Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles

International Legal Finance Association Adds Arcadia Finance as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) today announced the addition of Arcadia Finance to the only global association of commercial legal finance companies. 

Launching in June, Arcadia provides specialized services for U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation, domestic and international arbitration, and funding for a wide variety of other litigation-based assets, from mass torts and law firm lending to patent acquisition. 

“ILFA is pleased to welcome the newly founded Arcadia Finance to its growing membership base,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “Arcadia’s team is one of the most experienced in the industry, and the firm will play a crucial role in promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector worldwide.” 

Arcadia was founded by three litigation finance industry veterans with over 25 years of combined experience and who have invested over $425 million across 80+ deals. The trio formerly led various legal and investment units at ILFA member firms, and each holds the title of managing director at Arcadia: Dave Kerstein, former managing director and senior investment officer at Validity and senior investment manager at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway; Ronit Cohen, former portfolio counsel at Validity and legal counsel at Bentham IMF; and Joshua Libling, former director of risk analytics at Validity. 

"At Arcadia Finance, we believe that innovative financial solutions are a crucial part of the legal industry and capable of benefitting all participants in their pursuit of just outcomes," Joshua Libling, Managing Director, stated. "ILFA is the preeminent industry association and we’re proud to join it and to share our expertise in pursuit of responsible and sustained evolution of our industry. We look forward to working alongside other leaders to set new standards and expand the possibilities of legal finance." 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official

About Arcadia Finance 

Arcadia is a U.S. commercial litigation, patent litigation, and domestic and international arbitration-focused legal funder offering solutions to all participants in the legal market. Led by industry veterans with over $425 million invested across over 80 deals, the firm offers customized financial solutions for all — from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, the team find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Arcadia aims to make securing litigation funding as fast and convenient as possible. Going beyond traditional litigation finance agreements, Arcadia provides “frictionless funding” through the adaptable and transparent partnerships necessary for clients and law firms to make the most well-informed decisions. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist. 

For more information, visit https://www.arcadiafin.com/meet-our-team

LCM Funding Antitrust Claim Against Microsoft Over Cloud Computing Fees

By Harry Moran |

Among the global tech giants facing the most scrutiny from regulatory bodies, Microsoft has increasingly come under the spotlight in both Europe and America for potential breaches of antitrust rules by its cloud computing business. A lawsuit filed today suggests that these external pressures may be ramping up, as a £1 billion claim is targeting the company for allegedly overcharging its UK customers.

Reporting by TechCrunch covers the news that a new antitrust lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft, which alleges that the company has been overcharging customers of its cloud computing competitors to license Windows Server software. The claim, which was filed today in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), is being brought on an opt-out basis, representing any companies or organisations who purchased a license to use Windows Server from either AWS, GCP or Alibaba Cloud from December 2018. The lawsuit is seeking around £1 billion in compensation with Litigation Capital Management (LCM) providing funding through its British office, LCM Funding UK Limited.

Dr. Maria Luisa Stasi, the Proposed Class Representative (PCR), said that the claim “aims to challenge Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour, push them to reveal exactly how much businesses in the UK have been illegally penalised, and return the money to organisations that have been unfairly overcharged.” Dr Stasi has instructed Scott+Scott UK LLP as solicitors for the litigation, with the law firm working with barristers from Brick Court Chambers and One Essex Court Chambers. 

In a separate post, Exton Advisors announced that it had advised Dr Stasi on securing third-party funding from LCM, with Managing Director John Astill stating: “This is another example of holding large corporates to account and ensuring fair entry to consumer markets by smaller players. Competition laws exist to protect both individuals and companies, and it is only with the benefit of third-party funding that these claims can ultimately succeed. Exton Advisors are delighted to play our part in ensuring claims like these are funded in a timely, efficient, and transparent manner.”

James Hain-Cole, partner at Scott+Scott, said: “Litigation Funding Agreements have changed a lot since the collective action regime was implemented and it was helpful to obtain advice on market standard from Exton, who have seen a lot of LFAs and have great visibility of the funding market.”

More information about the lawsuit can be found on the UK Cloud Licensing Claim website.

Wexler Announces $1.4 Million Pre-Seed Financing, Global Law Firm Adoption and Launch of AI Agent to Enhance Dispute Resolution

By Harry Moran |

Wexler AI, the AI-powered legal fact intelligence platform, today announced major enhancements driving adoption among leading law firms, including Burges Salmon and a top AmLaw100 firm. Clifford Chance is also exploring the platform for use in its world-leading litigation and dispute resolution practice. Wexler's platform automates essential fact-checking and intelligence gathering in high-stakes legal disputes, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic value-driven activities. These advancements follow a $1.4M pre-seed funding round led by Myriad Venture Partners, with support from Entrepreneur First, prominent angel investors at ComplyAdvantage, Moonpig, Tractable, and CreditKudos, fueling Wexler's growth and mission to redefine litigation worldwide.

Since its launch in April of this year, Wexler AI has processed over one million queries, achieved approximately 2X month-over-month growth, and more than tripled its annual recurring revenue (ARR). Wexler's advanced platform enables law firms to help manage large caseloads with greater accuracy, reallocating resources from time-intensive manual review to high-value legal strategy. Built by security and privacy experts, the platform uses user-specific encryption keys, masks personal data, and meets ISO 27001, GDPR, and AWS Cloud Security standards.

"Wexler assists lawyers working on the world's most complex cases. The platform delivers critical, verified facts that legal teams can act on with full confidence," said Gregory Mostyn, co-founder and CEO of Wexler AI. "With support from Myriad Venture Partners, and Entrepreneur First, and working closely with Burges Salmon and also Clifford Chance, among others, we're not just transforming how the legal industry tackles the time and efficiencies of fact-finding, but helping our customers generate greater business value for their clients."

There is significant potential to improve efficiencies in the litigation document review process. Wexler's AI approach reduces manual work, minimizes risk, and uncovers critical facts faster. Unlike traditional eDiscovery tools that merely organize documents, Wexler is purpose-built for high-stakes dispute resolution, delivering insights with an accuracy matching seasoned litigators.

Central to this is KiM, Wexler's advanced agent for complex dispute tasks, which produces verified work output directly from case facts, automating steps like drafting, generating court applications, and extracting data from vast document sets. More than a passive tool, Wexler uncovers red flags, suggests follow-ups, and enhances case strategy as an active partner, enabling legal teams to drive efficiency and deliver results on the most challenging cases.

"Wexler is a powerful AI tool that is clearly designed for the types and volumes of work faced in dispute resolution," said Tom Whittaker, director at Burges Salmon. "It allows us to identify relevant facts and produce useful work in a relatively short time, augmenting the work of our expert teams by providing them with additional methods to achieve their objectives. It has been a pleasure to work with the Wexler team over a number of years to continually improve its functionality to help meet our clients' and colleagues' high expectations.

With new funding from Myriad, Wexler is expanding its platform in 2025 including new features such as automated document drafting, advanced fact-checking tools, and streamlined discovery requests. These enhancements will extend Wexler's impact beyond the legal sector, offering new applications in compliance and HR investigations.

"Wexler AI is redefining fact-finding for legal and investigative work, and we see enormous potential in its unique approach," said Chris Fisher, founder and managing partner of Myriad Venture Partners. "Their rapid growth and ability to deliver verified, actionable information are transforming how legal teams and other professionals manage complex data. We're excited to support Wexler's journey and look forward to their continued momentum and innovation."

Wexler's founding team blends deep expertise in AI, law, and business. Gregory Mostyn and Kush Madlani met at Entrepreneur First, united by a vision of creating a category defining applied AI company. Gregory saw the inefficiencies of litigation firsthand when his barrister, then judge father, returned from work with binders piled high to the roof of his office. Kush, a former JP Morgan derivatives trader, began automating workflows with Python before completing a Machine Learning Master's at UCL and joining Tractable, where he developed fraud-detection models and continuous improvement systems. Kush's scientific background pairs perfectly with Gregory's commercial experience as a marketing and sales director to transform dispute resolution. 

Wexler AI collaborates with partners across the legal sector, from AM 100 law firms to in-house teams at major enterprises. Interested clients can request a demo at https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Wexler AI

Wexler AI tackles the world's most complex cases by streamlining fact analysis for legal, compliance, eDiscovery, tax, and forensics teams. Trusted by top global law firms, Wexler is redefining fact-finding through a combination of AI and human expertise. For more information, visit https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Myriad Venture Partners

Myriad Venture Partners is an early-stage venture firm defining the future of business solutions. Investing in visionary AI, clean technology, and B2B software leaders, Myriad brings decades of expertise and a robust corporate and financial partnership network. By connecting entrepreneurs, corporate partners, industry leaders, and co-investors, Myriad is changing the ways businesses operate, compete, and create value.

Victoria Supreme Court Approves $271.8M Settlement in Uber Class Action

By Harry Moran |

Australia continues to be a lucrative jurisdiction for the funding of high-value class actions, as demonstrated this week by the approval of a $271.8 million settlement which will see the litigation funder receive 30 percent of the total sum.

Yesterday, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered its judgment in the case of Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others, approving a $271.8 million settlement to end the group proceedings against the ride-sharing company. The proceedings, which were first brought by Maurice Blackburn in 2019, alleged that the group members had suffered losses and damage due to Uber ride-sharing services operating contrary to regulations between 2014 and 2017. The group proceedings received third-party litigation funding from Harbour Fund III, L.P.

The Court approved the settlement agreement, finding that it was ‘fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members’, with Uber paying the $271.8 million without admission of liability. In its judgment, the Court also ordered the following deductions from the overall settlement sum: $38.7 million to Maurice Blackburn for legal costs and disbursements, $81.5 million to Harbour as its funding commission, and a total of $220,000 to the plaintiffs and sample group members, as compensation for the work undertaken by them in the proceedings.

In her written judgment, Justice Patricia Matthews addressed the scale of the funder’s commission and acknowledged that whilst the 30 percent proportion is ‘toward the higher end of such commissions’, she emphasised that it is ‘reasonable in the context of such complex litigation with a risk profile quite distinct from, for example, a shareholder class action.’ Justice Matthews also highlighted the crucial role Harbour had played in ensuring that these proceedings were even viable in the first place, declaring that ‘without the involvement of Harbour, there may not have been any compensation available for group members at all.’

The full settlement approval order can be read here.

Pogust Goodhead Looks to Cut Staff Numbers

By Harry Moran |

Whilst large group claims can attract headlines with staggeringly large amounts of compensation, for the law firms who specialise in such cases, the costs of running these claims take a heavy toll given the prolonged case durations.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette reveals that Pogust Goodhead is undertaking staff cuts potentially resulting in around 40 to 50 job losses in its London office, with employees being let go from both business operations and legal departments. These cuts represent a 20% staff reduction, with the Gazette reporting that the law firm was also exploring letting go around 100 employees in Brazil, with most of these working as call centre staff.

Analysing the reasons behind these staff cuts, the article notes that despite being well-known for its high-value class action claims, Pogust Goodhead does not see consistent income from these lawsuits whilst they are ongoing. As a result, the law firm is reliant on capital provided by outside litigation funding, such as the landmark £450 million investment partnership with Gramercy Funds Management.

A spokesperson from Pogust Goodhead provided the following comment to the Gazette: “We were established with the ambitious goal of providing justice for millions of people who have been wronged by multinational companies. It is well known these companies have infinite resources. While it is an incredibly difficult decision, it is only right that as we move forward, we position our firm strongly to provide access to justice for clients, both, existing and those in the future. We will be running a formal consultation with staff through a staff representative group over the coming weeks before finalising how many people will be affected.”

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Reid Zeising, Founder and CEO, Gain

By John Freund |

Reid Zeising is the Founder and CEO of Gain, a company transforming the personal injury landscape. Gain integrates the industry’s leading AI-enhanced Letter of Protection (LOP) servicing platform with professionally managed services and financial solutions, serving healthcare providers, attorneys, and plaintiffs. 

Company Name and Description: Gain

Company Website: gainservicing.com

Year Founded: 2011

Headquarters:  3424 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326, United States

Area of Focus:  Personal Injury ecosystem

Member Quote: Gain is committed to leveling the insurance playing field for those injured through no fault of their own, ensuring they have access to the quality healthcare and financial peace of mind they deserve.

Fenchurch Legal Appoints Ranil Jayawardena as Non-Executive Director

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal, a specialist in litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, has strengthened its board with the appointment of The Rt Hon Ranil Jayawardena as a non-executive director.

This appointment reinforces Fenchurch Legal’s strategic priorities of bringing independent views to its board, which enhances its governance processes, risk oversight, and decision-making capabilities.

As a former Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire, Ranil Jayawardena brings a distinguished track record. During his tenure in government, he held key positions, including International Trade Minister and Environment Secretary, where he worked on post-Brexit trade agreements, national infrastructure, and agricultural policy. Prior to his political career in Westminster, Ranil built his experience in the financial sector at Lloyds Banking Group – and served his community in local government, where he was responsible for £400 million AUM.

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: “We are delighted to welcome Ranil to the board as we embark on our next phase of growth. Ranil’s knowledge and experience of regulation and financial services, alongside his experience as a Non-Executive Director on other boards, will be invaluable during this important time. Ranil’s external oversight will complement our existing board, enhancing our focus on strong governance and risk management.”

Commenting on his new role, Ranil Jayawardena added: “Having served in government for many years, I am excited to embark on this new chapter in business and support Fenchurch Legal’s growth ambitions. Litigation funding is an important enabler of access to justice, and I look forward to contributing to the company’s continued success.”

Nera Capital Delivers Holiday Hope with £250k Justice Fund for Those in Need

By Harry Moran |

Prominent legal funder, Nera Capital, is spreading festive cheer this holiday season with the opening of its £250,000 Access to Justice Fund for those in need of support.

The firm plans to launch the generous fund in December, which will be open to individuals throughout the world who are in need of legal assistance or financial support. With no limitation on the amount an individual can apply for, each application will be assessed by a committee on its merits and urgency. 

Speaking about providing this important assistance, Nera Capital Director Aisling Byrne explained: “The fund will provide critical support for those who have been harmed, marginalised or ignored. “It aims to assist those in vulnerable situations, whether by funding the pursuit of legal claims or offering general support. For example, the fund could help families living in hazardous housing conditions who lack the financial means to relocate to safer, more suitable accommodation. This could include a council property in severe disrepair causing health issues.”

She continued: “The fund is dedicated to empowering individuals to overcome systemic neglect and improve their circumstances.” As an international litigation funder, Nera Capital, already assists individuals who have fallen victim to financial mis-selling, data breach, undisclosed commissions, personal injury and more.

Established in 2011 in Ireland from the aftermath of the 2008 global economic downturn, Nera Capital was born to support local individuals who could no longer secure loans from traditional banks. The company pioneered a unique approach by structuring loans attached to personal injury or probate claims, providing much-needed liquidity to law firms seeking justice for its clients.

This innovative strategy quickly gained traction and fuelled the company’s growth, which now operates in five jurisdictions and has offices in Ireland, UK and The Netherlands funding law firms around the globe. For Ms Byrne, opening up the Access to Justice Fund is a way for the successful company to give back while recognising the reason they started Nera Capital.

She explained: “The firm was established with a bold ambition to assist individuals and families and revolutionise the legal finance sector by blending modern technology with traditional values, all while supporting access to justice.

Additional information on the fund and how to apply can be found on the Nera Capital website: www.neracapital.com.

About Nera Capital 

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

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

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

·       Member of European Litigation Funders Association

.     www.neracapital.com

Mythbusting the Call for New Regulation of TPLF

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece from Rupert Cunningham, Director for Growth and Membership Engagement at the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA).

In their call for more EU regulation last week, AmCham EU, Business Europe and their co-signatories make misleading and inaccurate allegations about third-party litigation funding. These calls have been repeated by the same groups over and over again, pushed by big corporations that simply do not want those harmed by their wrongful behaviour to have recourse in the judicial system. ILFA will continue to counter these claims in the strongest terms. Below we unravel some of the most common misleading statements:

Myth: “Third-party litigation funders currently operate in a regulatory vacuum and without any transparency requirements.”

There is no regulatory vacuum. Litigation funders are regulated under company law in the same way as any other business, for example, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Specific to litigation funding, activities are regulated by the Representative Actions Directive and the Collective Redress Directive.

Publicly traded funders are further regulated through legislation on securities and financial instruments and by the relevant stock exchanges and financial authorities. This includes publishing annual reports on financial performance. Examples of other EU rules that apply to listed funders include the Shareholder Rights Directive, Prospectus Regulation, MIFID II.

Lawyers engaged in litigation are bound by professional, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities to represent the best interests of their clients where they practise.

Myth: “A civil justice climate that is abundant in abusive claims and mass private third-party funded litigation, creates a chilling effect that deters businesses from innovating, investing, competing, and prospering.”

Supporting meritorious litigation does not deter businesses from innovating and prospering - it deters corporate wrongdoing. As long as companies behave responsibly and comply with the obligations set out in the law, they have nothing to fear from litigation funding.

Myth: “If civil litigation remains funded by unregulated private third parties, we expect a surge in speculative litigation in the EU, which would undermine public confidence in the European justice systems at a time when maintaining faith in our democratic institutions is so critical.”

Far from undermining public confidence in the legal system, a recent independent report from the European Law Institute (ELI) concluded litigation funding plays a ‘functionally vital role in facilitating access to justice in many jurisdictions’.[1]

With public funding (legal aid) increasingly concentrated in the criminal justice sphere, litigation funding offers vital assistance to claimants bringing meritorious civil claims to courts. Greater access to justice, supported by litigation funding, leads to the development of better legal jurisprudence – a benefit to our legal system and to the rule of the law.

Myth: “TPLF is a for-profit business model that allows private financiers, investment firms, and hedge funds, to sign confidential deals with lawyers or qualified entities to invest in lawsuits or arbitration in exchange for a significant portion of any compensation that may be awarded, sometimes as much as 40% of the total compensation but can go even substantially higher.”

Litigation funder’s fees reflect the level of risk undertaken (which will vary) and are assessed case-by-case.

Many funded cases are “David vs. Goliath” in nature with well-resourced defendants. This requires substantial upfront financial investment to level the playing field and for cases to proceed. In the UK sub-postmasters’ recent successful claim against the Post Office, the Post Office spent nearly 250m GBP on its defence.

Myth: “The financial incentives of such practices encourage frivolous and predatory litigation, but they also shortchange genuine claimants and consumers.”

Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, i.e. if the case is unsuccessful, the funder loses their entire investment. There is no logical financial incentive for litigation funders to fund frivolous legal claims. Funders' due-diligence checks assist the justice system by weeding out unmeritorious claims that have a poor chance of success when put before a court. The approval rate for funding opportunities is as low as 3-5%.

Myth: “The introduction of a purely profit-motivated third party, often non-EU based, into the traditional lawyer-client relationship, raises serious ethical concerns and presents an economic security threat for Europe.”

The letter presents no substantive evidence that litigation funding is being used by ‘non-EU’ entities to destabilise the European economy or legal systems. ILFA suggests that experienced judges and lawyers operating in EU legal systems are more than capable of identifying threats to the integrity of our legal systems and safeguarding against the misuse or abuse of the court system for geopolitical or other aims.

Myth: “Funders are frequently the initiators of claims and may exercise control over decisions taken on behalf of claimants, and in this context, they prioritise their own financial aims over the interests of claimants. Faced with years of litigation brought by claimants with support from well-resourced funders, expensive legal costs, and reputational risk, defendants are often forced to settle even unmeritorious claims.”

Litigation funders make passive outside investments, meaning that funders do not initiate claims or control the matters in which they invest. A recipient of legal funding, and their legal counsel, maintain full control over the conduct of the case, including strategy and ultimate decision-making.

Myth: “If Europe continues to neglect proper oversight of private TPLF we risk our courts becoming profit facilitators for litigation funders, at the expense of European companies, consumers, and the integrity of our court systems.”

The reference to European companies is a curious one. Litigation funders make no distinction between EU or ‘non-EU’ claimants, basing funding awards on factual criteria such as the legal merits of a case, budget, funding required, and any other award and risks associated with the case.

This latest call from big businesses makes clear they continue to side with corporate wrongdoers, diminishing the legitimate rights of businesses and consumers to access justice and exercise their rights before the courts.

“Misleading and inaccurate claims like these appear around the world as part of a global lobbying effort to encourage unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the legal finance sector,” said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s newly appointed Global Director for Growth and Membership Engagement.  “Robustly challenging these persistent myths is critical to improving understanding of the sector amongst policy makers and wider industry stakeholders. That is why it is so important that international organisations like ILFA are able to respond to these claims on behalf of the sector, wherever and whenever they appear.”

By enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims, litigation funding levels the playing field and creates an equality of means between otherwise unequal parties.


[1] https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Principles_Governing_the_Third_Party_Funding_of_Litigation.pdf

International Legal Finance Association Adds West U Capital as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of West U Capital to the organization’s rapidly growing membership base. 

West U Capital is an intellectual property investment firm actively seeking and engaging in a broad range of transactions, including patent litigation funding, law firm financing, patent acquisition, patent-based lending, or some combination of the four. West U’s team has decades of intellectual property-centric investment and capital management experience to provide patent owners and law firms with a range of capital options to help them monetize their patents and grow their businesses. 

“As the world’s leading association representing the commercial legal finance industry, ILFA is excited to welcome West U Capital as its newest member,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “The addition of West U and their IP investment and litigation expertise demonstrates the increasingly diverse arenas in which legal finance helps businesses and entrepreneurs access justice. The firm will play a significant role in promoting the highest standard of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector across investment areas.”

The firm was founded by Managing Partners Joseph Kessler and Mark Roche. Two experienced leaders in the intellectual property space, Kessler formerly co-founded and managed the IP Finance team at Fortress Investment Group, an ILFA member, and Roche co-founded and managed AT&T’s intellectual property arm, Knowledge Ventures, before co-founding IP investment firm Techquity Capital Management. 

“Joining ILFA marks an exciting milestone for West U Capital,” said Roche. “We're eager to contribute our expertise in patent litigation and law firm financing to ILFA's ongoing efforts to shape the future of commercial legal finance.” Kessler added, “ILFA's dedication to promoting transparency and ethical practices aligns with our values at West U. We look forward to collaborating with fellow members to drive innovation and ensure the continued growth and integrity of our industry." 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official

About West U Capital 

West U Capital is an intellectual property-centric investment and capital management firm providing a variety of capital options to help maximize the value of intellectual property, including patent acquisitions, litigation funding, law firm financing, patent-based lending, and hybrid or tailored combinations. Its partners include small and medium companies, multinational corporations, research entities, and universities from a wide array of technology and market sectors across geographical regions. With decades of transactional and investment experience, West U’s growing team has underwritten, executed, managed, and exited hundreds of IP-related investments and transactions involving billions in invested capital. 

For more information, visit https://www.westucapital.com/

European Consumer Organisation Says “No Need” for More Funding Regulations

By Harry Moran |

With the ongoing Civil Justice Council review set to shape the future of the litigation funding market in the UK, for funders and law firms on the European continent the possibility of more stringent rules governing third-party funding still looms on the horizon. 

In a recently published position paper, BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation laid out its stance on third-party litigation funding and addressed the ongoing debate around the potential for more rules governing funding in the EU. In ‘Justice unchained BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress’, BEUC emphasised that with the prohibitively expensive costs of bringing collective redress claims, “robust funding mechanisms are essential.”

BEUC’s paper directly addresses the common criticisms and alleged downsides of third-party funding, stating emphatically that “concerns raised by critics appear insufficiently evidenced by specific cases, as shown by various independent academic studies.” For example, BEUC refutes the idea that litigation funding somehow encourages frivolous lawsuits, pointing out that not only has there been no evidence of abusive practices in EU member states, “evidence from the Netherlands shows no increase in meritless collective claims after TPLF’s introduction.”

The paper also highlights the success of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which it argues has already created “a framework to mitigate risks associated with TPLF, preventing conflicts of interest, undue third party influence, and ensuring judicial oversight to enforce compliance.” Taking aim at the proposed regulations that were put forward to the European Parliament, BEUC’s position is that “there is no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF to the existing regulatory framework established by the RAD.” Furthermore, BEUC argues that “the specific measures recommended by the European Parliament may disproportionately disadvantage consumer organisations often relying on TPLF to bring collective redress actions.”

In a post on LinkedIn, International Legal Finance Association’s (ILFA) Chairman Neil Purslow expressed his support for BEUC’s stance, saying: “BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organizations in the EU, rightly recognizes the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organizations in exercising their rights.”

The full position paper from BEUC can be read here

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jonas Rey, Partner, Athena Intelligence SA & Founder, Liti Capital SA

By John Freund |

Athena Intelligence is the largest corporate intelligence firm in Switzerland, specializing in dispute resolution, litigation support and asset recovery. Liti Capital is a Swiss based litigation funders that made headlines in 2021 for tokenizing its equity and raising funds through cryptocurrency markets. The company has since invested in multiple global cases.

Company Website: https://athenaintelligence.ch/ - https://liticapital.com/

Year Founded: 2019 / 2021

Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

Area of Focus: Asset recovery, blockchain, unorthodox cases

Member Quote: If there is a way to extract returns from this, we will find it.

Portland Communications Report: 62% of Public Have Low Understanding of Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

The Post Office Horizon scandal and the accompanying litigation brought both class actions and litigation funding into the spotlight for many in the wider public. A new survey on class actions shows that the public perception of third-party funding is shifting year-over-year, with a mixture of encouraging and concerning signs for litigation funders. 

Portland Communications has published a report titled ‘Reputation & Accountability – Class Actions, ESG and Values-Driven Litigation’, which provides insights into class action trends in the UK. Having surveyed 2,000 people, along with 540 ‘senior decision makers’ from UK businesses, the report also offers a view into the wider perception of class actions, law firms and the funders who back these claims.

The overall share of survey respondents who believed class actions lead to compensation for victims rose from 43% in 2023 to 57% in 2024, with a commensurate rise, 44% to 56%, in those who said that class actions hold large companies to account. However, despite this overall approval for the effectiveness of class actions, the more startling statistic may be that 81% of respondents believed that class actions mostly make money for funders and law firms.

Part of this distrust towards those supporting claimants may stem from a failure to properly educate the wider public, as 62% of those surveyed said that they had a ‘low’ understanding of how litigation funding works. Perhaps even more concerning for funders, is that those self-reporting this low understanding has risen from 49% in 2023. This lack of understanding is further cemented by the fact that 57% of respondents believed that unsuccessful class actions could still result in a financial loss for claimants.

However, the good news for litigation funders is that 67% of respondents would still prefer a situation where funders are taking a percentage compensation rather than paying the legal bills themselves. In support of this, there was also a notable decrease in the number of people who believed that all compensation should go to those affected, with a significant drop from 66% of respondents in 2023 to 46% this year.

The full report from Portland Communications can be accessed here.

FARA Unit’s Advisory Opinion Clarifies Stance on Foreign Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

An oft-repeated critique of litigation funding is that it may act as a vehicle for adversarial foreign actors to negatively impact U.S. national security or business interests. This is an argument that has primarily been leveled at policymakers to try and drive forward new regulations. However, an advisory opinion from a Department of Justice office shows that government bodies are already actively evolving their approach to foreign litigation funding.

An insights piece produced by law firm Morrison Foerster analyses an advisory opinion that was published by the DOJ’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit. The opinion, which was issued on June 24, 2024, advising a U.S. law firm that it must register under FARA if it wished to pursue impact litigation as the claims were being funded by a foreign non-governmental organization. After comparing the opinion with public FARA registrations, the articles authors concluded that ‘the law firm that requested the opinion and ultimately registered, received funding from a private Australian NGO to pursue environmental-related litigation.’

Morrison Foerster’s detailed analysis shows that the opinion appeared to reshape certain aspects of FARA’s applicability to certain categories of foreign litigation funders, particularly as it relates to which situations would qualify for FARA’s legal and commercial exemptions from registration. 

Regarding the legal exemption, the opinion indicated that this does not apply if the funder is not party to the litigation or if the litigation aims to affect U.S. policy either. The authors suggest that ‘this would potentially create a registration obligation for any impact litigation or perhaps even any litigation that invokes policy arguments that is funded by a foreign entity, even when the foreign entity is a party to the litigation.

When it came to the commercial exemption, the advisory opinion seemed to only interpret the statutory language in isolation and did not consider FARA’s corresponding regulations. According to Morrison Foerster’s analysis, 28 C.F.R. § 5.304(c) of FARA’s regulations would make the commercial exemption available ‘for activities directly in furtherance of the commercial interests or other organizational objectives of a foreign principal’, as long as these commercial activities are not directed by, nor directly promote the interests, of a foreign government or party.

The advisory opinion written by Evan Turgeon, Chief, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit, can be read in full here

International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) Welcomes New BEUC Position Paper – ‘Justice Unchained’

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has today commented on the new position of BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, on the use of commercial funding for collective redress as expressed in their paper ’Justice unchained - BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding’. 

The BEUC paper acknowledges several key points:

  • Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is essential to guarantee European consumers access to justice.
  • There is ‘insufficient evidence’ for the repeated, unsubstantiated claims of the US Chamber of Commerce that TPLF undermines the justice system.
  • There is ‘no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF’ at this time and additional regulation of TPLF risks ‘disproportionately disadvantaging consumer organisations’ and increasing the cost of litigation for those accessing funding. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organisations in the EU, rightly recognises the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organisations in exercising their rights.

We support the BEUC conclusion that further regulation at the EU level at this time does not make sense and that existing tools provide safeguards to ensure the system works fairly. While our critics like the US Chamber of Commerce continue to push unsubstantiated claims to constrain access to justice, BEUC has been able to see through and identify the clear benefits of litigation funding for consumers.’ 

The full paper from BEUC can be found here

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About BEUC

BEUC is the umbrella group for 44 independent consumer organisations from 31 countries. Their main role is to represent them to the EU institutions and defend the interests of European consumers, covering areas such as competition, consumer rights, digital rights, redress and enforcement, financial services, safety, sustainability and trade policy.

Jason Bertoldi Joins Alliant Insurance Services 

By Harry Moran |

Jason Bertoldi, formerly the Head of Contingent Risk Solutions for Willis Towers Watson, announced that he has joined Alliant Insurance Services and taken up the position of Global Team Leader for Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance.

In a post on LinkedIn, Bertoldi announced that he is joining Alliant from WTW, where he served for the past two years. He also brings experience from both the legal and financial services industries, having begun his career at Susman Godfrey before moving to The D. E. Shaw Group.

Commenting on the move, Bertoldi said: “I'm thrilled to be joining such a talented team, in an industry that I've been lucky to be a part of for these past few years.” 

The First Collective Work on Third Party Funding in Spain is Presented by Ramco Litigation Funding and ICADE University.

By Harry Moran |

The book La Financiación de Litigios en derecho español y comparado: estado del mercado y su regulación, (Thrid Party Funding in Spanish and Comparative Law) published by ARANZADI LA LEY, is being presented by Ramco Litigation Funding and ICADE University. This work provides clarity and reflection on this figure, which is undoubtedly a tool that helps to dynamise the legal sector and provides better access to justice.

This is the first collective book, with 21 leading authors, on Litigation Funding in Spain and is a guide to the status, nature and regulation of this figure in Spain and in Comparative Law. It is aimed at all professionals in the legal sector and includes, in a novel way, in a single work, the perspective of professionals from different areas of the legal sector (professors, lawyers, in-house lawyers, company lawyers, arbitrators, financiers, etc.) both nationally and internationally, on the different aspects of Litigation Funding. The book has been published in Spanish and will be published in English language at the beginning of next year.

Since the first funders entered Spain in 2017, Litigation Finance has seen exponential growth year on year, following the trend observed in other countries. Spain is the fourth country in its use in Europe, after the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, as indicated in the European Parliament report.

In recent years, the Spanish market has experienced a growing demand from companies, law firms and individuals, who see Litigation Finance as a tool to monetise their legal assets, reduce costs and manage risks.

The book was presented las Wednesday at ICADE's headquarters with the intervention of the Dean of the Faculty of Law and author, Abel Veiga, who stated that a work of this nature was necessary for reflection and debate on this figure in Spain. Urquiola de Palacio, exchairman of the UIA and arbitrator, the book's prologue writer, commented on the importance of the work in Spain, as well as its potential impact in other jurisdictions, and suggested that it should be translated into English in order to be sent to the European Commission in the process of research being carried out on the regulation of Litigation Funding.

The round table was moderated by Diego Agulló (professor of International Law in ICADE)  and the speakers were Antonio Muñoz Murillo, director of litigation at Iberdrola; Paulino Fajardo, partner at HSF Kramer; Ruth Rodríguez Lazcano, lawyer at the Technical Office of the Supreme Court; and Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding.

Antonio Muñoz Murillo spoke about the importance of the in-house figure in companies and the need for legal departments to adapt to business structures in order to be proactive, exploring new models that exist in the market to add value to their operations.

Paulino Fajardo insisted on the need to normalise the figure of the litigation funder as just another operator in the market and not as something extraordinary. He stated that lawyers owe it to their clients, and that it is up to their clients to decide whether or not to use these structures, while maintaining the lawyer's total independence.

For her part, Ruth Rodriguez explained the importance of reference works to guide judges and help them to better understand the framework and the use of funders.

Cristina Soler closed the event by thanking all the authors and ICADE, highlighting how important it is for Ramco to have promoted a book of this magnitude to raise awareness of this figure, which continues to grow in Spain with a high degree of user satisfaction, as stated in the recent report published by Ramco in 2023. He insisted that funders do not generate more frivolous litigation, as they study cases in depth and their chances of success; on the contrary, they generate resources for better access to justice.

Ramco will continue to promote valuable activities that provide information and help to improve the understanding of Litigation Finance in a transparent and coherent manner.

For more information: www.ramcolf.com  

UK Competition Court Throws Out Google’s Challenge to £7Bn Consumer Lawsuit, Paving Way for Full Court Showdown

By Harry Moran |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified the £7 billion claim against Google brought by Nikki Stopford, a consumer rights campaigner, on behalf of tens of millions of UK consumers – rejecting Google’s attempt to torpedo the claim early, and adding to the Big Tech firm’s legal and regulatory woes.

The specialist UK court will require Google to defend its longstanding conduct in the search engine market, after approving the landmark legal action brought by Nikki Stopford and legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

The claim accuses Google of exploiting its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers. With certification now secured, millions of UK consumers are poised to pursue compensation for the economic harm caused by Google’s conduct.

The CAT’s decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for Google’s parent company Alphabet, which is fighting to preserve its all-important dominance in online search globally. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proposed that the US courts should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, prohibiting Google from entering into agreements that make it the default search engine on smartphones and browsers, and additional restrictions to ensure its Android smartphone software does not favour Google Search.

The full CAT judgment can be viewed here. The UK court dismissed Google’s arguments in full, including its attempt to have the claim struck out. The CAT held that Ms Stopford had put forward a serious case and authorised her to act as the class representative and permitted the claim to proceed to trial.

Following the CAT’s certification, Ms Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 years or over who, during the period from 1 January 2011 until 7 September 2023 (inclusive), purchased goods and/or services from a business selling in the UK, which used search advertising services provided by Google. The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

The case against Google

The collective action argues that Google used its dominant position in the UK search engine market to overcharge advertisers and that these costs were then passed directly on to the consumer.

Google forced mobile phone handset manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that used Google’s Android operating system; and

Google paid billions to Apple to ensure that Google was the default search engine on all devices, such as the iPhone, that used Apple’s iOS operating system.

Other proceedings

The DoJ action follows a long legal fight brought by the DoJ and several Attorneys General in the US, culminating in a judgment in August 2024 by the District Court of Columbia, which found that Google’s conduct is anti-competitive and unlawful.

This judgment also supports Nikki Stopford’s claim that Google’s commercial agreement with Apple foreclosed the market for search on iOS devices, as do recent findings by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

Meanwhile, the European Commission imposed the biggest fine in history on Google for the anti-competitive practices in Android.

It is alleged that the abuses by Google are possible because Google is set as the default search engine account for at least 94% of the mobile device sector, by usage. Google Ads generated over $224 billion in revenue in 2022, accounting for almost 80% of parent company Alphabet’s revenue ($283 billion in 2022).

Nikki Stopford, the class representative in the action, said:

“This green light from the tribunal is a significant victory for UK consumers. Almost everybody uses Google as their go-to search engine, trusting it to deliver quality results at no cost. But its service isn’t genuinely free because its dominance has resulted in increased costs for consumers. Google has been warned repeatedly by competition regulators. Yet it continues to rig the market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers. This action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable and ensure that consumers are compensated for the harm caused by its conduct.”

Luke Streatfeild, Partner at legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP, who is leading the litigation, said:

“This judgment is good news for UK consumers, as the case for compensation brought by our client on their behalf can now proceed to trial. The judgment is also helpful in clarifying the standard for assessing exclusionary conduct by dominant companies, in particular in digital markets with high barriers to entry, and it will be a useful reference point in future cases that aim to promote fairer competition and better outcomes for consumers in those marketplaces.”

Further information

The certified claim against Google is being brought at the CAT against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited under CAT Claim No. 1606/7/7/23.

Who is eligible to be part of the claim?

All that is necessary is that a consumer purchased goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. It is not necessary for them to have seen the goods or services advertised on Google or used Google to purchase the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these higher prices affected all a business’ products if it advertised on Google.

Those who are interested in finding out more about the claim and signing up for regular updates should visit www.searchclaim.co.uk.

About the class representative

Nikki Stopford is co-founder of Consumer Voice and brings 25 years of experience in advocating and raising industry standards for consumers. She is Chair of the British Standard Institute’s Consumer Forum and a member of its Standards Policy and Strategy Committee. She has held executive leadership roles running successful digital and content-led consumer-facing businesses that have engaged and advocated for millions of consumers. Most notably, she was Group Director of Research and Publishing at Which? – the UK's largest consumer organisation – for more than 10 years.

Additional notes

Affected claimants, on whose behalf the class action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by global commercial litigation funder Hereford Litigation. The action is insured, which means that class members have no adverse cost risk in relation to the claim.

Ms Stopford is represented by:

  • Hausfeld & Co. LLP, Partners Luke Streatfeild and Simon Bishop, supported by Counsel Jonothan Broadbent and Stella Gartagani, Associates Natalie Jukes, Ginevra Bicciolo and Lisa Amrani and paralegals Martha Papapostolou and Alice Caroff
  • Charles Rivers Associates, Oliver Latham, Vice President, supported by Director Sam Marden and Senior Associate Liam Connolly
  • Rosamilia Consulting, Davide Rosamilia, co-founder and principal consultant
  • Ben Lask KC of Monckton Chambers
  • Daniel Jowell KC and Colin West KC, both of Brick Court Chambers
  • Mehdi Baiou and (formerly) Andrew Lomas, both of One Essex Court.

High Court Dismisses Claims Brought Against El Husseiny Family by Invest Bank UAE

By Harry Moran |

A press release from the El Husseiny family spotlighted the favourable ruling from the High Court of England and Wales, which dismissed all claims brought by the Sharjah Government-owned Invest Bank UAE against the family and their Swiss wealth advisers. The multi-jurisdictional litigation had involved proceedings across the US, UK and Canada; with the family reporting that the cost of defending these claims reached into the tens of millions.

The High Court ruling came after four years of litigation over allegations that Ahmad El Husseiny acted as a guarantor for credit facilities granted to two UAE companies: Commodore Contracting Company and Al Tadamun Glass and Aluminium Company in 2015 and 2016. Invest Bank UAE also brought a claim against the El Husseiny family under the Insolvency Act 1986 to reverse asset transfers from Ahmad and businesses to other members of the family.

The case is notable as Invest Bank UAE’s claims were funded by Burford Capital, and in ICLG’s reporting on the ruling, the article notes that a former employee of the bank, Sylvia Chandel, is now vice president of the funder’s Dubai office. ICLG noted that whilst the ruling did not suggest any improper conduct by Burford, their role in the case is further complicated by their minority stake in PCB Byrne, the law firm which acted for Invest Bank.

In response to ICLG’s request for comment, Burford spokesperson David Helfenbein said: “Burford Capital is committed to the rule of law and offers asset recovery and asset tracing services to ensure awards are legally implemented, in addition to financing options to help manage the costs and risks associated with recovery.”

The High Court’s judgment can be read in full here.

Computer Weekly Provides In-Depth History of Post Office Horizon Inquiry

By Harry Moran |

The Post Office Horizon IT scandal represented not only one of the most significant cases of institutional malpractice and miscarriage of justice in British history, but also catapulted the use of litigation funding into the public spotlight.

An article in Computer Weekly provides an in-depth summary of the statutory public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, giving readers a detailed account of all the key revelations that emerged across the last three years of the inquiry’s work. The feature breaks down these revelations on a chronological basis, starting in May 2022 with ‘phase one’ of the inquiry’s hearings and going all the way through to ‘phase seven’ in September 2024.

The feature explains how each of these seven phases gathered evidence on different aspects of the scandal, beginning in 2022 with phase one hearing testimonies from the victims, and the phase two investigation into the Horizon IT system itself.

Phase three saw the examination of the Horizon system over the subsequent year, whilst phase four switched focus to assess the activities of lawyers and investigators who participated in the subpostmasters’ prosecutions. Finally, the feature guides us through the inquiry’s work this year, with phases five and six putting the behaviour of directors, politicians and civil servants in the spotlight, before concluding with phase seven that took a broader look at the Post Office’s present and future.

Within the feature, readers can find links to individual articles that provide deep dives into each of these individual phases, cataloguing the most important pieces of evidence unearthed by the inquiry’s hearings. 

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Dr. Detlef A. Huber, Managing Director, AURIGON LRC

By John Freund |

Detlef is a German attorney, former executive of a Swiss reinsurance company and as head of former Carpentum Capital Ltd. one of the pioneers of litigation funding in Latin America. Through his activities as executive in the insurance claims area and litigation funder he gained a wealth of experience in arbitrations/litigations in various businesses. He is certified arbitrator of ARIAS US and ARIAS UK (AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society) and listed on the arbitrators panel of DIS (German Arbitration Institute).

He studied law in Germany and Spain, obtained a Master in European Law (Autónoma Madrid) and doctorate in insurance law (University of Hamburg).

Detlef speaks German, Spanish, English fluently and some Portuguese.

Company Name and Description:  AURIGON LRC (Litigation Risk Consulting) is at home in two worlds: dispute funding and insurance. They set up the first European litigation fund dedicated to Latin America many years ago and operate as consultants in the re/insurance sector since over a decade.

Both worlds are increasingly overlapping with insurers offering ever more litigation risk transfer products and funders recurring to insurance in order to hedge their risks. Complexity is increasing for what is already a complex product.

Aurigon acts as intermediary in the dispute finance sector and offers consultancy on relevant insurance matters.

Company Website: www.aurigon-lrc.ch

Year Founded: 2011, since 2024 offering litigation risk consulting  

Headquarters: Alte Steinhauserstr. 1, 6330 Cham/Zug Switzerland

Area of Focus:  Litigation funding related to Latin America and re/insurance disputes

Member Quote: “It´s the economy, stupid. Not my words but fits our business well. Dont focus on merits, focus on maths.”

Manolete Partners Releases Half-Year Results for the Six Months Ended 30 September 2024

By Harry Moran |

Manolete (AIM:MANO), the leading UK-listed insolvency litigation financing company, today announces its unaudited results for the six months ended 30 September 2024. 

Steven Cooklin, Chief Executive Officer, commented: 

“These are a strong set of results, particularly in terms of organic cash generation. In this six-month period, gross cash collected rose 63% to a new record at £14.3m. That strong organic cash generation comfortably covered all cash operating costs, as well as all cash costs of financing the ongoing portfolio of 413 live cases, enabling Manolete to reduce net debt by £1.25m to £11.9m as at 30 September 2024. 

As a consequence of Manolete completing a record number of 137 case completions, realised revenues rose by 60% to a further record high of £15m. That is a strong indicator of further, and similarly high levels, of near-term future cash generation. A record pipeline of 437 new case investment opportunities were received in this latest six month trading period, underpinning the further strong growth prospects for the business. 

The record £14.3.m gross cash was collected from 253 separate completed cases, highlighting the highly granular and diversified profile of Manolete’s income stream. 

Manolete has generated a Compound Average Growth Rate of 39% in gross cash receipts over the last five H1 trading periods: from H1 FY20 up to and including the current H1 FY25. The resilience of the Manolete business model, even after the extraordinary pressures presented by the extended Covid period, is now clear to see. 

This generated net cash income of £7.6m in H1 FY25 (after payment of all legal costs and all payments made to the numerous insolvent estates on those completed cases), an increase of 66% over the comparative six-month period for the prior year. Net cash income not only exceeded by £4.5m all the cash overheads required to run the Company, it also exceeded all the costs of running Manolete’s ongoing 413 cases, including the 126 new case investments made in H1 FY25. 

The Company recorded its highest ever realised revenues for H1 FY25 of £15.0m, exceeding H1 FY24 by 60%. On average, Manolete receives all the cash owed to it by the defendants of completed cases within approximately 12 months of the cases being legally completed. This impressive 60% rise in realised revenues therefore provides good near-term visibility for a continuation of Manolete’s strong, and well-established, track record of organic, operational cash generation. 

New case investment opportunities arise daily from our wide-ranging, proprietary, UK referral network of insolvency practitioner firms and specialist insolvency and restructuring solicitor practices. We are delighted to report that the referrals for H1 FY25 reached a new H1 company record of 437. A 27% higher volume than in H1 FY24, which was itself a new record for the Company this time last year. That points to a very healthy pipeline as we move forward into the second half of the trading year.” 

Financial highlights: 

  • Total revenues increased by 28% to £14.4m from H1 FY24 (£11.2m) as a result of the outstanding delivery of realised revenues generated in the six months to 30th September 2024.
    • Realised revenues achieved a record level of £15.0m in H1 FY25, a notable increase of 60% on H1 FY24 (£9.4m). This provides good visibility of near-term further strong cash generation, as on average Manolete collects all cash on settled cases within approximately 12 months of the legal settlement of those cases
    • Unrealised revenue in H1 FY25 was £(633k) compared to £1.8m for the comparative H1 FY24. This was due to: (1) the record number of 137 case completions in H1 FY25, which resulted in a beneficial movement from Unrealised revenues to Realised revenues; and (2) the current lower average fair value of new case investments made relative to the higher fair value of the completed cases. The latter point also explains the main reason for the marginally lower gross profit reported of £4.4m in this period, H1 FY25, compared to £5.0m in H1 FY24. 
  • EBIT for H1 FY25 was £0.7m compared to H1 FY24 of £1.6m. As well as the reduced Gross profit contribution explained above, staff costs increased by £165k to £2.3m and based on the standard formula used by the Company to calculate Expected Credit Losses, (“ECL”), generated a charge of £140k (H1 3 FY24: £nil) due to trade debtors rising to £26.8m as at 30 September 2024, compared to £21.7m as at 30 September 2023. The trade debtor increase was driven by the outstanding record level of £15.0m Realised revenues achieved in H1 FY25.
  • Loss Before Tax was (£0.2m) compared to a Profit Before Tax of £0.9m in H1 FY24, due to the above factors together with a lower corporation tax charge being largely offset by higher interest costs. 
  • Basic earnings per share (0.5) pence (H1 FY24: 1.4 pence).
  • Gross cash generated from completed cases increased 63% to £14.3m in the 6 months to 30 September 2024 (H1 FY24: £8.7m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 39%.
  • Cash income from completed cases after payments of all legal costs and payments to Insolvent Estates rose by 66% to £7.6m (H1 FY24: £4.6m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 46%.
  • Net cashflow after all operating costs but before new case investments rose by 193% to £4.5m (H1 FY24: £1.5m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 126%.
  • Net assets as at 30 September 2024 were £40.5m (H1 FY24: £39.8m). Net debt was reduced to £11.9m and comprises borrowings of £12.5m, offset by cash balances of £0.6m. (Net debt as 31 March 2024 was £12.3m.)
  • £5m of the £17.5m HSBC Revolving Credit Facility remains available for use, as at 30 September 2024. That figure does not take into account the Company’s available cash balances referred to above.

Operational highlights:

  • Ongoing delivery of record realised returns: 137 case completions in H1 FY25 representing a 18% increase (116 case realisations in H1 FY24), generating gross settlement proceeds receivable of £13.9m for H1 FY25, which is 51% higher than the H1 FY24 figure of £9.2m. This very strong increase in case settlements provides visibility for further high levels of cash income, as it takes the Company, on average, around 12 months to collect in all cash from previously completed cases.
  • The average realised revenue per completed case (“ARRCC”) for H1 FY25 was £109k, compared to the ARRCC of £81k for H1 FY24. That 35% increase in ARRCC is an important and an encouraging Key Performance Indicator for the Company. Before the onset and impact of the Covid pandemic in 2020, the Company was achieving an ARRCC of approximately £200k. Progress back to that ARRCC level, together with the Company maintaining its recent high case acquisition and case completion volumes, would lead to a material transformation of Company profitability.
  • The 137 cases completed in H1 FY25 had an average case duration of 15.7 months. This was higher than the average case duration of 11.5 months for the 118 cases completed in H1 FY24, because in H1 FY25 Manolete was able to complete a relatively higher number of older cases, as evidenced by the Vintages Table below.
  • Average case duration across Manolete’s full lifetime portfolio of 1,064 completed cases, as at 30 September 2024 was 13.3 months (H1 FY24: 12.7 months).
  • Excluding the Barclays Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”) pilot cases, new case investments remained at historically elevated levels of 126 for H1 FY25 (H1 FY24: 146 new case investments).
  • New case enquiries (again excluding just two Barclays BBL pilot cases from the H1 FY24 figure) achieved another new Company record of 437 in H1 FY25, 27% higher than the H1 FY24 figure of 343. This excellent KPI is a strong indicator of future business performance and activity levels.
  • Stable portfolio of live cases: 413 in progress as at 30 September 2024 (417 as at 30 September 2023) which includes 35 live BBLs.
  • Excluding the Truck Cartel cases, all vintages up to and including the 2019 vintage have now been fully, and legally completed. Only one case remains ongoing in the 2020 vintage. 72% of the Company’s live cases have been signed in the last 18 months.
  • The Truck Cartel cases continue to progress well. As previously reported, settlement discussions, to varying degrees of progress, continue with a number of Defendant manufacturers. Further updates will be provided as concrete outcomes emerge.
  • The Company awaits the appointment of the new Labour Government’s Covid Corruption Commissioner and hopes that appointment will set the clear direction of any further potential material involvement for Manolete in the Government’s BBL recovery programme.
  • The Board proposes no interim dividend for H1 FY25 (H1 FY24: £nil).

The full report of Manolete’s half-year results can be read here.

LegalPay’s CIO Highlights the Opportunities and Challenges for Defense-Side Funding

By Harry Moran |

As the legal funding industry has matured and become a mainstream feature of many jurisdictions’ legal systems, funders are increasingly looking at ways to diversify their activities.

In an article for Insolvency Tracker, Tanya Prasad, CIO of LegalPay, addresses the niche topic of defense-side funding and examines whether there is potential for this type of legal funding to grow in the same way that plaintiff funding has over recent years. Prasad notes that in an environment where “the demand for risk management tools in litigation grows”, large corporations may look to third-party funders to help supplement legal budgets “while potentially achieving favourable outcomes”.

Prasad acknowledges that compared to traditional plaintiff-side funding, defense-side funding “comes with unique challenges”. Whilst claimants may seek to maximise their financial returns in the form of damages and compensation, a defendant will “generally focus on minimizing loss exposure.” As a result of this difference in goals, Prasad suggests that funders would need to not only “employ creative pricing structures”, but would also need to find new metrics to define success.

The latter point is one that Prasad argues is key to creating a viable defense-side funding ecosystem, noting that “establishing a clear definition of success” may have different parameters for different defendants. Examples of this could include structuring funding agreements to incorporate “avoided loss” measures, which would define success based on “achieving a favorable settlement or dismissal at a lower financial cost than anticipated.”

If these difficulties that Prasad highlights can be overcome, she suggests that “defense-side litigation funding has the potential to redefine legal finance, supporting fair representation for both plaintiffs and defendants and expanding access to justice across the board.” Additionally, Prasad points to a handful of examples where defense-side funding has been successfully employed, such as the Gillette v. ShaveLogic case, where Burford Capital provided funding for the defendant to successfully oppose Gillette’s claims of trades secret misappropriation and unfair competition.

Montero Reaches $27M Settlement with Tanzania in Dispute Funded by Omni Bridgeway

By Harry Moran |

The funding of arbitration proceedings brought by mining, exploration and development companies against nation states continues to be a lucrative area for litigation funders, as the announcement of another settlement in one such dispute demonstrates.

A press release from Montero Mining and Exploration Ltd. reveals that the company has reached a $27 million settlement with the government of Tanzania to end the dispute over the expropriation of Montero’s Wigu Hill rare earth element project. The agreement will see the total settlement sum paid out in three tranches over the next three months, with the first payment of $12 million having already been received. Montero noted that whilst the $27 million settlement only represents 39% of the original claim for $70 million, this agreement “obviates the need for a costly and time-consuming hearing, the risk of an adverse award, enforcement efforts, and finally concludes a near 7-year dispute.’

Montero’s arbitration proceedings against the Tanzanian government had been supported via a funding agreement with Omni Bridgeway (Canada), with the litigation funder set to receive an undisclosed return on its investment from the settlement agreement. Whilst Omni Bridgeway’s share of the settlement has not been disclosed, Montero’s announcement did reveal that the funder would receive a distribution from both the first payment and from the second payment of $8 million that is due to be received on or before 31 January 2025. Montero also clarified that “the net amount of the award after repayment to the funder and legal expenses cannot be estimated with certainty and no assurances can be made.”

Montero’s president and CEO, Dr Tony Harwood, provided the following comment on the settlement: ““I am pleased Montero was able to reach an amicable settlement with the government of Tanzania to bring a mutually beneficial end to this dispute. This resolution allows both parties to move forward, and we wish Tanzania every success in attracting new mining investment. I would like to thank our shareholders, board, management, and our legal and technical teams, for their valuable contribution to this outcome.”

Theo Ai Announces $2.2M Pre-Seed Funding to Bring Predictive Analytics to the Legal Industry

By Harry Moran |

Theo Ai, the first predictive AI platform for litigation, announces $2.2MM in pre-seed funding. The round was co-led by NextView and nvp capital with participation from Ripple Ventures, Beat Ventures, and SCVC Fund. Using a proprietary data model and prediction engine, Theo Ai helps legal professionals make educated decisions about the likely outcome of cases. The funding will be used to further enhance their prediction engine, expand practice categories, and accelerate customer growth.

With over 275,000 new lawsuits filed each day, choosing which cases to take is essential for the legal industry. The average mid-sized firm reviews roughly 650 cases per year, which can take anywhere between 7 to 30 days to manually review. With Theo Ai, that time is compressed into seconds - allowing legal teams to cover more ground and focus on winning cases. Led by Alex Alben (UCLA Law Professor and Tech Executive), Patrick Ip (ex-Google and UCLA Law MLS) and Tiago Luchini (4x CTO/Founder), Theo Ai is the first predictive tool to fully leverage the power of AI. Theo Ai enables customers to identify and predict cases with the highest odds of success, uncover cases they might have missed, and access case summaries and key financial drivers all in a single offering.

"With backgrounds in both law and tech, Theo Ai's leadership team understands the complexities legal firms face and how to leverage advanced technology to address those challenges," says Co-Founder and Partner at NextView, Rob Go. "Their experience allows them to build a platform that addresses the needs of the everyday economy and truly reflects the nuances of legal decision-making, giving customers a significant edge in strategy and case outcomes."

"The legal industry is undergoing significant change and this technology will accelerate the drive towards efficiency and prediction analysis. Theo Ai is perfectly timed to address the increasing demand for next-gen B2B tools," says Dan Borok, Managing Partner at nvp. "With a stellar team that has decades of expertise in both law and tech, Theo Ai is delivering the right solution when firms need it."

"When the Ripple Ventures team first met the Theo Ai team, it was clear they had a deep understanding of customer workflows and pain points, rooted in their extensive legal expertise. Their vision for transforming the legacy legal industry with AI, combined with a proven track record as repeat founders, gave us strong confidence in their ability to execute," says Dom Lau, Partner at Ripple Ventures.

The ability to accurately predict a case's outcome is a game changer for legal professionals. By analyzing similar cases and likely arguments, Theo Ai's data model estimates the probability of winning a case, in addition to predicting the estimated award. Early users of Theo Ai found that the platform's algorithms verified the results of their underwriting and due diligence teams. With Theo Ai, firms have access to a data-driven pipeline using real-time analytics and predictive modeling as new facts and evidence emerge.

To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: https://theoai.ai/#product

About Theo Ai
Theo Ai is the first predictive engine designed by technical and legal professionals to forecast the outcome of legal disputes. Its AI models are trained on historical case data and incorporate real-time analytics with predictive modeling to deliver accurate and actionable insights. Theo Ai is meeting the most critical need for legal professionals - offering accurate case outcome predictions, backed by data. To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: https://theoai.ai/#product

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Carlos Ara Triadu, Partner, CUATRECASAS

By John Freund |

Company Name and Description: CUATRECASAS - a leading multi-disciplinary Spanish law firm, providing comprehensive legal services to clients across various industries. With a strong presence in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, among others, the firm is recognized for its innovative solutions and commitment to excellence.  

Company Website: https://www.cuatrecasas.com/en/spain/

Year Founded: 1917

Headquarters: Barcelona and Madrid (Spain).

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Restructuring

International Legal Finance Association Welcomes First Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) today announced the recruitment of Rupert Cunningham as Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement. In this role, Rupert will work to drive ILFA’s membership growth and retention, provide leadership and management to serve ILFA members, and promote global education and awareness of litigation finance.

Prior to joining ILFA, Rupert served as a Special Adviser to UK Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk KC. He advised the Lord Chancellor on courts, sentencing, and legal services policy and shepherded legislation to support the legal finance industry in England and Wales. Before his work in government, Rupert worked as a public affairs and policy consultant, helping build coalitions of clients and trade associations to achieve positive political outcomes.

“We are thrilled to announce the addition of Rupert Cunningham,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “Rupert’s experience working with membership and trade associations to build coalitions across industries and in the UK’s Ministry of Justice makes him uniquely suited for leading ILFA’s global growth and engagement.”

“I am delighted to be joining ILFA, the leading global organization advocating for the legal finance sector,” Rupert Cunningham said. “When I was in the Ministry of Justice, I saw firsthand how important third-party funding is for promoting access to justice, so I am glad to be supporting the industry by expanding ILFA’s membership and helping members amplify their voice with industry stakeholders and policymakers worldwide.” 

Rupert’s appointment demonstrates ILFA’s commitment to expanding legal finance industry representation across continents and extending the industry’s reach with legislative, regulatory, and judicial policymakers worldwide.

About the International Legal Finance Association   

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world.  

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

The Future of Litigation Funding Regulation Under the Trump Administration 

Following this month’s elections in the United States, litigation funding leaders and industry observers have begun to try and predict what the change in government at the federal level may mean for efforts to increase regulation and oversight of the litigation finance industry.

An article in The American Lawyer looks at the issue of increased regulation for litigation funding through the lens of the election, getting the views of industry experts as to what approach the incoming GOP trifecta might take. With one piece of draft legislation focusing on funding disclosure already introduced to the House, courtesy of Rep. Darrell Issa of California, lawyers and funders alike are anxious to see whether the Trump administration will take a more combative approach to third-party funding.

Broadly speaking, the view from industry appears to be split on whether the attitudes of Congress and the White House will be aligned on this issue. Charles Agee, CEO of Westfleet Advisors, said that “regulating the litigation finance industry does not seem to be at the top of the agenda for the Trump administration”. Whilst Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director at Parabellum Capital, noted that Trump has previously exhibited a trend towards appointing judges with less litigation experience, which may harm the industry as it could “inject more variability in litigation funders' ability to underwrite outcomes.” 

Paul Haskel, partner with Crowell & Moring, agreed that regulating third-party funding may not be a high priority for President Trump, but suggested that the commonly-repeated claim that funding acts as a route for foreign actors to malignly influence US interests could be “an appealing way for this administration to attack it.” Similarly, Mark Behrens of Shook Hardy & Bacon, suggested that over on Capitol Hill, “the new congressional leadership provides a reason for optimism that there will be increased attention paid to the disclosure of commercial third-party litigation financing and the involvement of foreign funders in U.S. litigation.” 

Seeking to gain some insight into any provisional policy position that the new administration might hold, The American Lawyer contacted the Trump transition team for a comment. However, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not provide a direct answer to the question, instead emphasizing that Trump had been re-elected “by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail.”

Legal-Bay Announces Judge’s Intent to Upend $38MM Sex Abuse Valuation in New Hampshire YDC Case

Legal-Bay, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that a New Hampshire court has just tossed out an initial $38 million award in favor of a paltry $475k payout even the presiding judge is calling "an unconscionable miscarriage of justice."

Plaintiff David Meehan originally filed suit for the 100+ sexual abuse violations he suffered as a minor at a youth detention center in the 1990s. It turns out, he wasn't the only victim. The case has garnered tremendous headlines for the egregious abuses inflicted upon underage boys and girls at that facility for years. As the whistleblower, Meehan was in a unique position to help subsequent victims who came forward with their own claims of abuse, the first of many to testify. One can only imagine the bravery it must have taken to recount in graphic detail the sexual misconduct he endured as a minor. While the case played out online and through the media, the opinion that mattered most was the jury's; they found Meehan credible enough to award him $38 million, citing personal injury and punitive damages.

However, the jury instructions were not clear, and a technicality has now ensued: According to the verdict sheet, the jurors only listed "1 incident" on the jury form returned to the court after deliberations. Meehan's lawyers, Rus Rilee and David Vicinanzo, had argued off the record that there needed to be more clarity to jurors, but to no avail. State law dictates that $475K is the cap per incident.

After hearing of the state's assertion that the verdict was going to be revised down to $475k, several jurors reached out to Rilee to explain themselves regarding the misunderstanding and their intentions. They felt horrible about the lowered settlement amount and expressed how misinformed they were about the jury instructions in the case. Even the judge in a post-trial order felt the weight of the evidence reflected more than purely a lone incident. (Jurors have clarified post-trial that they meant one ongoing incident of PTSD from the abuse, and not one instance of the abuse itself, because clearly, they all believed his account of how he'd been raped multiple times on numerous occasions.)  

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, commented, "Legal-Bay has been one of the only companies who has been funding YDC cases since the start. So, with full disclosure, it is without question that we have a vested interest in seeing the plaintiffs prevail. However, aside from our personal belief in the veracity of the claims made, this new verdict is one of the gravest civil injustices our company has witnessed in almost twenty years of doing business. David Meehan was the first to report the abuse and win his case at trial, and now others stand to reap more from his courageous efforts than he will. We understand the state's motivation to protect its taxpayers to some extent, but something just seems amiss here. We are optimistic that the civil justice system and politicians who support their local constituents will work out a more reasonable resolution whether through the courts or otherwise. And we hope that not only Meehan, but all the victims will get justice for the atrocities that occurred in the youth detention centers of New Hampshire and across the nation. That seems to be lost on the defense team and state's position throughout all this, which is disappointing."

If you're a lawyer or plaintiff involved in an active sexual abuse lawsuit of any kind and need an immediate cash advance against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Legal Bay reports that the New Hampshire YDC litigation has over 1400 cases filed to date. When Legal Bay began funding early on—when no other company would—there were just eight plaintiffs. The company says the other victims have David Meehan and Rus Rilee to thank for their courage to take on the state in what has become one of the most egregious criminal and civil violations of children's rights in U.S. History. 

Whatever the ultimate resolution, YDC cases in N.H. look to be winding down. But that is not the situation in many other litigations nationwide. There are tens of thousands of plaintiffs awaiting justice in many youth detention center cases across the country, as well as other similar litigations that will take time to resolve. Some of them include Mac Hall and foster home sex abuse cases in Los Angeles, CA, southern California clergy cases, New York and New Jersey Catholic Diocese church lawsuits, Boy Scouts of America sexual abuse cases, sex abuse at youth correctional facilities, at sports facilities, and by coaches, camp counselors, teachers, and sadly, many more.

YDC is not an isolated problem. Childhood sexual abuse litigations all over the country are emerging, and the psychological damage caused by so many is beyond what everyday society can even comprehend. Legal Bay is at the forefront of each and every one of these litigations, doing their best to support the victims to get their lives back in order and help them receive justice.

If you're a lawyer or plaintiff involved in an active sexual abuse lawsuit of any kind and need an immediate cash advance against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Settlement amounts for sex abuse survivors vary widely, and appeals are almost immediately filed, holding up payouts indefinitely. Commercial litigation funding is available while plaintiffs wait out a verdict on appeal, and large pre-settlement funding can be obtained while the verdicts go through the appellate process. 

In larger cases involving organizations like the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America, settlements could be in the $100K settlement amount range for even the worst abuses. In cases with smaller class actions or mass torts (less than 50 people), settlement ranges for the highest level of sex abuses can be between $500K and $5MM. 

Legal Bay's loan for settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. While it's common to refer to these legal funding requests as settlement loans, loans for settlements, lawsuit loans, loans for lawsuits, etc., the "lawsuit loan" funds are, in fact, non-recourse. That means there's no risk when it comes to loans in lawsuit settlements because there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case. Therefore, terms like settlement loan, loans for lawsuit, loans on settlement, or lawsuit loan funds don't necessarily apply, as the "loan on lawsuit" isn't really a loan at all, but rather a stress-free cash advance.

Legal-Bay is known to many as the best legal funding company in the industry for their helpful and knowledgeable staff, and one of the best lawsuit loan companies overall for their low rates and quick turnaround, sometimes within 24-48 hours once all documents have been received.

Amber Cardillo, Legal-Bay's Head of Sex Abuse Funding commented, "We understand the different sex abuse litigations throughout the country better than any other funding company in the industry. Unfortunately, each one is different, and settlement values are based on many factors. We try to work with each victim compassionately and get them the help they need. We welcome all to call and try even if their church is in bankruptcy or if they have been denied additional funding by other companies." 

To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Sandfield Capital Secures £10.5M Funding Facility to Expand Operations

As policymakers and legal experts debate what the future of UK litigation funding should look like, it is clear that even smaller regional funders continue to attract investor interest as they look to take a larger share of the market.

An article in TheBusinessDesk covers the news that Sandfield Capital has agreed a £10.5 million funding facility from an unnamed Canadian investor, with the deal arranged by Altimapa Capital. This latest deal is reportedly part of Sandfield’s £100 million fundraising effort led by Altimapa, with the debt finance specialist having already secured a £20 million facility in December 2023.

The Liverpool-based funder was founded in 2020 and has since expanded its footprint to include an office in London, secured the new funding facility to support its growth plans both in terms of hiring additional staff and broaden the range of cases it funds. Over the last four years, Sandfield has provided funding for a variety of claims including those targeting brokers for undisclosed commissions, landlords for failures to maintain rental properties, and claims over Military Hearing Loss.

Sandfield Capital’s CEO, Steven D’Ambrosio, said that the funder has witnessed “a dramatic increase in undisclosed commissions and housing disrepair cases following news coverage and increased awareness of the legal remedies available.” D’Ambrosio explained that the £10.5 infusion of capital would allow Sandfield to support these claims and “enable many more people to bring their case to court.”

Pedro Tavares, CEO of Altimapa, provided the following comment on the deal: “We’re pleased to have secured an additional £10.5m credit facility for Sandfield Capital. It underscores our ability to bring international capital to UK businesses and the attractiveness of the civil litigation market to a widening, and increasingly international, panel of investors.”