As LFJ reported last week, Google is the target of a €900 million claim brought against the technology giant in the Netherlands over its alleged anti-competitive behaviour. However, that is not the only lawsuit being brought against the company over such allegations, with a new claim being filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in the UK.

An announcement from Geradin Partners highlights the filing of a new claim brought against Google before the CAT over allegations that the company abused its market dominance to increase prices for Google Ads and harm competitors in the search advertising market. The claim, which has an estimated value of £5 billion, is being brought on behalf of UK-based advertisers who have allegedly suffered losses because of Google’s anti-competitive behaviour. The lawsuit is to represent UK businesses who purchased advertising space on Google search spaces since 1 January 2011.

The opt-out competition damages claim is being brought by Or Brook Class Representative Limited, with Dr Or Brook acting as the proposed class representative. Dr Brook is a competition law expert, currently holding the position of Associate Professor of Competition Law and Policy at the School of Law at the University of Leeds. She is supported by a legal team led by Geradin Partners, with funding for the proceedings being provided by Burford Capital.

Dr Or Brook, provided the following comment on the lawsuit: “Today, UK businesses and organisations, big or small, have almost no choice but to use Google ads to advertise their products and services. Regulators around the world have described Google as a monopoly and securing a spot on Google’s top pages is essential for visibility. Google has been leveraging its dominance in the general search and search advertising market to overcharge advertisers.”

Damien Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, emphasised that “this is the first claim of its kind in the UK that seeks redress for the harm caused specifically to businesses who have been forced to pay inflated prices for advertising space on Google pages.”

The full announcement from Geradin Partners can be read here.

Ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR, it has become a common sight in group proceedings to see defendants bringing appeals over the funding arrangements in these cases. However, a new judgment by the Court of Appeal on one such appeal has offered a significant victory for litigation funders who wish to support these group actions.

A ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Justin Gutmann v Apple Inc and others, dismissed appeals brought by Apple over the funding arrangements in the group proceedings brought against the company by Justin Gutmann. 

The Court of Appeal’s judgment related to two grounds of appeal that Apple had raised. Firstly, the CAT’s alleged lack of jurisdiction to make an order to payout a funder’s fees or returns before damages were distributed to class members, and the ability of class representatives to enter into funding agreements that contemplated such orders. Secondly, that the funding agreement in this case ‘created sufficiently perverse incentives that the CAT could not properly authorise’ Mr Gutmann to act as the class representative.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment, led by Sir Julian Flaux Chancellor of The High Court with unanimous agreement from Lord Justice Green and Lord Justice Briss, dismissed Apple’s appeal on both grounds. In the conclusion of his judgment, Flaux wrote that “the CAT does have jurisdiction to order that the funder’s fee or return can be paid out of the damages awarded to the class in priority to the class.” With that fact clearly established, he went on to say that it follows that “that there can be absolutely nothing wrong with the CR entering into a LFA which makes provision for that to happen.”

Leaving no room for any doubt, Flaux stated plainly that “once Ground 2 of the appeal fails, Ground 3 is indeed hopeless.”

Separate appeals brought by Apple over the consequences of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR’s ruling as it relates to LFAs being considered as damages-based agreements, are still yet to be heard. A hearing on this separate ground of appeal is scheduled for June following the Court of Appeal’s lifting of the stay on those appeals on 4 February 2025.

The full judgment from the Court of Appeal in Justin Gutmann v Apple Inc and others can be read here.

Rachel McCarthy has announced that she is taking on a new role as Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that helps people suffering due to a catastrophic accident. 

In a post on LinkedIn, Rachel notes that she has spent the last eight years working at the core Milestone business, where she has been in post as the Director of Strategic Partnerships for the settlement services trustee.  She also explained that this move marks a return to this role on the non-profit side, having served as the foundation’s first Executive Director for three years from 2017 to 2020. 

The Milestone Foundation provides non-recourse consumer litigation funding to families that require financial support to cover basic living expenses during lawsuits. Since the foundation’s beginnings in 2016, it has provided over $4.5 million to more than 600 families and plaintiffs bringing lawsuits across a variety of areas including personal injury, medical malpractice and class actions.

McCarthy said she looks forward to “the new challenges that will come with managing a bigger, stronger non-profit that's committed to helping people who are going through a personal injury lawsuit and need financial support.”

More information about The Milestone Foundation can be found here.

As LFJ covered in February of this year, a landmark deal between Omni Bridgeway and Ares Management Corporation for the establishment of a new fund was progressing smoothly following the initial announcement of the deal in December 2024.

An announcement from Omni Bridgeway revealed that the litigation funder has completed the Fund 9 transaction, which sees Ares Management Corporation acquire a 70% interest in the fund for a total of A$320 million. The final completion of the transaction includes receipt of the final A$45m payment, following Ares’ prior A$275 payment that was announced as part of the fund’s financial close on 25 February 2025. Omni Bridgeway retains a 30% interest in Fund 9, and will remain as the adviser to the fund alongside its management of the legal assets in the fund.

Omni Bridgeway provided additional details on the establishment of Fund 9, explaining that this latest fund has interests in over 150 investments across its other established funds and one remaining balance sheet investment. The funder also noted that the portfolio legal assets in Fund 9 is comprised of both mature investments and those investments that were recently originated over the course of FY25.

Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director and CEO, provided the following statement on the completion of the transaction: 

“We are extremely proud to lead the field together with Ares through this innovative transaction. It is the first continuation fund for legal assets and is highly significant in its scope and size as a secondary market transaction. The transaction demonstrates that deep pools of institutional secondary capital are available to Omni Bridgeway to mitigate the duration risk associated with legal assets. This is driven by our high quality track record built off an institutional-grade asset management platform with a transparent valuation framework. This transaction comes at a formative time for the industry, with (1) growing institutional investor interest in legal assets given the unique asymmetrical and non-correlated returns even during volatile markets, (2) a growing market demand for legal finance, while (3) the industry is maturing and consolidating reflecting the scale, diversification, skills, experience and track record required to be successful over the long term as a manager in this asset class. This transformative transaction positions Omni Bridgeway well for the opportunity set ahead.” 

Jan-Paul Kobarg, Partner at Ares Management, also provided a comment:

“We are pleased to support OBL with this significant transaction, which underscores Ares' ability to deliver bespoke, creative capital solutions at scale. We look forward to working with Raymond and the OBL team as they build on their leadership in an asset class that we believe will be increasingly targeted by institutional investors due to its ability to generate attractive, uncorrelated returns.”

The full announcement which includes an overview of the deal’s strategic rationale and financials can be read here.

Lawdragon has released its 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list for 2025, with the sixth edition of its annual guide ‘honoring the entrepreneurs who enable litigators and law firms to extend their reach in the types of matters they take on, their strategic pathways, and the enhanced access to justice they provide.’ This year’s list includes 174 senior executives from across the world, with this representing a small increase from the 164 individuals highlighted in the 2024 list.

Of those companies with leaders included on the list, Burford Capital saw the highest number of executives recognised with 14, with Therium Capital close behind at 10 individuals, and LCM which had nine of its team listed. 

Looking at the breakdown by jurisdiction across the 174 litigation finance leaders recognised, the US was the most represented country with 85 individuals listed. The UK came in a close second with 51 leaders recognised, and Australia came behind it with 18 executives profiled.

The full list of individuals recognised in 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list can be found here.

Whilst many state legislatures across the U.S. are moving forward with bills imposing blanket restrictions and oversight measures on litigation funding, one state has demonstrated that there is the possibility for legislation to be drafted with a more balanced approach to the issue.

An article in Bloomberg Law covers the passage of a new litigation funding legislation in Kansas, with Governor Laura Kelly approving a bill that seeks to improve transparency around third-party funding whilst still maintaining reasonable levels of confidentiality for those parties involved in funding agreements.

The Substitute for Senate Bill 54 takes a more nuanced approach than similar bills passed by other state legislatures, requiring disclosure of funding arrangements with foreign funders from countries that are considered an adversary by the US government. A further important limitation on the scope of the disclosure requirements in this bill is that it only requires disclosure of the funding agreements to the judge in each case, with no mandatory disclosure to all parties involved in the litigation.

The bill is also notable for being seen as a compromise between two of the most vocal organisations on either side of the debate around the regulation of funding: the International Legal Finance Association and the US Chamber of Commerce, supported by Kansas’ own Chamber of Commerce. 

Paul Kong, executive director of the International Legal Finance Association, thanked the state’s legislature for arriving at “a reasonable, sensible solution”, and urged opponents of the funding industry not to pursue sweeping regulatory bills “that are a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.” Eric Stafford, senior director of government affairs at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, similarly expressed satisfaction that “the opponents from last year’s bill and proponents of the bill have been able to reach a compromise.”

The full text of the bill can be read here.

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, Gallagher announced the appointment of Harshiv Thakerar as Head of Disputes Risk based in the firm’s Middle East office. 

Thakerar’s new position will see him lead the insurance and risk management company’s dispute resolution practice in the Middle East and Africa, engaging with law firms and litigation funders in the region. Gallagher offers a range of dispute resolution and investment insurance solutions, including after the event (ATE) and contingent legal risk insurance.

Thakerar joins Gallagher having most recently served as Chief Investment Officer at litigation funder Asertis, where he also sat as board director. Thakerar brings a wealth of experience in the legal sector, having also spent time as a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya before moving into the world of litigation funding. Prior to his time at Asertis, Thakerar also held positions as Head of Litigation Funding at Global Growth Capital and Head of Commercial Litigation at Augusta Ventures.

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder £2.15 million in damages

Reporting by ICLG highlights a development in the matter, as a hearing before the High Court last week was set to decide on eight issues arising out of the previous award of damages. The issues which the parties had agreed to resolve before the court included the appropriate level of interest on the judgment sum, the entitlement to indemnity costs and the validity of a Part 36 settlement offer.

On the issue of the interest rate on the judgment sum, the defendants had argued for 1% above the Bank of England’s base rate, whilst Henderson & Jones had argued for 6% above the base rate. The High Court’s determination favoured the claimant, with a rate set at 5% above the base rate, with the court taking into consideration the funder’s position as a small business and the Bank of England’s own data.

As for the validity of Henderson & Jones’ settlement offer that had been made in October 2023, the defendants had argued that it was invalid due to the lack of a defined ‘relevant period’ for the offer to be accepted. The claimant argued that, in line with previous Part 36 offers made in the case, the period was understood to be 21 days. Once again, the court found in favour of the defendant and in acknowledging that the offer was both valid and had been surpassed, the claimant was entitled to additional benefits.

The court denied the defendants’ request to appeal the decision.

As LFJ reported in January of this year, the Netherlands is continuing to stand out amongst European jurisdictions for high-value claims that are being brought against multinational corporations with the support of third-party litigation funding.

A post on LinkedIn from LitFin announced the filing of a €900 million claim against Google at the District Court in Amsterdam. The claim follows an investigation by the European Commission in 2017 that found Google had abused its position to give its own comparison-shopping service preferable treatment in search engine results, thereby degrading the visibility of rival shopping services to consumer. As a result, Google was given a €2.4 billion fine in 2017, with the company being unsuccessful in its appeals to the General Court in 2021 and to the CJEU in 2024.

LitFin is providing the litigation funding to support the claim in the Netherlands, with legal representation and support provided by Geradin Partners and Dutch law firm Stek. In addition to working with these two law firms, the claim has been supported by an economic study conducted by competition economists at CRA.

In a separate press release provided to LFJ, LitFin Managing Partner Maroš Kravec issued the following statement on the claim: “Technology giants' market abuse is now the top concern for competition authorities worldwide. We are delighted to help these five comparison shopping services in seeking compensation for the severe harm Google has done to them. We also see this kind of private enforcement action as an essential front in the fight for fair market practices and corporate responsibility in digital markets."

Matej Pardo, Head of High Tech Litigation at LitFin, also commented: “We’re proud to back this claim against Google, not only to secure compensation for those harmed by its anti-competitive practices but also to take a stand in the larger fight against Big Tech’s unchecked power. For too long, giants like Google have exploited their dominance to stifle competition and undermine fair markets. Our action seeks not only to deliver damages for the affected parties we work with but also to play a role in paving the way for a more equitable digital economy where innovation and choice can truly thrive.”

There are household names in the litigation funding world that are well-known throughout the industry and beyond. However, some financial institutions seek to benefit from the lucrative returns available from litigation finance whilst trying to avoid the public spotlight on these activities.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers fresh insights into the involvement of non-traditional litigation funders in the market, with investments from hedge funds and private equity firms in high-value cases and deals only coming to light through court documents and filings. 

The article highlights the role of Davidson Kempner in funding patent claims brought by Audio Pod IP LLC against Audible Inc., which was revealed through a countersuit by Audible in a Manhattan federal court. Notably, Bloomberg’s investigation of public filings also found that this was not an isolated example of Davidson Kempner’s ties to patent holders engaged in lawsuits against large technology firms including ByteDance, Hulu, Samsung and SAP America. 

Other examples of these non-traditional funders' engagement with the legal sector include BlackRock’s use of its credit fund to lend to law firms and plaintiffs, and Cliffwater’s $14 million involvement in the funding deal between Gramercy Funds and Pogust Goodhead.

The extent to which these companies do not want to be publicly associated with litigation finance was strikingly demonstrated in the article. Beyond the number of firms who declined to comment on the reporting, when Bloomberg Law reached out to Soros Fund Management about one of their analysts whose LinkedIn revealed a focus on litigation finance, the analyst quickly removed the reference to legal funding from their profile.

More detail on the specific cases these hedge funds and private equity firms are backing can be found in Bloomberg Law’s full article here.

As LFJ reported at the end of February, Arizona’s legislature appears set on moving forward with some form of enhanced regulation for litigation funding in the state. However, a recent development in the House has demonstrated that there is not yet consensus on the final scope and focus of these new rules.

An article in the Arizona Capitol Times provides an update from the state legislature on the progression of two competing bills, each offering a different approach to the regulation of third-party litigation funding in Arizona. Whilst both bills successfully passed through votes in the House Judiciary Committee, it is not yet clear which bill will be the preferred candidate in an eventual floor vote, with the differences in disclosure rules between the bills being a key factor.

Senate Bill 1215, sponsored by Senator Leach, was passed by the Senate on March 13 and contained the oft-seen provisions of mandating disclosure of funding agreements, limiting funder control over legislation and some prohibitions against foreign funders. SB 1215, which Leach described as a “consumer protection bill”, retains the backing of chambers of commerce, insurance companies, and business associations.

Senate Bill 1542 was introduced in response to Leach’s proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin, seeking to limit the disclosure provisions to only include foreign funders or civil cases involving the state. Furthermore, disclosure of third-party funding would only be made to the attorney general rather than to the court itself. Kolodin suggested that existing court mechanisms for discovery are sufficient and questioned the potential for malign use of mandatory disclosure, arguing that “you shouldn’t be able to deprive somebody of the ability to pursue a case by threatening their source of funding.”

While Kolodin joined the rest of the committee in unanimously voting in favour of SB 1215 at the committee stage, he said that he would likely vote against it in a floor vote. Kolodin’s alternative bill passed comfortably at the committee vote, but did receive two no votes from Rep. Selina Bliss and Rep. Lupe Contreras.

The full text of SB 1215, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

The full text of SB 1542, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

International arbitration cases can be a lucrative sector for litigation funders, but just as LCM highlighted the success of two such cases in their latest interim results, the possibility of an unfavourable outcome remains an intrinsic part of these investments.

An announcement from LCM revealed that a commercial arbitration claim that it had provided funding for has not succeeded, following a tribunal’s ruling against the claimant at the London Court of International Arbitration. LCM explained that whilst in these cases “the avenues for appeal are limited”, the funder would continue to work the claimant and their legal team to assess 

Whilst the details of the arbitration claim are confidential and the announcement did not disclose the parties involved, LCM provided some additional information on the financial background to its investment in the claim. 

LCM provided £2.5 million of its own capital for the claim alongside £7.5 million in co-funding coming from Fund I, with the funder stating that it has no exposure to adverse costs. The arbitration claim’s fair value for LCM was set at £17 million as of 31 December 2024, following a detailed evaluation of the case’s prospects and independent advice from Kings Counsel. LCM emphasised that despite the disappointing outcome of this funded arbitration claim, “Fund I's performance remains robust, with the Net Realised IRR standing at 35% post this unsuccessful investment.”

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, provided the following comment on the unsuccessful arbitration: “While this outcome is disappointing, we remain steadfast in our confidence in the strength of our broader portfolio. Legal finance inherently involves binary outcomes, and while this case did not deliver the expected result, our long-term track record demonstrates our ability to generate strong returns. We continue to believe in the substantial value embedded in our portfolio and remain focused on delivering successful outcomes for our investors.” 

As funders and law firms await the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding later this summer, industry experts are opining not only on the potential direction any future regulation could take, but what body would be in charge of this new oversight function.

In an insights post from Shepherd and Wedderburn, Ben Pilbrow looks ahead to the CJC review of litigation funding and poses the question that if some form of regulation is inevitable, who will act as the regulator for these new rules? Drawing upon two previous reports that reviewed the funding of litigation, Pilbrow points out that historically there have been two main bodies identified as the likely venues for regulation of third-party funding: the courts or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Analysing the comparative pros and cons of these institutions as prospective regulators, Pilbrow highlights that each one has two core contrasting qualities. The courts have the requisite expertise and connection to litigation funding yet lacks ‘material inquisitive powers’. On the other hand, the FCA does not have the aforementioned ‘inherent connection to the disputes ecosystem’, but benefits from being an established regulator ‘with considerable enforcement powers’.

Exploring options outside of these two more obvious candidates, Pilbrow suggests that utilising one of the existing legal regulators may be viable due to the fact they are all ‘largely staffed by lawyers but have regulatory powers.’ However, Pilbrow notes that these legal regulators may have common flaw that would stop them taking on this new role. That flaw being the comparatively small size of these organisations, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) still only boasting 750 employees despite being the largest of these legal regulators.

Concluding his analysis, Pilbrow suggests unless the government opts for an expanded system of self-regulation under an industry body such as the Association of Litigation Funders, the most likely outcome is for the FCA’s remit to be expanded to include the regulation of litigation funding.

The full article from Ben Pilbrow can be read on Shepherd and Wedderbun’s website.

In an announcement posted on the ASX, Omni Bridgeway announced that it had completed the final payment for the acquisition of the Omni Bridgeway Europe (OBE) business that took place in 2019. The litigation funder confirmed that 5,213,450 fully paid ordinary shares had been ‘issued in satisfaction of the fifth and final tranche of variable deferred consideration’ to complete the acquisition.

Highlighting the progress of the business over the past six years, Omni Bridgeway said that the European business ‘has been successfully integrated into the global operations of the group, creating the most diversified legal asset management platform globally, covering all relevant civil and common law jurisdictions and all relevant areas of law.’ 

The announcement also revealed that OBE has ‘achieved the defined five-year KPIs in full’, whilst the management team ‘has been fully retained.’

With the global economy and financial markets in a current state of uncertainty, the stability of litigation funding as an uncorrelated asset class for investors is attracting wider attention than ever.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital discussed the current state of the litigation finance market, explained why third-party funding is attractive to clients and investors alike, and addressed the common critiques that are levelled at the industry.

On the enduring appeal of litigation funding to corporate clients, Bogart said that for many CEOs and CFOs the truth is that their companies are “spending too much money today on legal fees”. He went on to say that money spent by companies on legal fees is “not doing anything that advances their core undertaking”, and as a result, “the ability to offload that to somebody like us [Burford] is very valuable.”

When asked about why the litigation finance market is thriving during the global economic uncertainty, Bogart highlighted that all of Burford’s “cash flows come entirely out of the outcome of litigation results and those are independent of what’s happening in the market, independent of what’s happening in the broader economy.” In terms of the future of litigation funding and the potential for the market to continue to grow, Bogart pointed out that between legal fees and litigation judgments there is a “multi-trillion dollar a year global market” and that whilst the industry is already “booming”,  there is still “a lot of room to run here” for litigation funders.

In response to a question on the criticisms of litigation funding and the suggestion that funders may look to prolong the duration of cases, Bogart pointed out that Burford is just like any other investment firm that is “looking for high quality assets that are going to produce a reasonable return in a short period of time.” Bogart emphatically rejected what he described as “false concerns” by opponents of third-party funding, and stated plainly: “we’re absolutely not in the business of being interested in prolonging duration or in bringing forward things that are not ultimately going to yield a good result for our shareholders”.

The full interview can be found on Burford Capital’s website.

The benefits of litigation funding in providing the necessary financial resources to individuals to seek justice are clear, however, there are still those in the legal industry who are concerned that the third-party funding model is incentivising the wrong sort of behaviour from law firms.

An article in Legal Futures provides an overview of comments made by Jennifer Ackers, deputy executive director of investigations and enforcement for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), at a recent industry conference. At the event, Ackers raised a variety of concerns that the SRA has around the relationship between litigation funders and law firms in the housing sector.

Ackers suggested that whilst third-party funding has opened more opportunities for firms to pursue housing disrepair claims, the SRA has also found “unstable business models that are really being driven through that third-party funding arrangements”. Ackers went on to highlight “inappropriate relationships” between funders, ATE insurers and experts; describing how the flow of money between these parties is “driving poor behaviours and wrong incentives for firms and solicitors.”

Ackers provided more examples of concerning behaviour in the consumer claims sector, arguing that in situations where clients are signing funding agreements directly with funders, the SRA “would challenge whether that can ever be in clients’ best interests.” On a broader scale, Ackers suggested that the SRA’s review found that there were law firms who have been “prioritising their commercial interests when taking on that litigation funding without giving sufficient thought to clients’ interests”. 

Ackers’ comments can be read in further detail in the full Legal Futures article.

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.

A class action brought in the Federal Court of Australia has reached a resolution less than two years after it began, as a settlement has been approved between investors and the former auditors of a deceased fraudster.

Reporting by The Canberra Times covers a $3.5 million settlement in the class action brought against the auditors that were engaged by Melissa Caddick, an Australian financial adviser who defrauded investors prior to her disappearance and death in November, 2020. The settlement is the latest money recouped by Caddick’s investors, having already received $7.25 million following the sale of her assets by liquidators between 2023 and 2024. The class action targeted Caddick’s auditors on allegations that they had failed in their duties to audit their client’s self-managed superannuation funds, and had breached the Corporations Act.

The class action had been launched in September 2023 with Mackay Chapman representing 32 of Caddick’s former investors, with litigation funder Therium providing the financing for the lawsuit. Following the approval of the $3.5 million settlement by Federal court Justice Brigitte Markovic, Mackay Chapman will receive around $1 million in legal costs whilst Therium will be allocated a funding commission of $492,000. After disbursement costs, the claimants will receive the remaining $1.73 million from the settlement.

Michael Chapman, director at Mackay Chapman, described the settlement as “a great outcome for the group members”, and that his firm’s legal costs were recouped at discount to ensure that 50 per cent of the overall settlement was returned to the investors. 

The settlement agreement did not contain any admission of liability by the auditors. The full settlement approval order with additional details on the disbursement of funds can be read here.