Therium Capital Management has enlisted Fortress Investment Group to take over the management of the bulk of its litigation portfolio, marking a significant operational shift for one of the industry’s most prominent players. The move comes as Therium continues to restructure its business following reported job cuts earlier this year.

As reported by The Lawyer, Fortress will now serve as sub-adviser, overseeing the day-to-day handling of most of Therium’s funded cases. The collaboration is framed as a bid for greater efficiency and operational streamlining, rather than a full exit from case management. Sources indicate that existing litigation funding agreements between Therium and law firms will remain unchanged, suggesting the funder aims to preserve continuity for its clients and counterparties.

Therium has been a key figure in shaping modern litigation finance, with a global footprint and involvement in numerous high-profile disputes. This development raises compelling questions about how prominent funders are navigating a post-PACCAR environment, and if there will be other similar restructurings on the horizon.

A consequential legal battle now before the UK Court of Appeal could have sweeping implications for litigation funders operating in the UK and beyond. The case centers on the enforceability of funding agreements that calculate funder returns as a multiple of the capital invested—a model widely used across the industry.

An article in the Law Society Gazette outlines how the appeal follows a High Court ruling that refused to strike out a claim challenging such a funding structure. The challenge argues that these agreements, which are not pegged to the damages recovered but instead to the amount of funding provided, could fall afoul of the UK's statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). If upheld, funders using a multiple-of-capital return model might be required to comply with the more stringent regulatory framework governing DBAs—potentially rendering many existing contracts unenforceable.

The outcome could reverberate across the legal funding landscape, particularly in collective actions, where such return structures are commonly deployed. Industry observers note that a ruling against funders would necessitate a wholesale reevaluation of how litigation finance deals are structured, priced, and disclosed, especially in the UK market.

Funders and legal practitioners alike are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a test of legal clarity and commercial viability for the sector. The decision may also influence legislative and regulatory discussions already underway in the UK about how best to govern third-party funding.

This case underscores the regulatory and judicial uncertainties that still shadow the legal funding market, even as it matures. A ruling from the Court of Appeal could either reinforce current market practices or trigger a paradigm shift in funder-client agreements.

Siltstone Capital is taking its premier litigation finance conference, LITFINCON, global. The firm announced that its marquee event will now be hosted in three strategic locations—Houston, Singapore, and Amsterdam—marking a significant milestone in the evolution and internationalization of the litigation finance industry.

According to PR Newswire, the expansion builds on LITFINCON’s rapid growth since its inception in 2022, with the goal of fostering high-level dialogue among funders, lawyers, and investors worldwide. Each location was chosen for its significance in global legal markets: Houston remains the conference’s home base and a hub for U.S. litigation and energy disputes; Singapore offers access to the booming Asia-Pacific arbitration scene; and Amsterdam provides a gateway to European class actions and collective redress mechanisms.

Siltstone’s managing partner, William McMichael, emphasized that the global expansion is not just about geography but about shaping a more connected and mature litigation finance ecosystem. “We’ve seen the appetite for knowledge-sharing and networking among global stakeholders,” said McMichael. “LITFINCON Global is a response to that demand and a reflection of the sector’s continued growth.”

The conferences are scheduled to take place between late 2025 and early 2026, with Houston slated for February, Singapore in November, and Amsterdam to follow shortly after. Each event will retain LITFINCON’s hallmark focus on practical insights, deal-making, and candid conversation among industry insiders.

This expansion underscores the legal funding industry’s increasing globalization and mainstream acceptance. With funders and legal professionals seeking more sophisticated, cross-border opportunities, LITFINCON’s global footprint could shape the next phase of market development and standard-setting in litigation finance.

Viren Mascarenhas has officially launched Mascarenhas Law PLLC, a new boutique specializing in arbitration—covering construction, commercial, investment—alongside U.S. litigation and public international law. As a seasoned arbitrator and founding partner, Mascarenhas positions the firm to navigate complex cross-border and domestic disputes.

In a post on LinkedIn, Mascarenhas links to his new website, mascarenhaslaw.com, which states that the firm’s launch marks its commitment to delivering focused, high-caliber dispute resolution services across multiple legal domains. The full-service boutique offers expertise in construction arbitration and contractual disputes, commercial arbitration, investment treaty claims, U.S. court proceedings, and matters tied to international law. The announcement also highlights that Mascarenhas sits as an arbitrator, underscoring deep procedural insight and strategic acumen.

Mascarenhas Law exemplifies the growing trend toward smaller, specialist firms in the dispute resolution space. Its focus on both arbitral advocacy and arbitral leadership reflects evolving demands for flexible, expert-driven practices. The firm's launch could influence the boutique arbitration ecosystem by prompting more focused offerings and nuanced cross‑border competency in both advocacy and tribunal service.

Noah Wortman has joined the newly launched Walgate Litigation Management as Head of Strategy, collaborating closely with Steven Mash under the umbrella of Fladgate LLP. The firm focuses on delivering comprehensive administrative and strategic support for group claims, primarily in securities litigation. Its mission is to streamline case viability assessment, funder and ATE insurance submissions, institutionally sourced investment, and administrative operations—all designed to relieve fee earners and enhance case success rates.

In a LinkedIn post, Wortman notes that Walgate offers end‑to‑end services across the full life cycle of group litigation—from identifying and vetting actionable securities cases, through securing and managing funding relationships, to handling the administrative burdens that accompany progressing claims. With support from Fladgate’s Dispute Resolution team, the entity aims to ensure that strong claims against corporate misconduct—such as securities fraud, market manipulation, and regulatory violations—are supported to fruition.

Wortman emphasizes the venture’s commitment to access to justice, explaining that Walgate creates “pathways to recovery for global investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct.” By constructing a book of institutional investors and facilitating seamless collaboration between funders, insurers, and legal teams, Walgate seeks to remove financial and operational barriers that often stymie large-scale group actions.

This launch reflects a broader industry trend toward specialized litigation management firms that integrate strategic funding relationships with operational execution. Walgate’s model signals a shift toward greater institutional involvement in securities class actions and demonstrates how law firms are partnering with funders to scale group litigation capabilities.

Tensions between the litigation finance and insurance sectors escalated this week, as Burford Capital accused insurance giant Chubb of anti-competitive conduct for allegedly blacklisting entities affiliated with litigation funders. The clash centers on Chubb’s reported efforts to pressure law firms, brokers, and asset managers to distance themselves from litigation finance players, claiming such associations encourage excessive litigation.

An article in the Financial Times reports that Chubb, one of the world’s largest commercial insurers, has taken a hardline stance against third-party litigation funding (TPLF). The insurer allegedly warned that business relationships with firms connected to litigation funding could jeopardize access to its insurance services. In response, Burford Capital, the world’s largest litigation financier, has challenged Chubb’s actions as potentially violating antitrust laws by leveraging its dominant market position to suppress competition and restrict access to legal finance.

Burford argues that litigation funding serves a critical role in facilitating access to justice, especially for under-resourced claimants confronting well-capitalized defendants. The firm emphasized the legality of TPLF arrangements and framed Chubb’s actions as an overreach aimed at stifling a legitimate and growing financial sector. The dispute highlights deepening fault lines between two industries with starkly divergent views on the societal and economic impacts of litigation funding.

This confrontation arrives amid heightened scrutiny of TPLF, with insurers and some policymakers portraying it as a driver of “social inflation”—increased litigation costs and larger jury verdicts. Funders, on the other hand, maintain that these claims are overblown and self-serving.

The implications for legal finance are significant. If Chubb’s actions prompt regulatory review or litigation, it could shape the future of insurer-funder relations and the broader policy environment for litigation finance. The episode also raises the question: will other insurers adopt similarly aggressive stances, or will Burford’s challenge curb the momentum of this growing backlash?

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.

A new opinion piece pushes back against recent cultural and political rhetoric characterizing third-party litigation funding as a partisan instrument, arguing instead that it remains a neutral financial tool in the legal system.

An article in the Consumer Choice Center emphasizes that while some political actors and commentators have portrayed litigation funding as a means to challenge so-called “woke” corporations, such framing misconstrues the role and function of funders. According to the piece, litigation funding serves a straightforward purpose: to provide capital to litigants—be they individuals or entities—who lack the resources to pursue claims. The authors argue that this mechanism is neither inherently ideological nor driven by political outcomes.

The article calls for clearer regulatory standards and heightened transparency to avoid potential abuses and maintain public trust. It warns against allowing litigation finance to be co-opted by political narratives, which could derail substantive policy debates around disclosure, ethical boundaries, and market oversight.

In a landscape increasingly shaped by culture wars, this intervention underscores a foundational point: litigation finance is not a proxy battlefield for partisan interests, but a tool with the potential to improve access to justice—provided it is governed with clarity and care.

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal advocates for closing tax loopholes that allow foreign investment funds to avoid U.S. taxes on profits earned from financing lawsuits against American companies. The editorial argues that the current tax code inadvertently incentivizes predatory litigation funding practices by exempting foreign investors from taxation on lawsuit proceeds, thereby disadvantaging domestic businesses.

The article contends that this exemption creates an uneven playing field, enabling foreign entities to profit from U.S. legal actions without contributing to the tax base. It suggests that such practices not only strain the judicial system but also impose additional burdens on American companies, which must defend against potentially frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits financed by these untaxed foreign investments.

The editorial calls on Congress to reevaluate and amend the tax code to eliminate these exemptions. By doing so, it aims to deter exploitative litigation funding and ensure that all investors, regardless of nationality, are subject to the same tax obligations when profiting from the U.S. legal system.

The piece emphasizes that such reforms would promote fairness and protect domestic businesses from undue legal and financial pressures.

Backlit Capital Solutions has announced the launch of its full-service legal finance consultancy. The firm aims to provide comprehensive funding solutions for legal claims, offering services that include litigation finance, arbitration funding, and judgment enforcement strategies.

An article in PR Newswire states that Backlit Capital Solutions is positioning itself as a comprehensive provider in the legal finance sector, aiming to serve a diverse clientele that includes claimants, law firms, lenders, and investors. The firm's service offerings encompass litigation finance, arbitration funding, and judgment enforcement strategies, indicating a broad approach to legal funding solutions.

The launch of Backlit Capital Solutions reflects a growing trend in the legal finance industry, where firms are expanding their services to address the multifaceted needs of legal claimants and their representatives. By offering a suite of services under one roof, Backlit Capital Solutions aims to streamline the funding process and provide tailored solutions to its clients.

As the legal finance landscape continues to evolve, the entry of firms like Backlit Capital Solutions underscores the increasing demand for specialized financial services in the legal sector. Their comprehensive approach may set a new standard for how legal finance consultancies operate, potentially influencing the strategies of existing and emerging players in the market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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