Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3433 Articles
Case Developments Commercial

Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Collapses Owing Millions to Creditors

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered earlier this month, concerns have been raised that law firms in the housing disrepair claims sector are operating with unsustainable business models propped up by litigation funders. New reporting on the administration of one of these claims suggests that there is a high degree of volatility in the sector, with funders acting as unpaid creditors to these same law firms.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the story of Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Limited, a law firm that entered administration last month, with new filings suggesting that its creditors will be left without millions in unpaid debts. The Gazette’s review of Companies House records found that at the time of the law firm’s administration, it owed more than £6 million to creditors including litigation funder Fenchurch Legal.

The summary of liabilities showed that Nicholson Jones Sutton owed Fenchurch Legal more than £2.4 million, whilst the collapsed litigation funder VFS Legal was also left waiting for £196,000. According to Fenchurch Legal, the cases funded along with the security has been successfully transferred, and there has been no loss incurred by the business or its investors. As LFJ reported last month, VFS Legal has also experienced a positive outcome with its administrators able to repay millions to its own creditors. 

Unfortunately, the Gazette’s reporting suggests that the failed law firm will not be in a similar position, having reported only £159,000 of tangible assets at the time its administrators were appointed. The article explains that the liabilities summary prepared by administrators RSM and DMC Recovery revealed Nicholson Jones Sutton has ‘no assets available to unsecured creditors collectively owed more than £1.5m.’

The statement of affairs filed by the administrators can be found on Companies House here.

Commercial Deals

Seven Stars Legal Acquires Sandstone Legal’s Assets and Transfers Funded Cases

By Harry Moran |

An insolvent law firm’s administration proceedings in the Insolvency and Companies Court has concluded with the firm’s litigation funder acquiring its assets, whilst preserving funded cases by transferring them to other law firms.

In a post on LinkedIn, Seven Stars Legal Funding announced that it had completed the acquisition of Sandstone Legal’s non-legal assets following the end of the law firm’s administration proceedings in court. The funder also secured the transfer of the existing case load from Sandstone to four of Seven Stars’ client law firms: Brandsmiths, FDM Law, 56 Law and Justizia. Seven Stars explained that this transfer included the appointment of a solicitor manager “to preserve the continuity of legal services”.

Leon Clarance, chief strategy officer at Seven Stars, highlighted that it had taken “six months of dedicated work” to secure Sandstone Legal’s assets and that the funder’s “primary focus has been to ensure that client cases have found appropriate new homes.”

During the administration proceedings, Seven Stars was represented by Louis Doyle KC and a team from Brandsmiths including David Seligman, Ewen Sharpe, Myrto Sevdali, Courtney Bryan-Isaacs and Iona Barron. Ewen Sharpe, senior associate at Brandsmiths, commended the litigation funder on its approach to the administration proceedings in ensuring that Sandstone’s clients have been properly looked after and that their cases will be able to run to conclusion.”

In a follow-up posted on LinkedIn today, Seven Stars revealed additional details on the cases acquired from Sandstone. These include 35,500 Plevin claims which have been assigned to a single law firm, and 603 housing disrepair claims assigned to another law firm. The funder also revealed that in order to balance its lending portfolio, it has also ‘redistributed nearly 900 pension mis-selling and contentious probate claims, as well as 2,000 business energy claims’. Seven Stars stated that these claims have been redistributed across its existing borrowing law firms, with those firms now in charge of seeing these claims through to completion.

Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Consumer

Florida Funder Targeted by Class Action over Data Breach

By Harry Moran |

Whilst funders are often eager to support class actions on behalf of customers who have been harmed by cybersecurity attacks on other companies, a new complaint filed in Florida seeks to represent individuals who suffered losses because of a funder’s own data breach.

Reporting by Insurance Journal covers a class action that has been filed targeting litigation funder US Claims Capital over allegations that it failed to protect its clients’ personal data. The filing of the claim in the U.S. District Court in Miami follows a data breach in January of this year, with the plaintiff alleging that the funder had not implemented sufficient cybersecurity measures and therefore had not properly secured the personal data of the plaintiffs it had provided funding to.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a Kansas resident named as Timothy Vactor, with the complaint looking to represent other plaintiffs and clients of US Claims whose personal data was exposed as part of the cyberattack. The filing argued that due to the breach, the plaintiffs’ “private information is forever exposed and unsecure”, and that the “exposure of one’s private information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be un-rung”.

The funder had reportedly informed plaintiffs it had worked with of the data breach in a letter sent on April 11, over three months after the cyberattack on January 7. The letter informed US Claims’ clients that “certain information related to you may have been acquired by an unauthorized individual as part of the event”. The funder subsequently provided these individuals with an insurance policy in case they had suffered financial losses, as well as some assistance around identity theft protection and cyber monitoring.

At the time of reporting, US Claims has not filed a response to the complaint.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

The following piece was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Governor Kemp Signs Litigation Funding Bill into Law

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the end of last month, the first quarter of 2025 had already demonstrated the momentum behind legislative initiatives at the state level aimed at regulating the legal funding industry.

An article in Bloomberg Law highlights the signing of legislation which introduces new restrictions and guidelines on the use of third-party litigation funding in Georgia. Governor Brian Kemp took the final step of signing Senate Bill 69 into law this week, which followed the Senate’s approval of final amendments to the bill’s text that had been made during the committee stage. Kemp celebrated the signing of the bill by saying that it represented a victory for Georgians “who for too long were suffering the impacts of an out-of-balance legal environment”.

SB 69 requires third-party funders register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, as well as prohibiting any foreign individuals or organisation from funding litigation in the state. The bill also sets out disclosure requirements for cases where a litigation funding agreement is present and puts in place restrictions on a funder’s ability to control the litigation process.

The amended bill also added provisions for the Department of Banking and Finance to deny funders’ registration applications, updated disclosure requirements to include any individual with a 10% or greater stake in a funder, and provided more specific language for defining foreign entities involved in litigation funding.

As one of the key organisations that opposed the bill, the International Legal Finance Association’s executive director, Paul Kong expressed disappointment “that the Georgia legislature was unable to find a solution to its concerns with legal funding that did not shut off critical access to the state’s courts systems.” Kong contrasted this legislation with the bill signed by Kansas’ governor earlier this month, which as LFJ reported, was viewed as an acceptable compromise between proponents and critics of third-party funding.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Dubai Overhauls Legal Framework of DIFC Courts

By John Freund |

Dubai has enacted Law No. (2) of 2025 which cements the role of the DIFC Courts as a forum for cross-border litigation and arbitration.

According to the Government of Dubai's Official Gazette, the statute formalizes the structure of the DIFC Courts, mandating that all proceedings be conducted in English, and that judges convene hearings in-person or virtually. The law also grants the Chief Justice sweeping oversight, including the authority to issue procedural rules, supervise court officers, and approve judicial appointments.

The DIFC Courts maintain exclusive jurisdiction over civil, commercial, labor, and inheritance matters, while permitting opt-in jurisdiction for external parties by written agreement. The legislation promotes the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, and grants the courts discretion to enforce non-Muslim rulings and appoint judicial custodians where appropriate.

With the repeal of DIFC Laws No. 10 and 12 of 2004, the new law takes immediate effect, positioning the DIFC Courts as a more robust and transparent judicial forum.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Cristina Soler, Co-Founder and CEO, Ramco Litigation Funding

Cristina Soler is CEO and co-founder of Ramco Litigation Funding, a pioneering litigation and arbitration funding firm in Spain with a solid track record. Ramco was founded in the UK in 2015 and in Spain in 2017.

Cristina is a Spanish lawyer with expertise in high-value international litigation and arbitration and has more than 20 years of professional experience in defending and advising on commercial disputes and complex litigation and arbitration matters.  She has worked in leading international law firms advising domestic and foreign clients from different industry sectors, including oil and gas, construction and infrastructure.

Cristina founded Ramco in Spain and has pioneered the introduction of litigation and arbitration finance in Spain since 2017 and has been involved in the financing of some of the most relevant litigation and arbitration cases followed in Spain and other jurisdictions.

Cristina was part of the Advisory Subcommittee for the drafting of the Code of Good Practice (2019) of the Spanish Arbitration Club (CEA). 

Cristina has coordinated the book published by Aranzadi la Ley in 2024 “La Financiación de Litigios en derecho español y comparado” launched by Ramco Litigation Funding  in collaboration with the ICADE University which is the first collective work about Third Party Funding in Spain. She has also authored a Chapter of the book about the Third Party Funding Market in Spain.

Cristina has also co-authored several articles on Third Party Funding, including the Spanish chapter of the 6th and 7th edition of the reference guide on Litigation Funding and Arbitration "In-Depth: Third Party Litigation Funding" (formerly "The Third-Party Litigation Funding Law Review").

Cristina has recently been recognised in the prestigious worldwide list "Lawdragon Guide" as one of the Global 100 Leaders in the world of litigation finance "Lawdragon Guide's 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance 2022, 2023 and 2024“, being the only Spanish firm to be recognised among the international firms included in the ranking for 3 consecutive years.

Company Description: Ramco is a specialist provider of litigation finance solutions with a strong track record, managed by Spanish litigator Cristina Soler and backed by institutional investors. 

Ramco focuses its activities on high value-added areas such as natural resources and energy, regulatory markets, banking and financial markets, renewable energy, capital projects and infrastructure, competition and antitrust and intellectual property. The team brings together many years of experience in the energy, litigation and finance sectors and has the knowledge and expertise to properly evaluate litigation and arbitration claims. 

Ramco helps leading companies and law firms to optimise their legal assets and provides litigation financing in all its forms, including single case and class action litigation, as well as the financing of arbitrations and the purchase of claims, judgments and awards. Founded in 2017, RAMCO has been involved in the funding of claims with a total value in excess of USD 5 billion, including some of the landmark cases pursued in Spain and other jurisdictions. 

Ramco has been a pioneer in Spain in tailoring the mechanism of litigation funding to the needs and characteristics of the Spanish market due to its knowledge of both the market and the Spanish legal system.

Company Website: www.ramcolf.com

Year Founded:  2017

Headquarters:  Barcelona

Area of Focus: Ramco focuses its activities on high value-added areas such as natural resources and energy, regulatory markets, banking and financial markets, renewable energy, capital projects and infrastructure, international arbitration, competition and antitrust and intellectual property.

Member Quotes:

“Third-party funding allows, apart from financing the costs of the claim, to have a highly qualified team of experts who provide added value to the company's position in the litigation.”

Cristina Soler, CEO de Ramco Litigation Funding
La Vanguardia, "Ramco or How to Litigate Without Money or Without Risk"

“Spain is an emerging market for litigation funding and litigation and arbitration proceedings arise in sectors of high interest to investors, such as renewables, competition law or banking, among others.”

Cristina Soler, CEO de Ramco Litigation Funding
Expansión, "Litigation Funds Become Strong in Spain"

“Litigation funding wasinitiallyconsolidated in sectors where litigation isparticularly costly,due to theneed forprofessional technical specialization andthe specialeconomic relevanceof the debate andclaimsat stake.”

Cristina Soler, Managing Partner of Ramco LitigationFunding
lberian Lawyer, "Fund Me if You Dare”

Case Developments Commercial

Federal Court Approves $180m Settlement in Northern Territory Stolen Wages Class Action

By Harry Moran |

The combined strength of experienced law firms and well-resourced litigation funders can be a powerful tool for disadvantaged communities seeking justice and compensation from state authorities. However, a recent settlement approval order in Australia was notable for the judge’s pointed questioning of the commercial business model behind these class actions, which sees law firms and funders receive significant payments whilst the victims they represent receive comparatively meagre compensation.

An article in ABC News covers the approval of a $180 million settlement in the Northern Territory stolen wages class action, bringing to an end the claim brought against the Commonwealth of Australia over historic mistreatment of Aboriginal workers in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971. Whilst Chief Justice Debra Mortimer approved the settlement along with the related payouts to Shine Lawyers and LLS Fund Services for the claimants, her written judgment raised many questions about the costs accumulated by the legal team and the relatively low value of compensation that the workers would receive.

The judgment approved payments of up to $15 million to Shine Lawyers for legal costs, and a funder’s commission of up to $31.5 million to LLS Fund Services. However, Chief Justice Mortimer’s judgment also contained criticism for both these parties, stating that their “good intentions” in supporting the claimants has been somewhat overshadowed by “the pursuit of the business model”. Mortimer expressed doubt that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities would “see much social justice” in an outcome where these “city based non-indigenous participants in this proceeding come out with so much money compared to their family and friends.”

The settlement in the Northern Territory lawsuit is the latest in a series of similar class actions brought against the Australian state, with previous settlements having been reached with the Western Australia and Queensland state governments.

The full judgment from Chief Justice Mortimer in McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia can be read here.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Nick Tsacoyeanes, Managing Director & Counsel, Blue Sky Advisors

By John Freund |

Nick Tsacoyeanes is a founding partner of Blue Sky Advisors and serves as a Managing Director & Counsel at the firm. Nick has spent his career working closely with pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds and other institutional investors as an attorney and investment consultant.  

Company Name and Description: Blue Sky Advisors is a consulting firm that works with institutional investors and others in the capital markets to address corporate misconduct and serious governance failures. 

The firm provides clients with research into corporate misconduct and a variety of related consulting services. The team includes former securities litigators, chief investment officers, governance experts, litigation consultants and top officials at large state pension funds. 

Blue Sky monitors global stock markets and court dockets daily to detect corporate misconduct that may impact capital markets—often before litigation is filed. This includes material securities devaluations linked to alleged misconduct, significant government and regulatory actions, and newly filed or developing securities fraud cases.

Blue Sky Advisors’ subscriber list includes pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, AmLaw 100 law firms, boutique litigation firms, accounting firms, insurance companies as well as a variety of other institutional investors. 

Please contact Nick Tsacoyeanes at ntsacoyeanes@blueskyadvise.com to learn more about Blue Sky’s research and consulting services.

Company Website: www.blueskyadvise.com

Year Founded: 2022

Headquarters: Boston, MA

Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Patents & Trade Secrets

By John Freund |

On Thursday, April 17th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key stakeholders in the legal funding for patents and trade secrets markets. The panel featured Anup Misra (AM), Managing Director of IP at Curiam, Robin Davis (RD), Director at Fortress Investment Group, Erick Robinson (ER), Partner and Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice Group at Brown Rudnick, and Scott Davis (SD), Partner at Klarquist Sparkman. The panel was moderated by Salumeh Loesch (SL), Founder at Loesch Patents, LLC.

Below are key takeaways from the panel discussion:

Do you feel like in the litigation world generally, that there is a greater interest in trade secret enforcement and litigation just because of the difficulties with patent enforcement? Do you feel like there's a growing interest from the funder's perspective to fund trade secret cases?

AM: I think every funder is going to be a little bit different on how interested they are in trade secrets litigation. Just to be perfectly candid, for example, Curium has not typically been as interested in this because collectively in our practices and in funding, we haven't had the best experiences with trade secret cases. Other funders, though, probably love trade secret cases.

Now, that's not to say we won't do them. And we certainly see more of them. And we're certainly seeing a lot more sort of combo trade secret / patent litigation, which I think is extremely interesting for funders. And if you can manage that, it really puts your case on the upper shelf of what funders are going to consider.

I want to get a sense of how we should consider the multijurisdictional approach in the patent context and how this applies when you're seeking funding?

RD: Obviously, if you have patents in multiple jurisdictions, the US, Europe, beyond, that is a real asset and obviously something you should be bringing to the attention of a litigation funder if you're seeking investment in your case. The key is going to be to make sure that whatever international strategy you're considering is one that takes advantage of the various strengths and differences between different forums around the world.

For instance, many people have always enjoyed filing in the US because there's the potential for large damages awards. However, US district court litigation, especially with the advent of stays for IPRs, can be slow depending on where you're litigating. There are faster forums in other parts of the world; Germany has long been considered a favorite in that regard. And with the advent of the UPC, the Unified Patent Court, which is now in many of the EU member states, this gives you both a faster timeline to a resolution and a much bigger market now that you've got multiple EU member states that are all able to be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that [PTAB rule changes], in terms of the changes to the types of cases that may potentially arise in both patent litigation and patent litigation funding.

SD: Discretionary denials are increasing. Just in our own practice, we've seen a dramatic change very quickly on that. And I think that's going to continue as a trend for some time, at least until folks filing petitions figure it out as far as what the rules are and as far as what the standards are and what factors are weighed most heavily in the analysis in order to basically present the best argument they can to keep their petition on track.

Certainly in the short term, discretionary denial is a real thing and it's surging. So there's an opportunity to take advantage of that while the rules shake out and both litigants and the board are trying to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Do you have any tips for how companies can protect their trade secrets but still obtain litigation funding?

ER: My first advice to companies is to have a trade secret management system. That can be as complicated as having an entire software suite. That can be as simple as having a spreadsheet that has trade secret, date, who came up with it, and additional details.

That actually feeds into the real answer, which is you need to know what the trade secret is. Once you know what the trade secret is, things get easier. And that's easier said than done. I've been in cases where nobody really knew what the trade secret was until throttle, which is what makes it crazy. The good news is that damages are a lot more flexible, for instance, in the patent world; you can get actual losses, you can get unjust enrichment, you can get reasonable royalty, you can get punitive damages. There's just a much broader system of damages.

To view the entire discussion, please click here.

Case Developments Commercial

£5 Billion Opt-Out Claim Brought Against Google over Anti-Competitive Behaviour

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

The full announcement from Geradin Partners can be read here.

Announcements Commercial Deals

New Burford Capital Research Reveals Significant Opportunities for Businesses Through Patent Monetization

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new research on patent monetization, a means for businesses with significant intellectual property to generate revenue from patent assets through licensing, direct enforcement and corporate divestitures. With high research and development costs, long development timelines and intense IP competition, CFOs and GCs are faced with the challenge of seeking greater value from their companies' patent portfolios without diverting capital from core business operations. Moreover, converting underutilized intellectual property into liquid assets enables companies to fuel ongoing innovation and drive future growth.

Despite substantial investments in securing and maintaining patents, many companies fall short in leveraging their intellectual property—resulting in missed financial opportunities and ongoing costs that could otherwise be offset through monetization. This research shows companies shifting to a more proactive stance toward patent monetization as they face mounting economic pressures, rising costs of maintaining large patent portfolios and headline-generating enforcements and divestitures by major brands that increase acceptance. Nearly 70% of in-house lawyers say their organizations are more likely to monetize patents today than a decade ago, and 73% report that patent monetization revenue has grown over the last 10 years.

"Patent monetization remains a significantly underutilized asset for many businesses," said Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital. "Companies frequently hold valuable patents that require substantial investment to enforce, incurring significant expense—risk we routinely finance for clients. In today's climate of intensifying global competition and rapidly evolving IP enforcement landscapes, legal finance empowers companies to strengthen their patent monetization strategies and take a more proactive, value-driven approach to IP management."

"Companies have a significant opportunity to unlock value from their intellectual property," said Katharine Wolanyk, Managing Director at Burford Capital and head of its intellectual property and patent litigation finance division. "In conversations with CFOs and general counsel across industries, we frequently hear that patent portfolios are viewed as cost centers rather than assets, and this research substantiates that assertion. Legal finance offers a powerful solution by transforming underutilized IP assets into a source of liquidity that can fuel business priorities and allow companies to continue the essential cycle of innovation."

Key findings from the study include:

  • Companies are missing revenue opportunities: Even as patent monetization is increasing, 79% of in-house lawyers say that more than a quarter of their patent portfolio is underutilized. The costs of maintaining patents without monetization include lost revenue, delayed market entry and reduced market share.
  • Revenue generated by patent monetization is growing: 73% of in-house lawyers report that revenue from patent monetization has increased over the last 10 years and 69% of in-house lawyers say their organizations have become more likely to monetize patents in the past decade.
  • Divestiture is a fast-growing monetization strategy: 71% of in-house lawyers have already divested patents or are actively exploring divestiture options.
  • Clients can de-risk direct enforcement with finance: 72% of law firm lawyers cite the high cost of litigation as a deterrent to clients pursuing meritorious patent claims.
  • Legal finance plays a growing role in patent monetization: 59% of law firm lawyers say clients use legal finance for patent monetization; 51% of in-house lawyers say they are actively planning or exploring the use of legal finance to support patent enforcement and monetization going forward.
  • Global patent monetization is active: The US remains the top market for patent monetization due to strong enforcement mechanisms. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is driving change in Europe, with 74% of in-house lawyers expecting increased enforcement in the region.

This research, commissioned by Burford and conducted by GLG, captures insights from 300 in-house IP counsel and law firm partners involved in patent litigation in North America, Europe and Asia.

The research report can be downloaded on Burford's website.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery, and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and works with companies and law firms around the world from its global network of offices.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.

Announcements Commercial People Moves

Court House Capital Appoints New CEO as Michelle Silvers Moves into Chairman Role

By Harry Moran |

Court House Capital is pleased to announce the appointment of Matt Hourn as its new Chief Executive Officer, effective 14 April 2025. This strategic leadership transition marks an exciting new chapter for the company as Michelle Silvers, who has served as CEO since 2020, steps into the role of Chairman of the Board. 

Michelle Silvers has been instrumental in Court House Capital’s growth, innovation, and performance since its inception. Her move into the Chairman position reflects the company's ongoing commitment to visionary leadership and long-term success. 

"Leading Court House Capital has been an incredible journey, and I am proud of what we've built. I look forward to continuing to support the company's future in a strategic capacity as Chairman." Michelle Silvers, Chairman, Court House Capital 

Incoming CEO Matt Hourn brings over 25 years of experience in commercial litigation and is cofounder of Court House Capital. His strong commercial insight and legal expertise, leadership capabilities, and innovative vision make him well-suited to drive the next phase of growth. 

"I am honoured to step into the role of CEO and build on the strong foundation Michelle has established," Matt Hourn, Chief Executive Officer, Court House Capital. 

This transition underscores the firm’s commitment to continuity and strategic evolution, positioning Court House Capital for sustained success. 

ABOUT COURT HOUSE CAPITAL 

Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, the team is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration. courthousecapital.com.au 

Case Developments Commercial

Court of Appeal Judgment Dismisses Apple’s Appeal in Gutmann Class Action

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial People Moves

Rachel McCarthy Appointed Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

More information about The Milestone Foundation can be found here.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Laura Mann, Founder, Balqis Capital

By John Freund |

Company Name and Description: Balqis Capital is a B2B company specialising in deal origination and providing bespoke, insured opportunities to their network for portfolio diversification. They originate off market, litigation and private credit opportunities to their network of portfolio managers and wealth management firms. They are working on a multi billion pound, insured portfolio currently which is a fantastic addition to portfolios..

Company Website: www.balqiscapital.com   

Year Founded:  2022

Headquarters:  Cyprus, UAE

Area of Focus: We are seeing huge demand in our opportunities, given our extensive network and experience we are able to secure the best in the industry. We are always looking to enhance our proposition for investors globally.

Member Quote: We are excited to see the development of the industry in the UAE in 2025 and beyond.

Commercial Deals

Omni Bridgeway Announces Completion of Fund 9 Transaction with Ares

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial

Lawdragon Publishes 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance for 2025

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Kansas Governor Approves Litigation Funding Bill with Limited DIsclosure Requirements

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the bill can be read here.

Announcements People Moves

IQuote Limited Strengthens Senior Leadership Team with New Director Appointment

By Harry Moran |

Manchester-based litigation finance firm IQuote Limited has bolstered its senior leadership team with the appointment of a new Director of Campaigns, reinforcing its commitment to expansion and innovation in the sector.

Stepping into the role is Katie Doherty, an experienced litigation finance specialist with a track record of driving growth and operational success. 

She has held senior positions at various law firms prior and has worked alongside IQuote CEO Craig Cornick for over 15 years across multiple roles.

Katie said she was both delighted and grateful for the opportunity and expressed a keen desire to get started as soon as possible. 

“It’s an incredibly exciting time for IQuote as we continue expanding our legal tech partnerships and investing in new opportunities,” Katie said.  “This is a fast-moving industry, and I’m looking forward to leading campaigns that will drive the firm’s next stage of growth.

“I can’t wait to get stuck in. IQuote has evolved massively in respect of its business offerings, the firms we are investing in, and the different campaigns we are now exploring. You have to be constantly thinking on your feet; there’s never a dull moment.”

Originally aspiring to become a solicitor, Doherty began her career in legal administration before transitioning into finance and business strategy.  She first collaborated with Craig in 2010, playing a key role in business operations, asset management, and claims handling. 

Katie thanked her team at IQuote for all their help and support.

“They have all been fantastic, and I have so much admiration for Craig,” she said.

“For him nothing is impossible; if you say, ‘it can’t be done,’ he will immediately tell you that it can and how you can make it happen.”

Craig Cornick, CEO of IQuote Limited, said: “Katie has been instrumental in the success of multiple businesses I’ve led, and her ability to think strategically while keeping operations running smoothly is unmatched.

“She knows how to build and execute campaigns that deliver real results, and that’s exactly what we need as we continue to scale. Her expertise in litigation finance, combined with her hands-on leadership style, makes her a perfect fit for this role.

“She’s got an incredible work ethic also. From the very start, Katie has always been willing to roll up her sleeves and do whatever it takes to get the job done. 

“Whether it was managing complex operations or jumping in to solve unexpected challenges, she’s always been a problem-solver. That kind of determination is what sets her apart and why I’m confident she’ll drive real impact in this position.”

Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Commercial People Moves

Harshiv Thakerar Joins Gallagher as Head of Disputes Risk

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

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

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

Case Developments Commercial

High Court Rules in Favour of Henderson & Jones in Hearing on £2.15 Million Award

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

Case Developments Commercial

€900 Million Claim Filed Against Google in Netherlands, Funded by LitFin

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

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

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

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

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

Announcements Commercial People Moves

Litigation Finance Giant Nera Capital Makes High-Profile General Counsel Appointment

By Harry Moran |

Litigation finance leader, Nera Capital, has reinforced its executive team with the appointment of legal heavyweight James Benson as General Counsel, marking a significant milestone in the firm’s expansion.

Benson, an Oxford-educated solicitor with a formidable track record in banking and financial law, brings decades of expertise to the role. 

His career includes key positions at Gately PLC and most recently, Handelsbanken, where he served as Head of Legal, shaping complex financial strategies and high-stakes legal frameworks.

James said: "Joining Nera Capital is an incredible opportunity, and I look forward to leveraging my experience to drive innovation and deliver impactful solutions for our clients.

"In my profession, I’ve seen firsthand how strategic legal funding can unlock access to justice. At Nera Capital, I’m excited to play a key role in making that happen on a larger scale.

"Litigation finance is more than numbers - it’s about people, access to justice, and creating opportunities where they’re needed most. I am excited to bring my expertise to Nera Capital and work alongside a team that shares this vision.”

He continued: "Nera Capital stands at the forefront of the sector, and I’m honoured to be part of such a dynamic team. Together, we will continue to set new standards in the industry."

During his career, James has become an expert in navigating financial services, developing tailored specialisms including loan arrangements, deal structuring, fixed and floating security and intercreditor agreements.

The new hire is the latest in a series of milestones for Nera, who last month surpassed $100 million in investor returns within 28 months, thereby firmly establishing itself as a leading light in the legal finance sector. 

The company has numerous other legal and financial successes under its belt, including funding a plethora of highly successful cases across the globe.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne highlighted that she was pleased and honoured to welcome James to the management team.

“James’ depth of experience in both legal and financial services makes him an invaluable addition to our leadership team as we continue to drive innovation in litigation finance,” she said.

Announcements Consumer

34% of Americans Trust ChatGPT Over Human Experts, But Not for Legal or Medical Advice

By Harry Moran |

A newly released study from Express Legal Funding, conducted with the help of SurveyMonkey, reveals that while 34% of Americans say they trust ChatGPT more than human experts, the majority still draw a hard line when it comes to using generative AI for serious matters like legal or medical advice. The findings highlight a growing national tension between fascination with artificial intelligence and fear of misusing it for high-stakes decisions.

Key Findings from the ChatGPT Trust Survey:

  • 60% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to seek advice or information—signaling widespread awareness and early adoption.
  • Of those who used it, 70% said the advice was helpful, suggesting that users generally find value in the chatbot's responses.
  • The most trusted use cases for ChatGPT are:
    • Career advice
    • Educational support
    • Product recommendations
  • The least trusted use cases are:
    • Legal advice
    • Medical advice
  • 34% of respondents say they trust ChatGPT more than a human expert in at least one area.
  • Despite its growing popularity, only 11.1% believe ChatGPT will improve their personal financial situation.
  • Younger adults (ages 18–29) and Android and iPhone users report significantly higher trust in ChatGPT compared to older generations and Desktop (Mac/Windows) users.
  • Older adults and high-income earners remain the most skeptical about ChatGPT's reliability and societal role.
  • When asked about the broader implications of AI, only 14.1% of respondents strongly agree that ChatGPT will benefit humanity.

Expert Insight:

"This study highlights how many Americans are navigating the fast-growing influence of generative AI and natural language processing agents in their daily lives and that ChatGPT is far from being just a fringe use tool," said Aaron Winston, PhD, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding and lead author of the report. "Most people are open to using ChatGPT for advice—and over a third even say they trust it more than a human expert. But when it comes to high-stakes decisions involving legal, financial, or medical matters, most still prefer real-world professionals. It's a sign that while AI is gaining ground quickly, trust is still tied to context."

Why It Matters:

As AI tools like ChatGPT become more integrated into everyday life, understanding where people draw the line between curiosity and trust is critical. This distinction helps reveal not only how Americans are using AI today but also where they're still relying on human expertise for reassurance and accuracy.

About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a leading pre-settlement funding company headquartered in Plano, Texas, serving plaintiffs nationwide. Recognized for its commitment to ethical funding practices and consumer advocacy, the firm provides non-recourse financial support to individuals involved in personal injury and civil lawsuits—helping clients cover essential living expenses while their legal claims move forward. Beyond funding, Express Legal Funding is a trusted voice in the legal tech and finance space, publishing original research and data-driven insights that inform public discourse and guide industry best practices.

Commercial Law Firm Corner

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs' best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney's obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor's reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender's claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define "commercial information." 

The interpretation of "commercial information" has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined "commercial information" as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that "commercial information" need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity's competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

Commercial Deals

Hedge Funds and Private Equity Avoiding the Legal Funding Limelight

By Harry Moran |

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

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

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

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

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

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