Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3412 Articles

Supreme Court Reinstates $500M Arbitration Award in Indian Dispute

By John Freund |

In a significant decision reinforcing the enforceability of international arbitration awards, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a $500 million award in a dispute between two Indian companies.

An article in Bloomberg Law states that the case, CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., involved Antrix Corporation, a company owned by the Indian government, and CC/Devas, a Mauritius-based entity. The dispute centered on a failed satellite agreement, leading to an arbitration award in favor of CC/Devas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had previously vacated the award, asserting that additional connections to the U.S. were necessary to establish jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected this view, stating that once the FSIA's explicit requirements—subject matter jurisdiction and proper service—are met, personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign is automatic. The unanimous ruling emphasized that the FSIA was designed to clarify governing standards, not to introduce hidden requirements.

This decision has significant implications for the legal funding industry, particularly in the context of international arbitration. By affirming the enforceability of foreign arbitration awards under the FSIA, the ruling provides greater certainty for funders investing in cross-border disputes involving sovereign entities. It underscores the U.S. commitment to upholding international arbitration agreements, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of the U.S. as a venue for enforcing such awards.

The Court did not address potential constitutional questions related to due process, leaving that issue open for future litigation. Nonetheless, the ruling is a clear affirmation of the FSIA's provisions and their role in facilitating the enforcement of international arbitration awards in U.S. courts.

Blasket Secures €32M Payout in Spain’s First Renewable Arbitration Settlement

By John Freund |

In a landmark resolution, Spain has agreed to pay €32 million ($37 million) to U.S.-based Blasket Renewable Investments, marking its first compliance with an international arbitration award stemming from the country's 2013 renewable energy subsidy cuts.

An article in Reuters reports that the original €23.5 million award was granted in 2021 by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to Japan’s JGC Holdings Corporation. Blasket later acquired the rights to this award. The payment, which includes interest, was facilitated through funds seized in Belgium from Eurocontrol payments owed to Spain, following a Belgian court's approval.

This case is distinct as it involves a non-EU investor, thereby sidestepping the European Commission's stance that intra-EU arbitration awards violate EU state aid rules. Spain has faced 51 arbitration claims over its energy reforms, with 27 resulting in awards totaling approximately €1.5 billion. However, the government has managed to reduce the payable amount by about 85% through legal avenues.

The Blasket settlement could set a precedent for resolving similar disputes with non-EU investors, while Spain continues to contest awards involving EU-based claimants, citing EU legal constraints. 

Apple Denied Access to Litigation Funding Records in Patent Dispute

By John Freund |

In a closely watched decision, a federal judge has denied Apple’s attempt to compel Haptic Inc. to turn over litigation funding records in an ongoing patent infringement case.

According to Bloomberg Law, the dispute centers on Haptic’s claims that Apple’s iPhone “Back Tap” feature infringes on its patented technology. As part of its defense, Apple sought disclosure of communications between Haptic and its third-party funders, arguing the materials could reveal improper influence or strategic coordination.

The court, however, ruled in favor of Haptic, holding that the requested documents are protected under the work-product doctrine. This legal principle shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure, unless the opposing party demonstrates a substantial need. The judge emphasized that Apple had not met that burden, noting that the funder’s role did not compromise the independence of Haptic’s legal counsel or litigation strategy.

This decision is the latest in a series of rulings that underscore courts’ growing acceptance of litigation funding as a legitimate component of the civil litigation system. It also highlights the increasing legal clarity around funder-client relationships, especially regarding privilege and disclosure.

Triple-I Ties Litigation Funding and Legal Ads to Soaring Insurance Costs

By John Freund |

A new report from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) is drawing attention to the growing intersection between third-party litigation funding, mass tort advertising, and rising insurance costs. The report argues that these trends are correlated and may also be fueling a cycle of litigation abuse that places upward pressure on insurance premiums across the country.

According to Insurance Journal, the Triple-I report signals growing concern among insurers about the litigation finance industry’s systemic impact on claim costs and rate-setting. The report claims that attorney advertising—often funded or indirectly supported by litigation financiers—has surged in recent years, particularly in areas like product liability, pharmaceuticals, and toxic exposure. The influx of cases, many involving large aggregations of claims, has increased both the frequency and severity of insurance payouts. Triple-I warns that this dynamic contributes to a “social inflation” effect, where legal costs outpace economic fundamentals.

The report calls for regulatory action and transparency, suggesting that clearer disclosure rules around third-party funding and advertising could help insurers, courts, and the public better assess the risks and incentives involved.

While the litigation finance industry has long argued that its capital helps level the playing field for under-resourced claimants, critics say the unchecked expansion of funding models and advertising tactics may tilt the balance toward profit over merit.

Steward Health Wins Court Approval for $127 Million Loan to Fund Insider Litigation

By John Freund |

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Steward Health Care System’s request to obtain a $127 million loan to fund litigation against its former executives and insiders. The embattled hospital operator, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, is targeting up to $2 billion in potential recoveries through legal action.

The financing arrangement—approved despite objections from several creditors—marks a critical step in Steward’s restructuring strategy, enabling the hospital network to pursue claims of mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and possible fraudulent conveyances by former leadership. The proposed defendants in the litigation include members of Steward’s former executive team and affiliated entities involved in its rapid expansion and subsequent financial unraveling.

The loan is being provided by a group of new money lenders who will receive top-tier repayment priority from any litigation proceeds, a provision that stirred concern among some creditor groups during court proceedings. Critics argued the structure could reduce recovery prospects for unsecured creditors. However, the judge determined that the funding was both necessary and appropriately structured to pursue high-value claims that could ultimately benefit the estate.

Legal analysts note that this type of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing for litigation expenses is becoming more common in large corporate bankruptcies, especially when internal mismanagement or fraud is suspected. For litigation funders and investors in legal finance, the Steward case underscores the growing intersection of bankruptcy proceedings and asset recovery litigation.

Fenchurch Legal Launches Secured Litigation Funding Strategy for Fixed-Income Investors

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal, a UK-based litigation funding specialist, today announced the launch of a structured secured lending strategy aimed at fixed-income investors seeking stable returns outside of traditional markets. With economic uncertainty challenging conventional income instruments, the firm’s high-volume consumer litigation model offers a predictable, uncorrelated alternative designed to deliver quarterly interest payments through a diversified portfolio of secured law firm loans.

As economic volatility continues to test traditional markets, a growing number of investors are turning to alternative asset classes that promise stable risk-reward profiles. Litigation funding, once considered niche, is now emerging as a mainstream alternative investment, providing secure income generation.

Fenchurch Legal, a UK-based specialist in litigation funding, is among the firms redefining  the landscape of alternative credit strategies by offering a secured, income-generating investment that is predictable and uncorrelated with traditional markets.

A Secured Lending Approach to Litigation Funding

Fenchurch Legal has structured its litigation funding offering through a secured lending model, offering investors a fixed-income product with a unique security structure designed to protect investor capital. Unlike large litigation funders who focus on a few high-value commercial cases, Fenchurch Legal funds a high volume of smaller consumer claims - including those related to financial mis-selling and mis-sold car finance. This high- volume strategy allows for broad diversification across numerous law firms and case types, helping to mitigate concentration risk and deliver consistent returns.

The predictability of this model enables investors to receive fixed, quarterly interest payments, making it an attractive option for those seeking regular income through a disciplined, secured alternative to traditional fixed-income investments.

Delivering Predictability in an Uncertain Environment

One of the most attractive features of litigation funding is its low correlation with traditional markets and macroeconomic cycles, making it particularly appealing in volatile or downturn conditions. Unlike speculative alternative assets, high-volume litigation funding offers a structured and secured approach, ideal for investors prioritizing capital preservation and low volatility. Its predictability and resilience are what set it apart, with performance driven by legal outcomes rather than market sentiment or economic indicators.

From Case Selection to Investor Returns: The Fenchurch Model in Action

Real world case examples, such as PPI or mis-sold car finance, demonstrate how funding supports access to justice while delivering predictable outcomes for investors. These well-established, protocol-driven cases highlight the tangible benefits of Fenchurch Legal’s approach.

Investor capital is pooled and deployed via secured loans to law firms, enabling them to pursue a high volume of these smaller consumer claims. These cases follow established legal protocols and have historically demonstrated repeatable outcomes. The loans are repaid by the law firms over time, with interest, regardless of individual case outcomes, all backed by After-the-Event (ATE) insurance for added downside protection. 

This risk-managed structure has allowed Fenchurch Legal to consistently deliver investors with predictable, quarterly interest payments, ideal for income focused investors. By funding thousands of low-value claims across multiple law firms, the model achieves broad diversification and reduces exposure to any single case or firm. This risk-managed approach has historically delivered competitive returns, typically ranging from 11–13% per annum — making it well-suited to income-focused portfolios.

Louisa Klouda, CEO and Founder of Fenchurch Legal, stated, "At Fenchurch Legal, we’ve designed a litigation funding model that mirrors the features fixed income investors value most — regular income, downside security, and a diversified, risk-managed portfolio."

"In today’s economy, stability is the new growth. Litigation funding provides exactly that — it’s an asset class with low volatility, high transparency, and a compelling risk-adjusted return," she added.

About Fenchurch Legal

Fenchurch Legal is a UK-based specialist litigation financier, providing disbursement funding to small and mid-sized law firms pursuing consumer claims where outcomes are well-established and repeatable, including housing disrepair, financial mis-selling, and undisclosed commission cases. Founded in early 2020, Fenchurch Legal was established in response to growing demand for litigation funding in the smaller consumer claims segment—an underserved area of the UK litigation finance market. In parallel, Fenchurch Legal structures litigation finance investment products designed for investors, providing exposure to a non-correlated, secured investment class.

James “Jim” Batson Joins Siltstone Capital as Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer for Legal Finance

By Harry Moran |

Siltstone Capital, a leading multi-strategy alternative investment firm, is pleased to announce that Jim has joined the firm as a Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer of its legal finance strategy. Jim brings extensive experience in legal finance and strategic investment management, enhancing Siltstone Capital's capabilities in deploying sophisticated, high-value legal investment opportunities globally.

Jim previously served as the Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors and was Co-Chief Investment Officer - US at the global dispute finance company, Omni Bridgeway. In that role, he played a key role in developing the firm's U.S. presence, co-leading its investment strategy, and building out a top-tier legal finance team. At Siltstone, Jim will utilize this extensive experience to guide investment strategy, identify high-quality opportunities, and foster team growth to achieve strong returns for investors.

Robert Le, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Siltstone Capital, stated: "We are delighted to welcome Jim to our leadership team. His deep expertise in legal finance investment strategy, combined with his proven ability to build exceptional teams, positions Siltstone strongly as we launch our next fund. Jim's arrival marks an exciting phase for our firm, enhancing our capacity to execute sophisticated investment strategies and deliver outstanding results for our investors."

Jim commented, "I'm excited to join the Siltstone team and collaborate closely with Robert and the outstanding professionals at Siltstone Capital. Our combined expertise positions us exceptionally well to pursue compelling investment opportunities in the global legal finance market. I look forward to leading our investment strategy and contributing to the growth and success of an excellent team at Siltstone."

For more information about Siltstone Capital and its investment strategies, visit https://siltstonecapital.com.

New Express Legal Funding Portal and App Give Injury Plaintiffs Faster Access to Lawsuit Cash Advances

By Harry Moran |

The below is a sponsored post from Express Legal Funding.

Express Legal Funding, a leader in the pre-settlement funding industry, has officially launched the Express Legal Funding Portal and mobile app suite—now available on iOS, Android, and web. The innovative platform gives plaintiffs real-time access to their funding application status, document uploads, and direct case communication—all from a secure, user-friendly interface.

Since launch, the platform has already seen over 200 app installs across iOS and Android, reflecting strong early adoption and client demand for greater transparency, speed, and convenience in the legal funding process.

"This is the kind of digital leap our industry needed," said Aaron Winston, Phd, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding. "With the Express Legal Funding Portal, clients no longer have to wait days for updates or navigate confusing paperwork. Now they can check their status, send documents, and message us—all in one place, and on their own time, anytime 24,7. Ray Bivona, our Operations Manager, did a great job building out the platform."

Meeting the Demand for Speed, Simplicity, and Security

The Express Legal Funding Portal and apps are designed to meet the evolving expectations of legal consumers, as reports indicate the industry has surpassed $1 billion in annual advances nationwide. Key features include:

  • Live Case Status Tracking: Monitor the full legal funding timeline in real time
  • Secure Document Uploads: Send attorney correspondence and case files instantly
  • In-App Messaging: Communicate directly with case managers—no long hold times or email delays
  • Push Notifications: Get instant alerts for updates, requests, and approvals
  • Funding Calculator: Estimate pre-settlement cash eligibility based on case type
  • Bank-Level Encryption: Ensures client privacy and legal compliance at every step

"Clients tell us this is the best communication experience they've had with a legal funding company," said Shawn Hashmi, Chief Executive Officer at Express Legal Funding. "The high number of downloads in such a short time proves there's a real demand for this kind of tool."

Transforming the Legal Funding Experience for Plaintiffs and Attorneys

The Express Legal Funding Portal improves operational efficiency and transparency on both sides of the process:

  • For Plaintiffs: Offers peace of mind and greater control during a financially vulnerable time
  • For Attorneys: Reduces administrative back-and-forth, freeing up time to focus on litigation

About Express Legal Funding

Express Legal Funding is a trusted national provider of non-recourse pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs access fast, risk-free financial relief while their lawsuits move through the legal system. Repayment is only required if the client wins or settles their case.

The company has served thousands of injured plaintiffs in cases involving car accidents, slip and falls, product liability, and more.

What's Coming Next

In addition to the current features, the platform aims to expand in the coming months with:

  • Attorney Dashboard: Real-time access for law firms to manage client funding
  • In-App Renewals: Easy follow-up funding requests for returning clients
  • Case Management Integrations: Compatibility with popular personal injury law firm software platforms like Clio, Filevine, and SmartAdvocate

Litigation Funder Signal Peak Partners Launches in Texas

By Harry Moran |

Two leading litigation funders and former trial lawyers have joined forces and launched Signal Peak Partners, with a focus on commercial and patent litigation including domestic and international matters. Signal Peak offers customized litigation financing, private credit solutions, and monetization options to plaintiffs and their trial lawyers.

Signal Peak is led by co-founders and managing partners Lauren J. Harrison and Mani S. Walia. They have managed over $500 million in institutional capital, funded some of the largest judgments in the country, and practiced at preeminent law firms. From its network of trial lawyers, Signal Peak will source compelling cases to provide investors uncorrelated returns.

“I’ve had the privilege of working with the Signal Peak team for years,” said Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader for Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance at Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. “They are a rare combination: elite trial lawyers and top-flight litigation funders with an unwavering commitment to delivering efficient and excellent results for their clients. Lauren and Mani are widely recognized as thought leaders, trusted partners, and expert advisors in the litigation finance industry. Signal Peak will be a tremendous asset for attorneys and plaintiffs.”

Ms. Harrison, recognized as one of Lawdragon’s “100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance,” has over 25 years of civil litigation and litigation funding experience. She graduated magna cum laude from both Dartmouth College and Cornell Law School, where she was Articles Editor of the Cornell Law Review, and clerked for judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. She spent decades as a litigation partner at Vinson & Elkins and Jones Walker before focusing on litigation finance and serving as Vice President and Investment Counselor at Law Finance Group.

Mr. Walia has over 20 years of civil litigation and litigation funding experience. He graduated with honors from the University of Texas and with honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was an editor of the Texas Law Review. He clerked for judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before litigating at Susman Godfrey.

Mr. Walia previously founded the litigation finance group at the investment firm Siltstone Capital, where his work earned him Texas Lawbook’s award for Legal Innovation in 2022. Mr. Walia is a co-author of the sixth edition of ALM’s national treatise on litigation funding.

Signal Peak is honored that Hazoor Partners, the largest investor in Mr. Walia’s prior Siltstone fund, has chosen to be an anchor investor of Signal Peak. Prior to launching its first funding strategy, Signal Peak has secured commitments of over $40 million in investment capital, with a hard-cap final close of $125 million, along with a broad investment mandate.

Ms. Harrison said that Signal Peak “will distinguish ourselves as a funder of complex litigation and will empower trial lawyers and their clients through strategic funding.” She noted that Signal Peak takes its name from the highest natural point in Texas. “We aim to bring perspective and to help our partners achieve towering success.” Of Mr. Walia she said, “Mani is a visionary who saw this industry’s potential at an early stage, and he has profound leadership skills.”

Mr. Walia said, “It is a professional dream to partner with Lauren. She’s the person I admire most in the industry. I owe my approach to case selection to my mentor Stephen D. Susman, the country’s best trial lawyer over the last 50 years and the original litigation funder, and we continue his legacy of ensuring access to justice.”

Signal Peak’s management team includes experienced litigation fund specialists Jackson Schaap as Vice President of Finance and Carly Thompson-Peters as Director of Operations. Both were formerly with Siltstone Capital.

“Lauren and I are fortunate to have Jackson and Carly join us as founding members,” Mr. Walia said. “Jackson brings elite finance acumen to valuation and portfolio construction, and Carly, with her paralegal expertise, is the nerve center of our firm.”

Signal Peak’s investment committee includes a retired federal district court judge, one of the country’s leading litigation funding law professors, and the former head of Omni Bridgeway’s Houston office.

Signal Peak invites you to attend LitFinLive, its industry conference, on February 25-26, 2026, at The Post Oak Hotel in Houston.

Beyond the Mastercard Dispute: Why Class Action Funding Needs a Structural Revolution

By Alberto Thomas |

The following is contributed by Alberto Thomas, co-founder and managing partner of Fideres Partners LLP, an economic consulting firm specializing in litigation-related services.

Innsworth Capital's opposition to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's fee award in the Mastercard settlement has dominated headlines, with the litigation funder arguing that inadequate compensation threatens the future of UK class actions. But this dispute misses the fundamental issue. The real threat to collective redress isn't judicial attitudes toward fee awards—it's the structural limitations of how litigation funding operates.

The stakes couldn't be higher. Without structural reform, the UK class action system risks permanent ineffectiveness, leaving millions of consumers without practical access to justice while allowing corporate wrongdoing to continue unchecked. The changes proposed here would dramatically increase the volume of viable class actions, reduce funding costs, and create a genuinely functional collective redress system. Failing to act now means perpetuating a dysfunctional market where only a tiny fraction of meritorious claims ever see the light of day.

Rather than debating whether courts provide adequate compensation to funders, we should ask: why does the success of the entire UK class action regime depend on the economics of individual cases? The current model represents a classic case of capital misallocation, where resources are inefficiently concentrated rather than distributed optimally across the market.

The Flawed Foundation of Current Funding

The current model forces funders to make large, concentrated investments in individual cases while hoping their due diligence can identify certain winners. This approach is fundamentally unsound, regardless of fee awards.

Diversification is essential, but it is often impossible due to capital limitations. The UK market remains fragmented, with small funds lacking sufficient capital for diversification. Many of these funds share common investors, further exacerbating concentration problems and reducing overall market capacity. Individual class actions require millions in upfront investment over the years, so most funds can finance only a handful of class action cases simultaneously. Funders spend vast resources attempting the impossible: predicting with certainty how complex legal proceedings will unfold.

This strategy fails because litigation outcomes depend on uncontrollable variables. The Merricks case illustrates this perfectly—despite being strong on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, Innsworth's £45 million investment produced disappointing results. This isn't a failure of due diligence but the inherent unpredictability of litigation.

The Mathematics of Portfolio Necessity

The solution lies in recognizing that litigation funding should operate like every other investment class: through diversified portfolios designed to achieve consistent returns across aggregate investments, not individual successes.

Successful venture capital funds expect most investments to fail, some to break even, and a small percentage to generate exceptional returns that compensate for losses. The mathematics work because diversification allows the law of large numbers to operate, reducing portfolio risk while maintaining attractive returns.

Litigation funding should follow identical principles, but this requires making tens or hundreds of investments across diverse cases, jurisdictions, and legal theories.

Market Structure as the Primary Constraint

This capital limitation creates a destructive cycle that no fee restructuring can resolve. Limited diversification forces funders to be extremely selective, reducing meritorious cases that receive backing. Meanwhile, defendants observe that only the most obvious cases receive funding, escaping accountability for misconduct below this artificially elevated threshold.

The Mastercard outcome exacerbates these dynamics not because of inadequate fee awards, but because it highlights the vulnerability of concentrated portfolios. When funders experience significant losses on promising investments, rational capital allocation demands that they either exit the market or require substantially higher returns to compensate for concentration risk.

Beyond Traditional Funding Models

Solving this challenge requires moving beyond incremental reforms toward fundamental structural change. The key insight involves separating litigation risk from funding through proven approaches that have already transformed other markets.

The optimal structure would place litigation risk—the possibility that cases fail entirely—in the After-the-Event (ATE) insurance market, where specialized insurers possess deep expertise in risk assessment, diversification, and pricing across large portfolios. A fully insured investment vehicle could then access capital through traditional financial markets: banking facilities, mutual funds, pension funds, and institutional investors.

This separation would transform the economics entirely, using methods already well-established in insurance and capital markets. Insurance companies could price litigation risk using actuarial methods across diversified books of business. Meanwhile, the funding vehicle—protected by comprehensive insurance—could attract liquidity from other investment channels, such as mutual funds and the financial sector, at attractive interest rates. This type of bifurcation of  risk  would likely shorten due diligence times, significantly increase the amount of litigation funding available while simultaneously reduce its cost.

Learning from Financial Evolution

This transformation would mirror the evolution witnessed in credit markets with the development of risk transfer mechanisms like credit default swaps in the 1990s. Prior to these, banks faced severe limitations because they had to hold credit risk on their balance sheets. Risk transfer mechanisms allowed separation of credit origination from risk bearing, dramatically expanding lending capacity.

The parallels to litigation funding are exact. Currently, funders must simultaneously assess legal merit, manage litigation risk, and provide capital—constraining both capacity and efficiency. Separating these functions would deliver identical efficiency gains.

European Market Opportunities

The emergence of collective action regimes across Europe presents a significant opportunity to address these diversification challenges. As markets develop in the Netherlands, Portugal, and potentially Spain, they create additional avenues for portfolio diversification.

Rather than viewing these regimes as facing identical constraints, we should recognize their potential contribution to risk mutualization. A larger, diversified pool of cases across multiple jurisdictions would enable the portfolio approach that current market fragmentation prevents.

Time for Transformation

What's needed is recognition that effective collective redress requires sustainable funding models built on proper risk diversification rather than case-by-case selection. This requires applying established financial approaches that separate litigation risk from funding, enabling access to the vast capital pools necessary for portfolio-scale operations.

The time has come for bold innovation in UK litigation funding—bringing entrepreneurial spirit to what the City of London does best: creating imaginative solutions to complex financial problems. The City's unrivalled expertise in structuring sophisticated financial products and insurance markets makes it perfectly positioned to develop these new models. Such innovation would not only transform access to justice but could create an entirely new growth sector within the UK's service economy, establishing global leadership in a rapidly evolving field.

The transformation in litigation funding won't come from courts awarding higher fees to disappointed funders. It will come from applying the same proven structural approaches that have successfully developed every other sophisticated investment market. The question isn't whether this transformation will occur, but whether the UK will lead it or be forced to follow others who seize this opportunity first.

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Announces Entry into Polinsky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Funding

By Harry Moran |

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding reports that over 50 plaintiffs have filed suit against San Diego County, alleging sexual abuse while minors at the Polinsky Children's Center during the 90s and 2000s. Accusations also include being drugged and verbally abused by staff members, not to mention the years of trauma the victims have endured.

The lawsuits, announced during a press conference last Friday, were filed by survivors now coming forward as adults to seek justice and accountability. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs say the abuse occurred at a time when the children were placed at Polinsky for their safety and protection. Attorney Joseph Woodhall, who is representing many of the plaintiffs, encouraged other victims to come forward and start the journey toward healing.

The recent filings follow a wave of litigation from September 2024 when Los Angeles-based firm Slater Slater Schulman filed similar complaints on behalf of more than 100 former residents of the Polinsky Center.

Both firms are now collaborating to pursue justice and compensation for the growing number of clients who have come forward. Survivors or others with knowledge of abuse at the Polinsky Children's Center are encouraged to contact the legal teams involved

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, "Legal Bay is tracking the development of these cases in California, unfortunately our research indicates a similar pattern of sexual abuse we have seen in other litigations throughout the country. Oftentimes the victims are so traumatized, it's hard for them to get by financially month-to-month, and legal funding cash advances are a way to help them bridge the gap to a meaningful settlement. We will continue to aid victims of sex abuse claims, as well as pledge our support for the victims' pursuit of their personal justice."

If you're the plaintiff in an existing lawsuit and need an immediate advance against your anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405. If you were a victim of sexual abuse and need an attorney, Legal-Bay can also help you find legal representation. 

Legal-Bay lawsuit funding remains vigilant in helping clients who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Additionally, any new clients that have an existing lawsuit and need cash now can apply for regular settlement funding to help them get through their own crises. Legal-Bay funds all types of loan on lawsuit programs including personal injury, slips and falls, car accident lawsuit, medical malpractice, dog bites, and more.

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit funding companies when it comes to providing immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse legal funding—sometimes referred to as loans on lawsuit or loans on lawsuits—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit funding isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Mayfair Legal Funding Offers Financial Support to Plaintiffs in Hernia Mesh Litigation

By Harry Moran |

As hernia mesh lawsuits continue to progress against major medical device manufacturers, Mayfair Legal Funding is stepping forward with financial solutions to support plaintiffs awaiting settlements. As a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, Mayfair is committed to helping victims of defective hernia mesh implants manage their financial needs while pursuing justice.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits and Manufacturer Liability

Hernia mesh implants, designed to provide long-term repair for hernias, have been linked to severe complications such as chronic pain, infections, adhesion, and organ perforation. Many affected individuals have filed lawsuits against manufacturers like C.R. Bard, Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary), and Medtronic, alleging that their mesh products were defectively designed and failed to provide the promised benefits.

The legal process for these cases is extensive, with thousands of plaintiffs waiting for settlements. A significant development occurred in October 2024 when C.R. Bard reached a settlement agreement involving approximately 38,000 lawsuits, though financial relief for many plaintiffs is still pending. As litigation continues, Mayfair Legal Funding is ensuring that victims are not forced into premature settlements due to financial strain.

Providing Relief During Lengthy Legal Proceedings

Hernia mesh complications can result in multiple surgeries, chronic pain, infections, and organ damage, significantly affecting victims' quality of life. However, proving liability in court is a complex process that can extend for years. Manufacturers and their insurers frequently employ delaying tactics, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability while waiting for a fair settlement.

Many individuals who file lawsuits cannot work due to their medical conditions, yet they must continue paying for essential needs, ongoing healthcare, and legal costs. The prolonged nature of these lawsuits means that victims are often financially pressured to settle prematurely, even if their case could result in higher compensation with more time.

Why Legal Funding Matters

The pressure to settle early for a lower amount is common in hernia mesh litigation. Insurance companies and medical device manufacturers often attempt to delay proceedings, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability. Lawsuit loans allow plaintiffs to access a portion of their expected settlement upfront, helping cover urgent expenses such as medical treatments, rent, utilities, and other living costs. This financial support ensures that plaintiffs are not forced into disadvantageous settlements due to economic pressure.

Eligibility and Application Process

Plaintiffs who have filed a hernia mesh lawsuit and are represented by an attorney may be eligible for funding. Mayfair Legal Funding works closely with law firms handling hernia mesh cases to ensure that plaintiffs can access financial assistance without delays.

About Mayfair Legal Funding

Mayfair Legal Funding is a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs in medical device lawsuits, including hernia mesh cases, stay financially stable while awaiting settlements. With a risk-free, non-recourse funding model, plaintiffs only repay if they win their case. Mayfair ensures fast approvals, access to funds within 24 hours, and no credit checks. To date, the company has provided $45 million in funding with a 94% approval rate.

AALF Chairman: UK Should Avoid Repeating “Australia’s Flirtation with Overbearing Regulation”

By Harry Moran |

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.”

Qanlex Rebrands as Loopa Finance

By Harry Moran |

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

Echo Law and LLS File Class Action Against Toyota Finance in Australia

By Harry Moran |

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.

Drew Kelly Joins Invenio LLP as Of Counsel

By Harry Moran |

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.

Senator Tillis Introduces Bill to Tax Litigation Funders’ Profits

By Harry Moran |

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.

Deminor Raises EUR 100 Million to Support Global Growth

By Harry Moran |

Deminor, a leading global litigation funder, is pleased to announce the successful completion of a EUR 100 million funding round. The proceeds will be used to support the continued expansion of Deminor’s litigation portfolio across its three core regions: Continental Europe, the UK and Asia.

Next to this major funding milestone, Deminor has also achieved the “Certified B Corporation™” status, becoming the first litigation funder outside the US to do so. This certification highlights the company’s commitment to high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency, and accountability.

  1. Over the past few years, Deminor has significantly diversified its portfolio in terms of both claim types and geographic reach. Originally focused on securities actions for investors in Continental Europe, Deminor now finances a broad range of claims, including competition and antitrust cases, collective consumer actions and commercial litigation/arbitration throughout its three core regions: Continental Europe, the UK and Asia.

The firm currently funds 47 active cases and has funded a total of 85 cases across 23 jurisdictions. Notably, 78.8% of all concluded cases have resulted in positive outcomes for clients—reflecting Deminor’s disciplined case selection and prudent risk management approach.

Deminor also leverages a proprietary digital platform to deliver technology-driven solutions for managing mass claims in areas such as securities, antitrust, and consumer law.

  1. The latest investment round of EUR 100 million, comprising equity, senior and junior debt, and asset-backed financing, includes participation from a diverse group of investors. These include Contingency Capital LLC (New York), which provided a EUR 72 million (USD 80 million) secured credit facility to the company, alongside finance&invest.brussels SA (backed by the Brussels regional government and local financial institutions), Stalusa (a Belgian family office), and Saffelberg Investments (a Belgian private equity firm). Existing shareholders, including Deminor’s management team, also participated in the round.

Despite challenging market conditions and regulatory uncertainty in 2023 and 2024, the legal finance sector remains resilient and is expected to record strong growth in 2025 and beyond. Key drivers include growing market awareness, restricted corporate credit access, and a rising number of collective actions by both businesses and consumers.

  1. As the first litigation funder outside the USA to achieve B Corp certification, Deminor reaffirms its mission as a value-driven organization. High ethical standards have always guided its investment strategy, and the firm is proud to support claimants who might otherwise lack access to justice. Deminor believes this approach promotes a more balanced legal landscape and contributes to a fairer economy and society.

About Deminor: 

Founded in 1990, Deminor is a Band 1 Chambers & Partners international litigation funder with offices in Brussels, London, Hamburg, New York, Hong Kong, Madrid, Milan, Stockholm and Luxembourg. Deminor’s name, derived from the French ‘défense des minoritaires’, reflects its origins in providing services to minority shareholders. Deminor is still very much defined by the pursuit of good causes and its determination to restore justice for clients. 

Combining skill sets from 19 different nationalities and 22 languages, Deminor has actively supported cases in 23 different jurisdictions, including the Americas, the Middle East and offshore centres such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. 

In addition to funding one-to-one commercial claims, Deminor originates, syndicates and funds group actions. In 2018, Deminor was instrumental in securing the two largest securities settlements in Europe (EUR 1.4 bn in the Steinhoff case and EUR 1.3 bn in Fortis/Ageas).

Legora Attracts $80 Million Series B Funding

By Harry Moran |

Today, Legora announces an $80 million funding round led by ICONIQ and General Catalyst, with continued support from existing investors Redpoint Ventures, Benchmark, and Y Combinator. This latest round is a strong endorsement of Legora’s product quality, velocity and the remarkable traction it has achieved globally—underscored by its rapid progression from inception to Series B in under two years.

The deal comes as adoption of legal AI surges across the world. Legora is at the forefront of this shift - with lawyers across 250 firms and legal teams in 20 markets globally making daily use of its platform to review and research with precision, draft smarter, and collaborate seamlessly.

Legora operates out of New York, London, and Stockholm, with 100 employees drawn from some of the world’s leading global law firms and tech companies.

Max Junestrand, CEO and founder of Legora said: “The investment is a clear validation of the value our product is delivering to lawyers around the world. While we weren’t actively seeking funding, the strength of our growth, product, and client partnerships naturally attracted this backing, and I am ecstatic to have ICONIQ and General Catalyst with us on the journey as Seth and Jeannette join our board.

“This enables us to double down on what’s always set Legora apart — deep collaboration with our clients — and to scale innovation and accelerate product development, ensuring we leverage rapidly changing technology to meet the needs of the legal profession. We’re committed to building a product that not only solves today’s challenges but continues to adapt and deliver long-term value.”

Seth Pierrepont, General Partner at ICONIQ commented: “From our first conversation with Max and Sigge, it was immediately evident to us that they are building with rare clarity and velocity, creating a platform that doesn’t just fit into legal workflows — it elevates them, and understands the nuance and pace of modern legal teams. In just two years, they’ve delivered an enterprise-grade product that’s already trusted by hundreds of law firms and in-house legal teams globally. We’re proud to partner with Legora as they scale what we believe is a category-defining platform that’s reshaping how legal work gets done.”

Jeannette zu Fürstenberg, Managing Director and Head of Europe at General Catalyst said: “Legora is driving AI transformations in a highly specialized industry. With an outstanding product, rapid adoption by top-tier firms, and a founder who combines rare product instinct with exceptional execution, as we see it, Legora is redefining how legal work gets done. We’re excited to support Max and the team as they scale this category-defining platform.”

Legora’s collaborative approach to developing and embedding its AI underpins its success to date. More than just a platform, Legora is a true partner to clients, working alongside them from the first interaction to company-wide rollout and beyond. This ensures Legora’s solution is intuitively matched to client needs, and that engagement is broad and deep from day one; with the technology embraced by junior lawyers right up to managing partners across enterprises.

By building with lawyers, not just for them, Legora has accelerated adoption and delivered immediate value. Its AI platform is making a measurable impact at top law firms and in-house teams, powering multiple work-critical use cases and helping teams get to the heart of key issues in hours rather than days — enabling improved and more confident client responses with less write-offs.

Mary O’Carroll, Goodwin’s Chief Operating Officer commented: “Legora represents exactly the kind of strategic technology investment that keeps Goodwin at the forefront of legal excellence. We've been very pleased with the initial results we have seen since partnering with them in March, and we look forward to continuous improvement in how our lawyers use Legora to deliver legal services and insights to clients.”

Max Junestrand added: “AI, simply put, is a historic opportunity for legal professionals to get real leverage on their expertise and know-how. We have observed tasks such as reviewing data-rooms go from weeks to hours with no loss in accuracy - making human-machine intelligence and collaboration the de facto way of working. Both law firms and legal teams are already reaping the benefits of these advancements at scale.”

About Legora

Legora is the world’s first truly collaborative AI for lawyers serving over 250 law firms and in-house legal teams across 20 countries. Co-founded by CEO Max Junestrand and CTO Sigge Labor, Legora now has offices in New York, Stockholm and London and has raised $120M in funding to date. Legora works with prestigious clients such as Cleary Gottlieb, Goodwin and Bird & Bird - helping lawyers review, draft and work more effectively with AI. Legora.com

About ICONIQ

ICONIQ is a global investment firm catalyzing opportunity through extraordinary community. Our venture and growth investment platform partners with visionaries defining the future of their industries to achieve uncommon outcomes. Drawing on the wisdom and connectivity of our extraordinary community, we support our portfolio companies’ success at every inflection point, from early traction to IPO and beyond. Our robust portfolio includes Adyen, Airbnb, Alibaba, Alteryx, Automattic, BambooHR, Braze, Chime, Collibra, Coupa, Datadog, Docusign, Gitlab, Marqeta, Miro, Procore, Red Ventures, Relativity, ServiceTitan, Snowflake, Sprinklr, Truckstop, Uber, Wolt, and Zoom, among others. For more information, please visit www.iconiqcapital.com/growth.

About General Catalyst

General Catalyst is a global investment and transformation company that partners with the world’s most ambitious entrepreneurs to drive resilience and applied AI.

We support founders with a long-term view who challenge the status quo, partnering with them from seed to growth stage and beyond.

With offices in San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Berlin, Bangalore, and London, we have supported the growth of 800+ businesses, including Airbnb, Anduril, Applied Intuition, Commure, Glean, Guild, Gusto, Helsing, Hubspot, Kayak, Livongo, Mistral, Ramp, Samsara, Snap, Stripe, Sword, and Zepto.

SIM IP Provides Funding and Strategic Advisory Services to Gene Pool to Drive Global Intellectual Property Monetization

By Harry Moran |

Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc ("SIM IP"), a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment, and monetization, today announced it has entered into a funding and strategic advisory agreement with Gene Pool Technologies.

Gene Pool Technologies ("Gene Pool") focuses on the development, aggregation, and licensing of advanced extraction and processing technologies, with a particular emphasis on solutions applicable to the cannabis and hemp industries. Gene Pool's intellectual property portfolio broadly covers innovations in plant extraction methods, equipment, and systems that enhance quality, safety, and efficiency for producers and manufacturers.

"We believe that Gene Pool brings a disciplined, technology-focused process to intellectual property licensing that aligns with SIM IP's commitment to efficient and transparent value creation," said Jennifer Burdman, Managing Director at SIM IP. "We look forward to collaborating to provide inventors with stronger protection and improved monetization opportunities, while offering industry participants with streamlined access to critical technologies through clear and equitable licensing terms."

Erich Spangenberg, CEO of SIM IP, commented, "Gene Pool is leveraging two key services provided by SIM IP, which includes capital support through a corporate investment and unparalleled, strategic advisory expertise. Gene Pool strategically chose to leverage our capital for both litigation and the anticipated acquisition of additional intellectual property, as well as our extensive expertise in global intellectual property monetization to support execution and business strategy."

Gene Pool partners with innovators and technology owners to ensure their innovations are protected, compensated, and accessible to operators through operator-friendly, non-exclusive licensing agreements. Gene Pool's licensable portfolio includes  over fifty patent assets, with approximately half owned by Gene Pool and the rest being in-licensed from key market innovators.

"Gene Pool was seeking a strategic partner capable of providing capital and supporting the execution of our intellectual property monetization strategy across multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe. We're pleased to have identified SIM IP as a partner and to have formalized our collaboration," said Travis Steffen, CEO of Gene Pool. "We met with numerous litigation funding firms; however, only SIM IP demonstrated strategic advisory service capabilities and meaningful experience in global enforcement strategies."

Over the last few years, Gene Pool secured significant legal victories against companies in the cannabis and hemp industries including defending key patent claims in three inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; defeating invalidity, non-infringement, and illegality challenges against these claims in U.S. District Court; and most recently obtaining summary judgment from the same court that the Defendants infringed these claims.

About SIM IP
Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc. ("SIM IP") is a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment and monetization opportunities. SIM IP invests across IP as an asset class and across jurisdictions, primarily focusing on the US, Europe, and Asia. Further information is available at www.simip.io. Follow us on LinkedInX (Twitter), and Instagram

About Gene Pool Technologies
At Gene Pool Technologies, we believe in industry solutions that recognize inventors, incentivize ongoing R&D, and enable operating companies with seamless access to technologies that will be critical to the long-term success of the Cannabis industry. Our team brings decades of experience across Cannabis and intellectual property and is deeply committed to the success of the industry and the innovation that will continue to drive quality, safety, and efficiency.

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

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.”

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

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”.  

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

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.

LitFin Launches Initiative in France Supporting Women over Essure Implant Complications

By Harry Moran |

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.

Litigation Lending Services Funding Queensland Health Class Action

By Harry Moran |

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.

CAT Releases Judgment Approving £200m Settlement in Mastercard Class Action

By Harry Moran |

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.

Court Approves Settlement Between MMA Law Firm and Litigation Funders to Sell 6,000 Mass Tort Cases

By Harry Moran |

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.