its founding it had provided more than $95 million in legal funding for family law cases, resulting in over $1 billion in relationship property settlements.

Andy O’Connor, co-founder and CEO of Just Fund, commented on the announcement saying, “It's been an incredible first week meeting with client-centric law firms looking to deliver solutions for their clients.” O’Connor also stated that JustFund is recruiting for its Auckland office to support this expansion, with the funder hiring for family lawyer and client experience positions.

More information about JustFund’s offering to New Zealand clients can be found on its website.

A statement released by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) offers a response to recent media speculation that the funder is facing a potential investigation by the office of the Dubai Public Prosecutor (DPP).

LCM’s statement is as follows: “The article states that the original complaint was made in 2022. The Company confirms that it has not been contacted by any legal authority, either historically or recently, in relation to the allegation. Furthermore, the Company does not believe any such allegation, were it to be made, would have any merit whatsoever. The Company is investigating further and will update the market as appropriate.”

The article that prompted LCM’s statement was published by Intelligence Online on 13 May, claiming that “the Dubai Public Prosecutor's office commenced a court-assisted investigation into LCM and its chief executive Patrick Moloney in March.” The headline of the article suggests that the investigation is a “money laundering probe”, with the DPP’s office reportedly “examining details from a complaint made in late 2022.

The full article available to Intelligence Online subscribers here.

As LFJ reported in February, one legal funder in Germany is seeking to elevate its engagement in the country with a new fund that demonstrates significant ambition for the growth of litigation financing in this underserved market.

In an update posted by FORIS AG, the German litigation funder revealed that its FORIS Centris Litigation Financing Fund I has already attracted strong market interest from professional and institutional investors, allowing for case financing to begin. According to the post, the fund was already sufficiently capitalized in February to start backing lawsuits. FORIS AG launched this fund in partnership with Liechtenstein-based CAIAC Fund Management AG and Vienna-based Centris Capital AG.

Frederick Iwans, CEO of FORIS AG, said that the funder was confident it will be able to build on this momentum and reach the fund’s target of financing 20 to 25 cases within the next two years. Iwans also shed some light on the types of cases the fund was able to finance, explaining that FORIS AG had seen “a significant increase in financing requests or cases with amounts in dispute exceeding €50 million”. He also suggested that it was even possible for the fund to support cases above the €100 million threshold.

Michael Nagy, CEO of Centris Capital AG, said that he believes the fund has “hit a nerve” with the market and highlighted that they have already received twelve subscriptions to the fund. Nagy went on to explain that the uncorrelated nature of the litigation financing fund is particularly attractive to investors, given the ongoing turmoil in the stock market and the opportunity for these investors to diversify both their portfolios and risk profiles.

Although the presence and visibility of legal funding in India is limited, a recent judgment re-affirming the legality of litigation funding will no doubt be seen as a positive sign for supporters of the nascent litigation finance market in the country.

An article on Verdictum covers a ruling in the Bombay High Court which affirmed that third-party litigation funding is neither illegal nor does it violate Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The judgment was handed down following the appeal of a decision in the City Civil Court which had quashed the amalgamation of two trusts, ruling that it was a matter of “champertous litigation” and was therefore prohibited by Section 23.

The background of the case begins with the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s approval of a 2005 amalgamation of the Rizvi Education Society and the Kailash Seva Sadan Trust, with the approval later being challenged by the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in the City Civil Court.

In his judgment for the High Court, Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh found that it “cannot be countenanced that third party funding of litigation is per se illegal and violates Section 23 of Contract Act, apart from the fact that such contemplation is alien to an inquiry under Section 50A (2) of Trusts Act.” 

Whilst this ruling was focused on a specific case within the limited context of the amalgamation of these two trusts, the repeated affirmation of litigation funding’s legality in India is a welcome sight for funders considering expanding their services to this jurisdiction.

The full judgment by the High Court in Rizvi Education Society & Ors. v. The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors can be read here. 

In January of this year, LFJ covered the launch of Legatus Holdings Limited, with the legal funding venture designed as a one-stop shop offering funding, legal services, insurance and claims acquisition under one umbrella organisation. Four months later, the insurance arm of this venture has launched its website and offered new insights into the legal risk services it will be offering.

In a post on Toremis Speciality’s website, CEO Nathan Hull introduced the new MGA business and provided an overview of its solutions and capabilities to the legal insurance market. Highlighting the company’s focus solely on legal related risks, Toremis will focus on delivering capabilities in after-the-Event (ATE), contingent risk, and tax liability insurance. Given Toremis’ ties to the other Legatus subsidiary companies (Asertis, KP Law, Cavis), Hull emphasised that the MGA also brings “strong, long-term capacity partners, that understand the space and are committed to its growth.”

Hull, whose involvement with Toremis was revealed at the time of the Legatus launch, brings a wealth of experience in legal insurance to his position as chief executive. Before taking on this new venture, Hull had spent the last five years as Head of Contingent and Litigation Risk Europe at VALE Insurance Partners.

Toremis’ website lists three executives in its senior leadership team, with Sam Tacey and Koosha Kowsari completing the trifecta alongside Hull. Tacey holds the position of Senior Partner, having joined the new venture from Acquinex where he served as Head of Contingent Risks and Claims. Kowsari is in post as the company’s Finance Director, building on a long career in finance and accounting, including his most recent role as Head of Insurance Finance at Marshmallow.