John Freund

By John Freund | February 3, 2025

On January 29th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on the Middle East." The event featured a panel of key stakeholders in the region, including Obaid Bin Mes'har (OBM), Dispute Resolution Specialist at WinJustice. Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Chief Executive Officer of Lexolent, Kishore Jaichandani (KJ), Managing Director of Caveat Capital, and Ahmed Hammadi (AH), Legal Director at DLA Piper. The event was moderated by Jonathon Davidson, dispute resolution lawyer and Founding Partner at Davidson & Co.

Below are key takeaways from the event:

Historically, there's been very large scale construction and engineering cases here. Do you find those predominantly to be the fundable cases, or are we looking at general commercial litigation and shareholder disputes? Is there more of an even spread?

AH: There are two comfort zones as we see them now. And the two comfort zones are generally banking and construction. The banking goes back a while, back to 2014 when you had the DIFC case of Saracen, which I think even prompted the DIC to seriously consider putting litigation funding into his practice directions in 2017. But I'd say those are the comfort zones for a few reasons. And the principal ones are their core industries and sectors, in this region and not just in the UAE. Even as it disputes, though, I think you might agree, Jonathan, that construction touches all of our lives in one way or another even if you try to avoid it.

Secondly, these industries have customary documents. Right? So with construction, you have FIDEC. Obviously, there are some employers that will have a little bit of a bespoke contract, but they are kind of coming out of the internationally accepted standards or norms. And similarly with banking, you have a lot of LMA documents. So you have concepts that are understood internationally, albeit you'll have some local flavor in your interpretation, application, interest, concurrent delay, how they deal with guarantees, and that sort.

In terms of budgets, what's your experience on whether funders have to adopt the same level of budgeting here as elsewhere in the world, or where there's a different approach? Are certain type of proceedings, maybe the onshore proceedings, are they leaner in terms of fees?

KJ: In terms of budgets, legal budgets in the Middle East are increasingly aligned with global markets now, especially after the ATGM and the ISC and, especially for the complex litigation arbitration. So that is still based on factors like jurisdiction, legal framework, market maturity. It depends where is the claim, like a Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Oman.

So onshore litigation in Middle East jurisdictions like Saudi, Oman, Qatar, they often have a lower cost in comparison to the western jurisdictions like the UK, US and Europe. This is due to this due to the simplified court process, lower attorney fees here, and fewer procedural stages. For example, we have seen a case which is having $5,000,000 claim size in Riyadh. And the budget for that case was $250,000 as legal fees. In contrast, you see similar cases in the US Federal Court System that could exceed $1,000,000.

How do the economics work from a funder's perspective? So we have cases here, funder's must have a minimum ticket to make the economics work. Does that change if you're in common law jurisdictions when you factor in cost that you might have to pay as as the defendant's cost if you lose as the claimant, vis a vis the civil proceedings where that that might not factor in?

NRD: The basic principles of funding don't change whether you're in the GCC or whether you're in Europe. So if you're in the local court, the exposure from most international funders in local court funding is in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards rather than funding disputes, because the budgets, as we've discussed, tend to be a bit lower, and there isn't a massive appetite for international funders to fund in local courts. And also, of course, they're in Arabic, which tends to limit the number of funders that can actually operate there. So, funders will be operating in the offshore jurisdictions, the IFC, ADGM, where there are cost shifting rules and there is adverse costs. Now one of the challenges with that is there aren't a lot of ATE or insurance carriers that can write ATE insurance in the DIFC or ADGM. So you have to use indemnities from a funder backed off maybe in London or by an insurer that's happy to ensure the funder in a different UK jurisdiction.

So it can be done, and it's something that we have to take account of. So it's there, and it's no different from any other cost shifting jurisdiction.

In the local civil jurisdictions, we call them the onshore courts in the UAE, has any progress been made in having those courts formally recognize funding? How would you fund a local case, and who who funds it? Is it international funders or is it local investors?

OBM: I would like to make a distinction here between the onshore court and offshore courts, on the ground that each court has its own rules and regulations. For onshore, they don't have to regulate third party, as of today. So they don't actually contain any provisions which prohibit the funding by third parties. I used to do it for the last 15 years, and the contract regulates the parties' relationship. So if you are funding in the local market in the onshore courts, the contract regulates the relationship.

So we didn't face any problems since there's no regulation on that issue. However, in offshore, yes. ATGM and DIFC, they have their own regulations, and they have certain conditions you have to disclose in the agreement. You have to disclose that you inform the second parties, the opponent parties. Otherwise, you might no execute that contract. So if a funding contract in the local Arabic courts was to be challenged, then our analysis is the court would uphold the terms of the contract.

To watch the full recording of the event, please click here.

Commercial People Moves

By John Freund | January 31, 2025

Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon, is stepping down from his role effective immediately. Kyriacou has joined Willis Tower Watson as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions.

In a LinkedIn post, Kyriacou thanks his colleagues and partners in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, and notes the meteoric growth the sector has undergone during his five-and-a-half year tenure at Aon.

Kyriacou's exit comes on the heels of Aon's recent decision to halt all litigation funding transactions, a move that perhaps signals a broader reconsideration of the insurance sector's role within the legal funding sector. Aon's decision was no doubt influenced by several large losses sustained by the judgement preservation insurance (JPI) market, including the reversal of a $1.6 billion claim that left insurers on the hook for $500-$750 million.

In a successive LinkedIn post, Kyriacou notes his new role as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. Kyriacou states: "I am delighted to be joining the extremely talented WTW Private Equity and Transaction Solutions team, and am looking forward to getting to know my new colleagues and getting to work on new placements with all of the insurance carrier partners that I have built relationships with over the past five-and-a-half years."

Kyriacou also noted: "It has been a privilege and an honor to work with everyone on the Aon AMATS team, especially Stephen Davidson, who has been one of the best bosses and mentors I've ever had."

Public

Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Rise of Arbitral Awards as an Asset Class in Latin America

By Micaela Ossio and 2 others | January 31, 2025

The following piece was contributed by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

International commercial arbitration is today one of the most demanded mechanisms for resolving disputes in Latin America. The practice has been bolstered by sustained regional growth, ongoing market liberalization efforts, and the pursuit of a less time consuming and specialized route to address increasingly complex cross-border transactions. As of 2023, the region ranks second in terms of party origin and third in terms of the jurisdictions where ICC arbitrations were seated[1], evidencing the region's growing prominence in the global arbitration landscape. This push is building on the region’s growing appetite to attract new business opportunities by fostering safer and easier legal frameworks to do business.

A key legal innovation in this regard has been the promotion of third party funding mechanisms.[2] Two types of funding arrangements have particularly gained favor among investors: enforcement funding arrangements whereby investors provide non-recourse funding for the legal costs of the enforcement proceedings and realize returns only when the debt is collected, and award monetization arrangements where the funder advances capital to a claimant in exchange for a portion of the entitlement of the award[3].

In general, most major jurisdictions within the region contain express provisions that allow the assignment of economic rights arising from contracts or other legal sources and provisions that allow transferring rights that are subject to ongoing disputes, but not necessarily in the forms required by third party funding. As claimants (or their lawyers) seek to secure funding, they must thoroughly consider the jurisdictions where such arrangements are legally binding agreements[4]. As such, this article explores the financial case behind third party funding for litigation, particularly arbitral awards, as well as the market dynamics currently shaping the sector in Latin America. It also highlights the importance of designing adequate policy to promote the responsible growth of these practices in the region as well as gives insight to potential funders looking for attractive investment opportunities in a fast-evolving market.

The rise of litigation finance – why is it gaining momentum?

Even though the practice of litigation finance is not necessarily new – external funding of legal cases goes back at least a few decades – the understanding of legal claims as a financial asset class is still, in many ways, nascent. Currently, only around 50 dedicated funds exist globally, and in a 2019 survey, more than three quarters of respondent firms indicated they had significantly expanded their litigation finance practice and foresaw important growth moving forward.[5] Considering that the ICC docketed 890 cases in 2023, and far more civil claims of different nature flooded the worlds’ most mature litigation ecosystems (with close to 400,000 claims filed in the US alone), the industry has big room for growth and newcomer absorption.[6]

Despite a total industry value of USD13.5 billion as of 2023, investment in legal claims and legal futures is still largely concentrated in traditional litigation finance firms, particularly in the US, the UK and Australia.[7] Nonetheless, asset managers like BlackRock, PIMCO, KKAR and other alternative investment funds, notably credit funds, have recently entered the space, as a result of the asset class yielding an average return on investment of 20% over the last five years.[8] In fact, most litigation finance firms now target a hurdle rate of 15% to 35% and a holding period of two to three years (especially for commercial arbitration awards), placing returns at par or even above private equity companies.[9]

Despite this attractive return profile, a positive outcome on each individual investment largely depends on the merits of the funded claim, which creates uncertainty and concern for traditional institutional investors. Among other factors, insufficient precedents on certain matters hinders reliable predictions of returns and the asymmetry of information between the parties seeking funding and the capital providers still thwarts more skeptical investors to emphatically support this asset class. To close this gap, law firms and specialized litigation funders are working on investor-friendly frameworks to provide greater transparency relating to risks, expected returns and time to recover.

Investor concerns have also been heightened by recent regulation, particularly in Europe, a global hub for litigation finance. As shown by the recent frenzy caused by the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR[10] in the United Kingdom, or the Voss Report[11] in the European Union, regulation coming to the sector in up-and-coming regions such as Latin America seems to be inevitable. But despite these challenges, the outlook for market growth remains positive with large commercial arbitration cases currently dominating the market due to their significant value, international enforceability, and relatively swift proceedings.

The investment case for arbitral awards

In recent years, arbitral awards have emerged as a new and dynamic asset sub-class for investors in the litigation finance space. The main reason is that pursuant to the New York Convention [12], arbitration awards can be enforced within the jurisdictions of all signatory states and the process of enforcement tends to be easier and less politicized[13] than that of other asset classes, such as private or sovereign debt. In other words, arbitral awards can be fast-tracked on a global scale, ensuring the award’s commercial value. For example, the holders of defaulted Venezuelan/PDVSA notes have had little success in collecting their debt when compared to investor-state award holders, such as Crystallex,[14] Rusoro,[15] and ConocoPhillips,[16] who have been more successful in attaching Venezuelan assets abroad.

Investors can also expect attractive interest rates. According to a 2020 study of ICC awards where PwC and Queen Mary University of London analyzed damages awards in international commercial arbitration,[17] the absolute rate of interest for 180 cases that were reviewed, ranged from 1% to 18% annually. The study also noted that the rate of interest was frequently expressed as a mark-up over a benchmark such as LIBOR or by reference to a national legal interest rate. These interest rates can help to mitigate the economic downside in cases where the time to enforce the award takes longer than expected.

Finally, since arbitration proceedings are generally private and confidential, arbitral awards tend to be of confidential nature unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that in cases of assignment of awards, the awards can remain in the name of the initial claimant allowing investors to operate away from the media spotlight. Similarly, it is often the case that investments in arbitral awards do not have to be reported and disclosure requirements tend to be limited.

All these characteristics have led to a burgeoning secondary market in which awards are sold by award-creditors at a discount, to buyers who take on the role of enforcing the full award. Considering the increasing number of awards coming on the market and with only a few funds tapping into it, it can currently be described as a buyers’ market.

The market opportunity for Latin America

To become a regional hub in litigation finance, Latin America must stop addressing litigation merely as a “cost center” (i.e., a necessary but burdensome expense for those seeking justice). Contingent receivables arising from dispute resolution mechanisms shall be considered an asset class, one that can be monetized at various stages through mechanisms like litigation funding[18]. This mind shift needs to be rooted in the understanding that legal claims possess intrinsic value and can attract third-party investors who fund litigation in exchange for a share of the financial outcome if the case succeeds[19].

Brazil is spearheading this mindset shift and has been the first country to have arbitration chambers develop soft law regarding third-party funder involvement in arbitration procedures[20]. For example, Brazil’s precatórios offer private parties access to a well-established, constitutionally-recognized and liquid secondary market where they can assign their rights linked to a judicial or arbitral decision (a credit against a government entity) to investment funds. Colombia has also laid the groundwork for developing a secondary market for the transfer of judgments issued by courts in the context of the Armed Conflict. The Colombian state has established legal precedents that allow holders of these judgments to sell their rights in a secondary market, providing a liquidity solution for those seeking immediate capital.[21]

With the increasing recognition of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism across key economies such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru, the region is poised for significant growth in third-party funding. As liquidity becomes an essential factor for enterprises, enforcement funding and monetizing of arbitral awards offers a way to unlock tied-up capital, allowing businesses to focus on growth while investors capitalize on the financial potential of their legal claims. It also enables smaller market players, such as SMEs and individual claimants, to finance complex claims against larger corporations or entities, expanding access to justice and promoting more equitable outcomes.

To this end, judicial systems in the Latin American region shall adopt pro-enforcement policies, like those seen in offshore jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, as highlighted in recent case law involving arbitral enforcement[22]. While the New York Convention has been widely adopted across the region, the inconsistent application of arbitral award enforcement by local courts can still pose a challenge for claimants. Clear and consistent legal frameworks, aligned with international best practice, will help attract more investors into the sector. Examples of such practices include the use of freezing injunctions and receiverships, both of which are essential in securing assets and managing them until enforcement is completed, and the availability of Norwich Pharmacal orders or similar disclosure orders, already recognized in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, which allow claimants to obtain critical information about the debtor’s hidden assets or banking arrangements.

Building on the momentum

The momentum behind this market development in Latin America is growing, driven by a combination of factors including the asset class’s attractive return profile and an increased reliance on arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, particularly following the economic pressures created by the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, the increasing focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions is accelerating third-party funding in ESG-related arbitration cases, such as those involving environmental disputes or human rights violations. As judicial systems in emerging markets strive to expand access and provide a more equitable and fair administration of justice, transparency and simplicity in the arbitral award enforcement and monetization space might provide a very cost-effective and efficient way to achieve desired social and developmental results, all while promoting Latin America as a global investment hub.

This article was authored by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

[1] ICC Dispute Resolution 2023 Statistics

^[2] According to some experts in the field the two main factors that have brought this new market to the attention of institutional investors, have been the transfer of distressed debts from banks to private investment funds following the 2008 recession, and the search for higher yields in traditional financial markets. As banks recovered from the financial crisis and opportunities for distressed debt diminished, these private funds began to explore arbitration awards as alternative investments, recognizing their similarities to bank loans. While arbitration awards are often sold at a discount, sellers are not necessarily distressed; they simply find it commercially sensible to transfer the collection process. To know more about this topic, watch the 6ta. Edición de Open Arbitraje 2020 denominada “Mesa Allen & Overy: Acquisition of awards: Market trends and challenges.”

[3] Although buying the entire award may be appealing to claimants in need of immediate cash, experts suggest that funders often prefer maintaining a relationship with the award holders or ensuring that the claimant remains involved in the process. Award holders typically possess valuable knowledge about the respondent, which can be beneficial for recovery efforts.

[4] In some civil law jurisdictions, the concept of retrait litigieux can be an impediment to a monetization agreement.

[5] https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/litigation-finance/investing-in-legal-futures/

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf

[7] https://www.google.com/search?q=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&sca_esv=969c9be58d3ff7ea&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS837US837&sxsrf=ADLYWILynJMXdzxuFUmHYgDQCWx3Veqb0g%3A1729807553471&ei=wcQaZ663HJ2dptQP48yI-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwjum4Smg6iJAxWdjokEHWMmAn8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiK2JsYWNrIHJvY2sgaW52ZXN0bWVudCBpbiBsaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGZpbmFuY2UyBxAhGKABGApIkBdQmARYtBZwAngAkAEBmAH7AqAB5haqAQc5LjguMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIUoALQE8ICCxAAGIAEGLADGKIEwgIEECEYFcICBRAhGJ8FwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgoQABiABBgKGMsBwgIIEAAYFhgKGB7CAgoQABgWGAoYHhgPwgIOEC4Y0QMYFhjHARgKGB7CAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQIRigAZgDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkAYEkgcIMTEuNi4yLjGgB79e&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[8] https://www.pm-research.com/highwire_display/entity_view/node/167885/content_tabs#:~:text=Litigation%20finance%20is%20a%20rapidly,correlation%20to%20other%20investment%20areas.

[9] https://www.deminor.com/en/litigation-funding/what-is-litigation-funding/

[10] The Supreme Court in PACCAR Ltd v. (1) W.A. Bailey (Properties) Ltd & (2) C. Robert Wright & Sons Ltd clarified that litigation funding agreements should be treated similarly to damages-based agreements, influencing the regulatory framework for litigation funding in the UK; however, this ruling is expected to be revisited with the introduction of the forthcoming Litigation Funding Bill, which aims to reverse this classification.

[11] Voss, H. (2020). Report on the financing of litigation and the role of litigation funding in the EU. European Parliament

[12] See https://www.newyorkconvention.org/text

[13] Born, G. B. (2014). International Commercial Arbitration. 2nd ed. Kluwer Law International. Pages 473-510

[14] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/403/crystallex-v-venezuela

[15] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/483/rusoro-mining-v-venezuela

[16] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/245/conocophillips-v-venezuela

[17] See https://www.pwc.co.uk/forensic-services/assets/documents/trends-in-international-arbitration-damages-awards.pdf

[18] “How Litigation Finance Works” by Bloomberg Law. https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/how-litigation-finance-works/

[19] The Justice Case for Litigation Funding by M. Todd Henderson

[20] This is the case of the “Camera de Comercio Brasil – Canada” (CAMCCBC)

[21] According to the Colombian Commercial Code (Article 884), interest rates exceeding the legal limit are considered usurious and illegal. The usury rate is set quarterly by the Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia (Financial Superintendency of Colombia), which establishes the rate at 1.5 times the current banking interest rate, based on average rates charged by financial institutions.

[22] Pro-enforcement policies in such countries have been pivotal in shaping favorable legal environments for arbitration awards enforcement. For instance, the Cayman Islands has demonstrated strong pro-enforcement tendencies through case law like Gol Linhas Aereas S.A. v MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP, where the court affirmed its commitment to enforcing arbitration awards in line with the New York Convention in 2022. Similarly, Bermuda has shown a similar approach, particularly in cases such as La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v F.G. Hemisphere Associates LLC (2012), which underscored Bermuda’s adherence to the New York Convention and support for arbitration proceedings.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

By Harry Moran | January 30, 2025

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Interim Report and Consultation for its review of the litigation funding sector in October 2024, there have been no new developments as funders eagerly await signs of action from the new government.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the news that the Civil Justice Council has adjusted the consultation period for its review into third-party litigation funding, extending its deadline for submissions to 3 March. This schedule adjustment sees the deadline pushed back by over a month, with the original deadline having been set for 31 January. The decision to adjust the deadline does not appear to have been driven by any developments from the government or ongoing matters in the courts, with the Gazette reporting that the extension “will allow for greater engagement with stakeholders ahead of the submission deadline.”

The full list of consultation questions and cover sheet can be found here, with all submissions needing to be completed by 11:59 pm on 3 March.

According to the CJC’s website, the deadline “the extension will not adversely affect the finalisation of the full report”. It has been previously stated that the publication of the full and final report will take place some time in the summer of this year, with this latest update offering no guidance on a more specific timeframe within that period.

The Interim Report published on 31 October 2024 can be found here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

By Harry Moran | January 30, 2025

The battle over the future of regulations governing third-party legal funding looks set to rage on in 2025, as yet another state government has announced proposed legislative reforms that include new rules targeting consumer litigation funders.

In a release from the Office of the Governor, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp announced his support for a tort reform package for the state, aiming to enact sweeping changes across a range of legal policy areas. The package contains a variety of legislative reforms including measures targeting the calculation of medical damages in personal injury cases, the elimination of double recovery of attorney’s fees, and significant reforms for third-party litigation funding.

When it comes to litigation funding, the legislation seeks change in the following areas:
Prohibiting “hostile foreign adversaries” from funding litigation to obtain trade secrets or advance their own political interests.
Preventing litigation funders from “having any input into the litigation strategy or from taking the plaintiff’s whole recovery”.
Increasing transparency around the involvement of litigation funders for all parties involved in litigation.

In the announcement of the tort reform package, Governor Kemp provided the following comment:

“As I said in my State of the State address earlier this month, our legal environment is draining family bank accounts and hurting job creators of all sizes in nearly every industry in our state.

After months of listening to our citizens, businesses, and stakeholders across the spectrum, it is clear the status quo is unacceptable, unsustainable, and jeopardizes our state's prosperity in the years to come. This tort reform package protects the rights of all Georgians to have access to our civil justice system, and ensures that those who have been wronged receive justice and are made whole. I look forward to working with our partners in the General Assembly to pass this comprehensive and commonsense package, and achieve meaningful progress on this important issue during this legislative session.”

Commercial Deals

By Harry Moran | January 30, 2025

Due to the naturally confidential nature of matters involved in legal funding, it is no surprise that outside observers rarely get a detailed view of the successes and failures of individual litigation funders. However, for those publicly listed funders, we are afforded regular glimpses into the financial workings of their investments.

In a trading update published by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), the litigation funder shared some details on their performance in the first half of the 2025 financial year, covering the six months up to 31 December 2024. LCM revealed that during this period they had achieved four case wins and incurred three case losses, with the result being an aggregate multiple of invested capital (MOIC) of 3.7x on realisations.

Among these four case wins, LCM reported that one of these was a successful international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland, whilst the losses included a trial loss in the Queensland Electricity case. LCM also revealed that during the first half of FY25, there were A$25 million in new commitments compared to A$90 million in H1 FY24. The funder explained that “while the period saw fewer quality opportunities meeting our rigorous investment criteria”, this was to be expected as part of the usual “ebb and flow of opportunities”.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM , provided the following comment on the results:

“While the first half of FY25 has been a period of mixed results, we are pleased with the strong realisations achieved and the ongoing progress of our portfolio. The high multiple on invested capital reflects the value we continue to generate from our disciplined approach to dispute financing. We remain confident in our ability to deploy capital effectively and to deliver attractive returns for our stakeholders as we move into the second half of the financial year.”

More details can be found in the full trading update.

Commercial Fundraising

By Harry Moran | January 30, 2025

As LFJ reported in October 2024, Fortress Investment Group has established itself as one of the global leaders in litigation finance, committing billions in investment in both legal and intellectual property assets. New reporting suggests that the global investment giant is not slowing down in the sector, with the company making moves towards another fund focused on legal assets.

An article from Bloomberg News, and republished by Insurance Journal, provides exclusive insight into the activities of Fortress Investment Group, who are undertaking a $1 billion capital raise for its new litigation finance fund. This latest fund focused on legal funding, reportedly named Fortress Legal Assets Fund II, sees the investment management company seeking to more than double the size of its previous litigation finance fund.

According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Legal Assets Fund II will be targeting investments across the legal funding market, with a goal of achieving 16% net returns. The article also reveals that Jack Neumark and Joseph Dunn, who serve as the co-CIOs of Legal Assets for Fortress, have already approached investors earlier this month. More information on Fortress’ approach to investing in legal assets can be found in an interview with Neumark and Dunn, released on the company’s website in May of last year.

Fortress declined to provide a comment in response to Bloomberg’s reporting.

Public

Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Next Wave of AI: What’s Really Coming in 2025

By Pete Hanlon | January 29, 2025

The following post was contributed by Pete Hanlon, Chief Technology Officer of Moneypenny.

As CTO of Moneypenny, the leading outsourced communications company, Pete Hanlon brings a unique perspective to the transformative technology trends set to shape 2025 for lawyers. From advancements in AI to the realities of integration and regulation, he foresees pivotal changes that could redefine the legal profession and beyond.

Here’s a deep dive into what lies ahead—not just the obvious shifts, but the deeper changes that could impact how lawyers work,.

Open Source Is Coming for the Crown

The most exciting battle in AI isn’t unfolding in corporate labs, it’s happening in the open source community. They’re catching up fast, and were starting to see open source models going head to head with industry leaders such as OpenAI o1 and Claud-Sonnet-3.5. This isn’t just about matching performance metrics. It’s about making AI accessible to both large and small law firms that have been held back by data privacy concerns, opening doors for firms that have struggled to leverage this technology. The result? A new era where AI is democratized, accessible to all, and no longer controlled by closed source businesses.

Forget AI Replacing Lawyers – Think AI as Your Digital Colleague

Remember when everyone thought AI would replace many law firm jobs overnight? That’s not how it’s playing out. Instead, we’re witnessing the emergence of hybrid teams where AI takes on the repetitive tasks, leaving people free to handle more complex challenges. It’s less about replacing jobs and more about using AI to super power people and using data to enable smarter decision making. Moneypenny, for example, delivers outsourced communication solutions that blend the efficiency of AI with the personal touch of real people. This balanced approach boosts productivity and enhances customer satisfaction.

Integration: The Real Challenge Nobody's Talking About

Here's where things get interesting and complicated. The next phase isn’t about building brand new AI systems, for lawyers it’s about weaving them seamlessly into existing business processes, work flows and infrastructure. Picture CRM systems that can predict what customers need, knowledge bases that update themselves, conversations that flow naturally between voice and text, and customer support that breaks language barriers. We understand the importance of seamless integration, and at Moneypenny, we’re fully embracing it helping legal teams embed AI powered systems into their infrastructure seamlessly .

Industry Specific Models: Tailored AI for Specialized Needs

We’re entering an era of industry specific LLMs tailored for the legal field. These models will come pre loaded with domain-specific knowledge, enabling firms to deploy AI that understands their unique requirements, language, and regulatory needs. In finance, LLMs could support compliance and offer investment insights. In law, they could streamline contract review and case law analysis. These specialized models will allow companies to quickly implement AI that’s relevant, compliant, and impactful in their field.

The Reality Check Is Coming

Some firms may soon realize they've taken on more than they can handle with AI adoption, facing a range of unexpected challenges. Many will struggle with complex integration issues as they attempt to launch AI initiatives within existing systems. Additionally, there may be difficulties in managing the high expectations around AI’s capabilities, as reality often falls short of the hype surrounding its potential.

Regulation: The Elephant in the Room

Law firms should prepare for the growing impact of AI regulations, particularly in customer facing applications. Forward thinking organizations are already taking steps to build transparency into their AI systems, overhauling data governance practices to ensure accountability. They are creating detailed audit trails to track AI decision making and making sure that their systems are both fair and accessible. These proactive measures not only help them stay compliant but also foster trust with their customers.

What This Means for lawyers

The next year won't just be about AI getting better – it'll be about AI getting smarter about how it fits into our existing world. Success won't come from blindly adopting every new AI tool. It'll come from carefully choosing where AI can genuinely improve how lawyers work.

The winners won't be the companies with the most advanced AI. They'll be the ones who figure out how to blend AI and human capabilities in ways that make sense for their business and their customers. Yes, we'll see AI continuing to be more accessible and capable. But the real story will be about how lawyers learn to use it wisely. After all, technology is just a tool – it's how the legal profession use it that matters.

Public

Case Developments Commercial

Montero Agrees to Distribution of US$27 Million Settlement from Tanzania

By Harry Moran | January 28, 2025

Montero Mining and Exploration Ltd. (TSX-V: MON) (“Montero” or the “Company”) announces that it has finalised the distribution of the US$27,000,000 settlement with its litigation funders, Omni Bridgeway (Canada). The settlement amount was agreed with the United Republic of Tanzania (“Tanzania”) in the dispute over the expropriation of Montero’s Wigu Hill rare earth element project (“Wigu Hill”).

The settlement amount of US$27,000,000 is payable over three instalments, and is to be distributed as follows:

First payment: US$12,000,000 received on November 20, 2024, and distributed between Montero and Omni Bridgeway (Canada), the Company’s litigation funder.
Second payment: US$8,000,000 due by January 31, 2025, to be distributed to Montero and to pay all legal fees.
Third payment: US$7,000,000 due by February 28, 2025, to be distributed entirely to Montero.

After paying funders and legal costs, the net amount due to Montero will be approximately C$20,577,545 (US$14,458,138).

Dr Tony Harwood, President and CEO of Montero commented: “I am pleased Montero successfully achieved an amicable distribution of proceeds of over C$20,000,000. We wish Tanzania success in attracting new mining investments and look forward to receiving the final two payments due within the next 5 weeks. Further notice of payments received will be forthcoming.”

ICSID Arbitration

Montero and Tanzania jointly requested the arbitral tribunal to suspend the ICSID arbitration proceedings after receiving the first payment. Upon receipt of the final payment as scheduled, the parties will formally request the tribunal to discontinue the ICSID arbitration in its entirety.

Distribution of Funds

Montero is considering a return of capital distribution to shareholders. The exact amount is yet to be determined and will be subject to accounting review and board approval. In addition, Montero will retain funds to cover legal, taxation, and administrative expenses, including potential costs for arbitral proceedings, or enforcement actions in the event of delays or non-payment of the second or third instalments. The latter will now be the sole responsibility of Montero. The net amount of the award after deducting payments to the funder and covering legal expenses, cannot be determined with certainty, and no guarantees can be provided. Further announcements will be made in due course.

Disclaimer

The conclusion of the ICSID arbitration and payment of the remaining instalments is conditional on Tanzania’s compliance with the settlement agreement. The agreement does not provide for any security for the benefit of Montero in case Tanzania would not pay any instalment, in which case Montero can either resume the ICSID arbitration or seek enforcement of the settlement agreement.

About Montero

Montero has agreed to a US$27,000,000 settlement amount to end its dispute with the United Republic of Tanzania for the expropriation of the Wigu Hill rare earth element project. The Company is also advancing the Avispa copper-molybdenum project in Chile and is seeking a joint venture partner. Montero’s board of directors and management have an impressive track record of successfully discovering and advancing precious metal and copper projects. Montero trades on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol MON and has 50,122,975 shares outstanding.

Commercial People Moves

By Harry Moran | January 28, 2025

Thomas Jones announced that he has joined TRGP Capital as a Managing Director. Prior to his arrival at TRGP, Jones served as Managing Director at Legis Finance, a lawyers merchant bank providing litigation finance and risk mitigation solutions to law firms.

In a post on LinkedIn, Jones expressed excitement at taking on this new role: “In this new role, I'll be leveraging my experience to contribute to TRGP's mission of providing strategic litigation funding solutions in the UK, Europe and the US. I'm looking forward to working with the talented team at TRGP Capital and helping to drive innovation in the litigation finance industry.”

Jones also brings a wealth of experience in the legal industry, having spent over 15 years at Allen & Overy as a partner, as well as another year as a partner at King & Spalding.

Founded in 2015 by Michael Rozen, TRGP Capital has become an established name among US litigation funders, having since expanded to offer a diverse array of legal funding services across multiple jurisdictions.

Public

Commercial Deals

Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

By Harry Moran | January 28, 2025

Turnmill Limited, a leading global operator of large-scale events for the financial services sector, is pleased to announce the acquisition of a majority stake in Dealmakers Forums LLC, a premier organizer of high-level events in the legal, finance, and technology industries, based in Brooklyn, New York. This strategic acquisition marks the third company to join Turnmill's expanding portfolio, which also includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets and Completely Events, reinforcing Turnmill's commitment to facilitating deal flow and connectivity across complex markets.

Dealmakers Forums is renowned for curating high-impact events that bring together senior executives and thought leaders to foster connections, share insights, and drive deal flow. Their flagship events — LF Dealmakers, the premier conference for litigation finance, and IP Dealmakers, the leading forum for intellectual property transactions — are indispensable to industry insiders and recognized for exceptional content, top-tier speakers, and highly effective one-to-one meetings.

Alex Johnson, Group CEO of Turnmill Limited, commented: "We are thrilled to welcome Dealmakers Forums into the Turnmill family. Their deep sector knowledge and expertise in creating impactful events complements our mission to support deal flow progression by bringing entire market ecosystems together. This acquisition enables us to broaden our reach within financial services to the legal and technology sectors, enhancing the value we provide to our clients and stakeholders."

“Partnering with Turnmill is a transformative opportunity to amplify our impact and expand our global reach,” said Wendy Chou, founder and CEO of Dealmakers Forums LLC. “By uniting our expertise and shared dedication to excellence, we can elevate our event offerings, enhance the value we deliver to our participants, and create even stronger, more meaningful connections across industries globally.”

Adam Lewis, Partner at Horizon Capital, stated: "We are excited to continue to support Turnmill with this strategic acquisition. We believe this partnership will accelerate Turnmill's growth trajectory and further establish its position as a leading operator of large-scale marketplace events."

This acquisition underscores Turnmill's dedication to expanding its global footprint and diversifying its portfolio to serve a broader range of sectors and geographies within the financial services industry. By integrating Dealmakers Forums' expertise and established events, Turnmill aims to enhance its ability to facilitate high-level meetings and support deal flow progression across greater sub-sectors within global finance.

About Turnmill Limited: Turnmill Limited is a leading operator of large-scale events and services that support deal flow progression by curating entire market ecosystems and facilitating high-level meetings tailored to the financial services sector. Backed by Horizon Capital, Turnmill is established as a leading player, experiencing strong growth across its events portfolio in London, Dubai, Cape Town, Miami, Istanbul, and Riyadh. Turnmill's portfolio includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets, which produces finance and investment conferences bringing together corporates, finance professionals, and investors, and Completely Events, known for organizing the UK's leading retail property events.

About Dealmakers Forums LLC: Dealmakers Forums curates impactful event experiences for senior executives in the legal, finance, and technology industries. Renowned for its unwavering commitment to quality, Dealmakers Forums stand out with a results-driven approach that prioritizes one-to-one meetings and meaningful networking. By combining expertly crafted content, top-tier speakers, and a focus on building valuable connections, Dealmakers Forums delivers actionable insights and drives real business outcomes. Its flagship events include LF Dealmakers and IP Dealmakers.

About Horizon Capital: Horizon Capital is a private equity investor specialising in technology and business services. The firm was established by senior investment professionals who identified a significant market opportunity to invest in businesses in these sectors valued up to £100m. The partnership prides itself on its approach to helping business owners and managers realise their ambitions. Buy and build is at the heart of every Horizon Capital investment and the firm is a market leader in supporting companies pursuing this strategy. Horizon Capital has a proven track record in generating premium returns on investments. The unprecedented growth it delivers in its portfolio companies has been underpinned by deep and long-term investor relationships that span across two decades.

Public

Announcements Commercial Deals

Arena Investors, LP and Fort Morgan Capital Partner to Launch $50 Million Litigation Finance Venture

By Harry Moran | January 27, 2025

Arena Investors, LP ("Arena") and Fort Morgan Capital, a subsidiary of SimpleCITI Companies ("SimpleCITI"), are proud to announce the launch of a $50 million joint venture ("JV") focused on providing law firm finance solutions for US law firms. Targeting growth financing between $1 million to $15 million, the JV will offer capital secured by the value of a law firm's aggregate legal assets (cases). Patrick Shannon will lead JV operations with a focus on diligence, underwriting, servicing, and originations.

About the Joint Venture

The JV has already started deploying capital, with the goal of delivering $50 million in tailored financing solutions. Capital will be utilized to navigate growth by scaling operational infrastructure and investments in marketing. This comprehensive approach ensures that law firms can focus on achieving successful outcomes without the financial strain of upfront costs.

Arena has a long history in legal asset investments, including its principals having helped build some of the earlier litigation finance platforms dating back to the late 1990s. SimpleCITI builds on a proven track record of leadership and innovation across diverse industries, establishing itself as a trusted partner in solving complex financial challenges. Together, Arena and SimpleCITI leverage their unparalleled expertise to redefine client-focused solutions in litigation finance."

Strategic Collaboration

Arena Managing Director, Victor Dupont, noted that "Arena is very excited to expand and build upon our nearly decade-long relationship and successful track record with Patrick in this new joint venture. Fort Morgan Capital will serve a critical role in working with select legal practices and market participants in navigating liquidity challenges amid this fluctuating market, while also promoting sustainable operational and marketing growth."

"This JV represents a strategic milestone for Fort Morgan Capital," said a SimpleCITI spokesperson. "By partnering with Arena, we're unlocking new opportunities for law firms to grow sustainably while maintaining financial stability. This venture underscores our commitment to innovation and value creation in the litigation finance space."

Pat Shannon added, "Our focus on episodic opportunities within litigation finance aligns perfectly with this venture. Together, we are delivering a scalable platform that empowers law firms to thrive in a competitive landscape."

About Arena Investors, LP:

Arena Investors, a subsidiary of Arena Investor Group holdings, is an institutional asset manager founded in partnership with The Westaim Corporation (TSXV: WED). With approximately $3.5 billion of invested and committed assets under management as of December 31, 2024, and a team of over 180 employees in offices globally, Arena provides creative solutions for those seeking capital across all corporate, real estate, and structured finance investment areas, at all levels of the capital structure, and in all developed markets, alongside operational capabilities to manage and improve businesses. The firm brings individuals with decades of experience, a track record of comfort with complexity, the ability to deliver within time constraints, and the flexibility to engage in transactions and business operations that cannot be addressed by banks and other conventional financial institutions. See www.arenaco.com for more information.

About SimpleCITI Companies:

SimpleCITI Companies is an operational-first platform specializing in real estate (SimpleEQUITIES), litigation finance (Fort Morgan), and fiduciary advisory services (SimpleADVISORY). The firm provides institutional-grade solutions across sophisticated markets. Fort Morgan, the litigation finance division, offers innovative funding solutions for law firms, blending conservative valuation with operational expertise. SimpleADVISORY ensures disciplined underwriting and compliance to support Fort Morgan's strategic initiatives.

About Pat Shannon:

Pat Shannon brings extensive industry expertise, previously serving as Chief Operating Officer at Mustang Litigation Funding, a platform renowned for its proficiency across diverse litigation finance disciplines. With a focus on episodic and idiosyncratic opportunities in niche sub-sectors, Pat leads the JV's diligence, underwriting, and origination efforts.

Public

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jeffrey Stern, Partner, Reed Smith

By John Freund | January 23, 2025

Jeffrey Stern plays a leading role as partner in the Financial Industry Group resident in Reed Smith's New York office. With more than 30 years’ experience in structured finance and derivatives, Jeffrey brings a deep commercial sensibility to his practice.

He has completed securitizations, structured credit facilities, and derivatives/structured products transactions involving an exceptionally wide range of esoteric (and mature) asset types. His practice includes CLOs (including private CLOs), CFOs, and rated feeders, litigation pre-settlement funding, consumer loan finance, equipment lease finance, music royalty finance, financing and securitization of insurance-related assets (including life settlements and broker commissions), and specialty finance. Additionally, Jeffrey has worked in Latin America and the Caribbean for nearly 20 years, focusing on cross-border assets and cash flow financings.

Company Name and Description: Reed Smith is a dynamic international law firm dedicated to helping clients move their businesses forward. With an inclusive culture and innovative mindset, they deliver smarter, more creative legal services that drive better outcomes for clients. Their deep industry knowledge, long-standing relationships and collaborative structure make them the go-to partner for complex disputes, transactions, and regulatory matters.

Company Website: https://www.reedsmith.com/en

Founded: Pittsburgh in 1877

Headquarters: New York

Areas of Focus: Finance, Structured Finance, Financial Services, Collateralized Loan Obligations, Latin America

Member Quote: “The field of litigation pre-settlement funding (and litigation funding generally) is an increasingly important category, and a particular area of innovation in documentation and structuring, within the esoteric structured finance market. As a result, it has become an area of real focus for the Reed Smith structured finance team.”

Commercial Regulatory Issues

By Harry Moran | January 23, 2025

Legal funding has never before achieved such widespread adoption and acceptance within the legal industry, whilst simultaneously attracting increasingly vociferous opposition from those who wish to see limitations on its influence enforced.

In its latest Quarterly Focus, Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) looks at the prospects for the third-party litigation funding market in the year ahead, highlighting both the tremendous progress the industry has made and the persistent critics who continue to call for enhanced regulations. In the article, CDR garners insights into what the coming year may hold from senior executives at some of the largest litigation funders, as well as those working with funders at law firms and consultancies.

The established and accepted position of legal funding is a key talking point with funders, as Burford Capital’s David Perla emphatically states that “legal finance is mainstream”, whilst William Marra from Certum Group points out that after many years of educating and raising awareness, “litigation funding is integral to the business models of many and maybe even most law firms.”

Despite the achievement of becoming a mainstream feature of the legal services industry, critics of third-party funding have not relented in their vocal opposition to its use, and if anything, have turning up the heat on lawmakers to introduce restrictions. Boris Ziser, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, offers the straightforward rebuttal to these critics that he doesn’t “see how anyone can argue with the fact that litigation funding increases access to justice.”

Similarly, Avenue 33’s CEO, Rebecca Berrebi points out that the most prominent critique of third-party funding, the US Chamber of Commerce cannot be considered an unbiased observer as it “is funded by the big defendants in many of the cases that are funded”.Additional analysis from these top executives on the various legislative efforts to restrict legal funding, and the role of the courts, can be found in the CDR article.

Commercial Legal Innovation

By Harry Moran | January 23, 2025

As litigation funders strive to forge closer relationships with lawyers, one benefit for all participants in the legal industry is the opportunity to share best practices.

In an article for Today’s General Counsel, Jeffery Lula, principal at litigation funder GLS Capital, suggests that in-house legal departments and GCs should adopt the litigation valuation approach used by litigation funders. Lula argues that in-house counsel “often take an ad hoc approach to valuation—which can lead to biased or imprecise evaluations”, whilst funders’ very longevity is tied to their ability to repeatedly evaluate lawsuits accurately. As a broad framework for litigation valuation, Lula highlights four key components that should be assessed: legal merits, damages, duration and collectability.

On the legal merits of any individual case, Lula suggests adding a level of ‘qualitative rigor’ by evaluating the probability of success for each significant milestone of the litigation, such as the probability of losing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. When it comes to assessing the scale of possible damages, Lula emphasizes that ‘damages are not created equal’, and that ‘this nuance regarding the certainty of damages is key to valuing a case.’

Whilst Lula acknowledges that the duration of a lawsuit is often hard to predict, he does point a particular spotlight on the scheduling order for courts, and the importance of understanding ‘whether the current scheduling order is likely to change.’ Lula closes his piece by noting that of all these components, collectability often receives less focus than others, and that it is of utmost importance for ‘in-house counsel to inquire whether the defendant entity is expendable.’

Commercial Deals

By Harry Moran | January 23, 2025

As we approach the end of the first month of 2025, one trend that is beginning to develop is the launch of combined legal services outfits. Following the launch of Legatus Holdings Limited earlier this month, another strategic venture has been announced that sees funding, legal representation, and insurance combined under one roof.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the announcement from litigation funder Heirloom Fair Legal, that it is launching a ‘one-stop shop’ for legal representation, disbursement funding, after-the-event insurance and adjudication. To achieve this strategic expansion, Heirloom has acquired Hayes Connor Solicitors, whilst also launching its own law firm, HFL Law. This in-house law firm already boasts 28 employees, with a view to further expansion, whilst Hayes Connor will retain its own branding and offices under the new umbrella group, with the addition of capital and back-office support from Heirloom.

Heirloom was founded in 2022 by Canadian husband-and-wife entrepreneur Geoff Dover and Beth Hirshfeld, and has reportedly provided more than £25m of funding to law firms since its inception. Dover, who will assume the role of managing director for HFL Law, said that “the current claims market demonstrates a lack of efficiency, misalignment and a high degree of complexity”, and emphasised that this new approach can provide “a better way”.

David Thompson, director at Hayes Connor, provided the following comment on the law firm’s acquisition: “This is the beginning of an exciting new phase for Hayes Connor. The support and infrastructure of Heirloom Fair Legal means that we can focus on implementing our strategic plans, while helping them to develop their dynamic model for consumer claims.”

In the press release announcing the venture on Heirloom Fair Legal’s website, the company states that it “will continue to provide bespoke funding solutions to law firms and their clients and has plans to make its after-the-event insurance available to other law firms in 2025.”

Public

Announcements Consumer

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding Reports Updates to Zantac Lawsuits

By Harry Moran | January 21, 2025

Legal-Bay LLC, a leading pre settlement funding company, reports that November's $2.2 billion ruling against GlaxoSmithKline has still not been distributed to 80,000+ Zantac plaintiffs. The UK-based pharmaceutical company has been the target of numerous lawsuits for the past five years with plaintiffs alleging the popular heartburn medication causes cancer, and that the company failed to warn users that its main ingredient—ranitidine—may be a human carcinogen.

Testing last month determined how such dangerous levels of ranitidine ended up in the antacid product. As it turns out, impurities in the NDMA found in ranitidine increase when exposed to higher temps and humid conditions. Meaning that the Zantac may have been manufactured correctly, but when it was stored in a damp bathroom or glove compartment of a car, users themselves may have unwittingly triggered the very agent that caused their cancer.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, "GSK felt it was in the company's best interest to settle the lawsuits in order to appease shareholders rather than draw out litigation endlessly, especially considering they have been able to do so while providing no admission of liability. While we don't have an exact timeline for when payouts are expected to begin, we are nonetheless offering funding for Zantac plaintiffs while they wait."

To apply for a cash advance lawsuit loan from your anticipated GSK Zantac lawsuit settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405.

There is no way to estimate final settlement amounts or how much each plaintiff's case will be worth. Similar case values have been determined based on extent/amount of injuries along with the level of merit to the case. Each case is unique, and many factors go into deciding final damages. For the Zantac lawsuit payouts, plaintiffs will fall into one of three tiers:

Tier I:

Tier 1 injuries can expect payouts in the $300,000 range. Injuries in this tier include cancers of the stomach, prostate, pancreas, or breast.

Tier II:

Tier 2 injuries can expect payouts between $80,000 and 160,000 in most cases. Injuries in this tier include cancers of the major organs like bladder, kidney, or liver.

Tier III:

Tier 3 injuries are looking at payouts anywhere between $20,000 and $60,000. Injuries in this tier vary greatly, but to a lesser extent than Tier I or II.

The verdicts in these lawsuits are wildly inconsistent and entirely unpredictable, and Legal Bay says there are no guarantees of award amounts nor time frames for payouts just based on the sheer number of claims to process. Nevertheless, Legal-Bay is one of the few legal funding companies who are providing some financial relief to Zantac lawsuit plaintiffs and their families with risk-free, non-recourse cash advance settlement loans. They have been a leader in the mass tort and Qui Tam arena for over fifteen years and have vast experience within this space. These litigations are complex, and Legal Bay has the knowledge and understanding to help plaintiffs navigate the complicated waters of the legal system.

If you're a plaintiff in an active GSK Zantac lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance from your anticipated settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit loan companies when it comes to mass tort and Qui Tam litigations, and has a great reputation within the industry. Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all types of class action and mass tort lawsuits, including: Round Up, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Essure, Exactech hip and knee recall, Sex Abuse cases, JUUL, and more.

Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all other types of lawsuits including personal injury, dog bites, motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, police brutality, unlawful incarceration, workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, and more.

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

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

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

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 21, 2025

Whilst last week saw a flurry of activity in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as trials began in multiple collective proceedings, this week has seen the Tribunal hand down a ruling in a carriage dispute between two claims both targeting Amazon for allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.

A press release from Geradin Partners highlights the judgment from the CAT in a carriage dispute, which saw the Tribunal find in favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in collective proceedings being brought against Amazon. The carriage dispute related to the parallel claims brought by Professor Stephan and by the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA), over allegations that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed third-party sellers on the online marketplace. Professor Stephan’s proceedings had instructed Geradin Partners and secured litigation funding from Innsworth, whilst BIRA had instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher and agreed to funding from Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

In its ruling, the CAT found that whilst BIRA had an advantage in its suitability to act as the class representative, “this was clearly outweighed by the factors which favour Prof Stephan”, which it identified as “the scope of the claims and the expert methodology.” Although the CAT highlighted that the breadth of Professor Stephan’s claims “would no doubt enlarge the scope of a trial and therefore make it more complicated”, the ruling cited case law in emphasising that his claims “more consistent with the goals of access to justice by capturing more viable claims”.

The published judgment also shed light on the details of the funding arrangements in the claims. Professor Stephan’s litigation funding agreement (LFA) with Innsworth committed a maximum of £32.9 million to cover costs and expenses, with an additional commitment “to pay adverse costs of £5 million until the grant or refusal of a CPO and of £20 million thereafter.” As to the returns outlined in the funding agreement, Professor Stephan’s LFA with Innsworth “provides for a total multiple rising from 4 up to 10 (if the recovery is after the commencement of the substantive trial).” The CAT noted that the returns from Professor Stephan’s LFA were higher than for the funder in the BIRA claim, in the conclusion of its examination the Tribunal noted that “the funding arrangements of the two applications are a neutral factor in choosing between them.”

The CAT’s full judgment in the carriage dispute can be read here.

Additional analysis of the CAT’s ruling and its implications for future carriage disputes for funded proceedings can be found in a LinkedIn post from Matthew Lo, director at Exton Advisors.

Commercial People Moves

By Harry Moran | January 21, 2025

Ayse Yazir has started a new position as Managing Director at Bench Walk Advisors. This latest promotion comes in the seventh year of Yazir’s tenure at the market-leading litigation funder, having joined the firm in 2018 as a Vice President and most recently having served as Global Head of Origination.

In a post on LinkedIn, Yazir reveals that her work at Bench Walk Advisors incorporates a wide range of matters across the litigation funding industry including international and commercial arbitration, insolvency, class actions and global litigation matters as well as law firm and corporate portfolio arrangements and defense funding.

Yazir also expressed her delight at starting the new role and thanked her fellow Bench Walk Advisors’ managing directors Stuart Grant and Adrian Chopin for the opportunity.

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 21, 2025

As we enter yet another year in the story of the $16.1 billion award in the case funded by Burford Capital against the YPF oil and gas company, a US judge has ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information about the country’s financial assets to the funder as part of its efforts to collect on the award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald provides an update on the ongoing fight to recover the $16.1 billion award in the YPF lawsuit, as a New York judge ordered Argentina to comply with a discovery request for information around the Argentine Central Bank’s gold reserves. The order handed down by Judge Loretta Preska followed the request made by Burford Capital in October of last year, with the litigation funder citing media reports that Argentina’s Central Bank had moved a portion of its gold reserves overseas.

Lawyers for Argentina’s government had submitted a letter last week arguing against the discovery request on the grounds that the Argentine Republic and Central Bank are legally separate entities, and that any such gold reserves have “special protection from execution under [United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] and UK law.” Responding to these arguments in her order, Judge Preska stated plainly that “regardless of whether the gold reserves are held by [the Central Bank], the Republic shall produce its own documents concerning the reserves.”

Judge Preska also ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information concerning its SWIFT data on its overseas accounts and for documents from another lawsuit brought against the Republic, saying that all this information could “lead to other executable assets.”

Public

Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

Latest Burford Quarterly Explores Key Trends Driving Innovation in Commercial Disputes in 2025

By Harry Moran | January 21, 2025

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases its latest Burford Quarterly, a journal of legal finance that explores top trends at the nexus of law and finance.

This Burford Quarterly examines the innovative ways in which businesses and law firms are reimagining their financial strategies around commercial disputes. Examples of this include law firms using creative billing structures as alternatives to hourly fees; companies choosing to opt out of litigation to maximize and accelerate recoveries; or businesses monetizing IP assets, allowing for continued investment in other vital areas of the business.

Articles in the Burford Quarterly No.1 2025 include:

The innovation engine: Legal finance for forward-thinking law firms

As law firms launch into 2025, a year that promises continued disruption and opportunity, innovation is not a choice—it's an imperative. Forward-thinking firms are reimagining their financial strategies, moving beyond traditional models to embrace legal finance as a critical tool for transformation. In this article, Travis Lenkner and Emily Slater explore innovative ways legal finance is helping firms solve pressing challenges and accelerate growth.

Healthcare antitrust opt-outs: Improving liquidity by monetizing valuable legal claims

An increasing number of healthcare businesses are recognizing the value that legal finance provides in helping to mitigate the financial strain of high-cost litigation and expedite recoveries in high-stakes litigation. Ahead of a March 2025 opt-out deadline for claimants in the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) antitrust class actions, Charles Griffin summarizes insights from a recent webcast in which experts from Burford and Paul Hastings presented factors hospital networks and providers should consider in weighing their options.

Legal finance and life sciences: Unlocking IP potential in pharma, biotech and medical devices

Innovation in Europe's life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors is vital, but long R&D cycles and short profit windows pose challenges. Joshua Harris explains how legal finance helps companies protect and monetize IP assets, enabling continued investment in life-saving technologies.

International arbitration in London: Next-Gen leaders' perspective

Geoff Nicholas, Christiane Deniger and James MacKinnon lead a Burford roundtable with London-based arbitration lawyers. Partners from A&O Shearman, Debevoise & Plimpton, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and Freshfields share their insights on key trends and challenges shaping international arbitration, including the use of technology and AI and arbitral efficiency.

Aviva Will, President of Burford Capital, says: "While the legal industry may be slow to evolve, legal finance is a powerful tool to drive innovation in the business of law. This issue of the Burford Quarterly highlights key trends in commercial litigation and arbitration in 2025 and shows how litigation funding continues to shape the legal industry. By providing capital and mitigating risk, funding removes barriers for businesses and facilitates growth, and the latest Quarterly brings insights, analysis and real-world examples of tools to help business executives, GCs, CLOs and law firm attorneys recognize and harness the full potential of finance for law."

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 it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong.

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.

Public

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

By Harry Moran | January 17, 2025

As Founder and CEO of NRW Consulting, Noah brings his extensive experience in assessing and analyzing corporate misconduct in the financial markets, as well as his commitment to finding global litigation and shareholder engagement solutions to investors across the world. He has extensive experience advocating for global investors, promoting corporate governance and investor stewardship, and implementing strategies to achieve collective redress.

Noah splits his time between Philadelphia and London with a global remit where he strives to provide access to justice for global institutional investors (including financial institutions, superannuation schemes, asset managers and owners, and sovereign wealth and pension funds) and others via engagement and litigation strategies including global shareholder litigation (class/group, opt-out/direct, and opt-in), antitrust/competition/cartel litigation, complex financial litigation, global privacy/data breach litigation, and global patent litigation.

Most recently, Noah was Director of Global Collective Redress at Pogust Goodhead and immediately prior was Senior Manager, Collective Redress at Omni Bridgeway where he worked with global institutional investors to implement litigation funding strategies to aid in exercising their shareholder rights in seeking legal redress from publicly listed companies where an alleged wrongdoing had occurred.

Noah is a frequent speaker around the globe on the topic of shareholder legal redress, recovery, rights and responsibilities. He has also been a member of several leading global institutional investor organizations and currently serves on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law’s Global Class Action and Mass Torts Conference. He has also served on the International Corporate Governance Network’s (ICGN) Global Stewardship Committee and its former Shareholder Responsibilities Committee, the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute’s Event Advisory Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors’ Markets Advisory Council.

Company Name and Description: NRW Consulting supports, recommends, and creates pathways to recovery for global investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct, including securities fraud, market manipulation, and violations of global regulatory requirements.

Company Website: https://www.nrwconsultingllc.com

Year Founded: 2018

Headquarters: Consulting globally. Operating out of Philadelphia and London.

Area of Focus: When value erosion has been caused by corporate misconduct or fraud within an investee company, there are established and effective remedies for restitution. One of the most successful recourses is collective redress through group or class actions. Institutional investors have successfully used this option around the world to recover significant sums on behalf of beneficiaries.

With diverse global investor portfolios, institutional investors may need to consider class actions in multiple countries. Therefore, pursuing claims through class actions, direct actions, shareholder derivative actions, and/or funded group actions offers the opportunity to, on a de-risked basis: hold wrongdoers to account, influence corporate conduct and governance, or potentially institute corporate governance reform.

Noah also sits on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law. Perfect Law presents the annual Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference that takes place in London (https://www.perfectlaw.co.uk). The conference brings together a vertiable who’s who of the global collective redress community including judges, academics, practitioners, funders, industry providers and experts from all over the world to discuss, debate and learn from each other regarding the cases and issues of the day with the common goal of furthering access to justice.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding is a cornerstone of access to justice, allowing investors, consumers, individuals, organizations, and communities to seek legal recourse and exercise their right to pursue legitimate claims regardless of their financial circumstances. By enabling cases to proceed on their merits, it upholds fairness and accountability within the legal system, offering a powerful means to hold corporate wrongdoers to account."

Public

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Uliana Pak, Vice President of Growth, Torticity

By John Freund | January 16, 2025

Uliana is a seasoned professional known for bridging technology, data-driven insights, and strategic partnership development to streamline business operations and transform customer experiences. Across a dynamic career spanning institutional finance, digital advertising (IoT) and litigation technology, Uliana has consistently leveraged advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and user-centered design approaches to elevate organizational performance that focus on driving the long-term value proposition for the firms.

Company Name and Description: Torticity, LLC – Torticity is a comprehensive end-to-end suite of legal solutions tailored to the needs of law firms and legal industry participants. As a case workup platform, we specialize in handling large mass tort and personal injury case dockets at scale. Our unique value proposition as an outsourcing service provider is our robust suite of tech product offerings specifically designed around streamlining and expediting case processing for newly acquired cases, and evaluating progress on mid-stream case dockets.

Company Website: www.torticity.com

Year Founded: 2020

Headquarters: Boca Raton, FL

Area of Focus: As a VP of Growth at Torticity, she leads innovation initiatives aimed at business optimization through robust data aggregation, AI-powered analytics solutions, and enhanced client experience frameworks. Central to these efforts has been Uliana’s focus on driving transparency and standardization to the legal industry leaning on extensive assessment of case dockets to enable law firms, litigation funds and legal industry participants with better decision-making.

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 16, 2025

When looking for those jurisdiction most amenable to class actions supported by litigation funders, the Netherlands remains at the top of the list, as has been demonstrated once again today by a court’s approval of a privacy claim brought under the WAMCA regime.

An article on DutchNews covers the news that an Amsterdam court has approved the approach of a Dutch foundation to bring a claim against Google over allegations that the tech company violated the privacy of Android phone users. The court ruled that the Stichting Massaschade & Consument meets the admissibility requirements of the Act on Collective Damages in Class Actions (WAMCA). The court’s approval of the foundation’s structure and its involvement of a litigation funder means that the parties can now move forward with the class action which has reportedly registered over 100,000 consumers since 2023.

According to the foundation’s website, the class action is being financed by Eaton Hall Funding LLC, with the agreement allowing for the funder to receive 17.5% of the proceeds after costs, if the claim reaches a settlement or favourable ruling. Rubicon Impact & Litigation, an Amsterdam-based law firm, is providing legal representation for the claimants.

Frank Peters, co-founder and head of impact & litigation at Rubicon, emphasised the importance of working with a litigation funder on the case, stating that “you need very deep pockets to expose what Big Tech is trying to hide.” He explained that working with this funder, “our client was able to expose what information Google takes from Android phones, even when you are careful with your privacy settings”, and that the court’s ruling “makes clear that it is perfectly fine that class actions come about like this.”More information about the claim can be found on the foundation’s website.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

By Harry Moran | January 16, 2025

When it comes to funded class actions, most attention is paid to those proceedings underway in the UK, US and Australia. However, a recent ruling from New Zealand’s highest court has once again highlighted its position as a welcoming jurisdiction for funders and plaintiffs pursuing these group proceedings.

In an article on Lexology written by Nina Blomfield, James Caird, Jania Baigent, and Alice Poole from Simpson Grierson, these litigators analyse the impact of a recent decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court to reject a challenge to common fund orders (CFOs) in class actions. The ruling handed down at the end of 2024 saw the Supreme Court deny ANZ and ASB’s application for leave to appeal a lower court’s decision, which had reaffirmed the courts’ ability to allow CFOs to be made at an early stage of proceedings.

The origin of this appeal came from a 2022 High Court ruling, which confirmed the court had the jurisdiction to make a CFO in a class action but also ruled that it was too early to make a CFO prior to the conclusion of the stage 1 hearing. Two years later, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision on jurisdiction and went a step further in ruling that CFOs being made at an early stage of the litigation was beneficial in furthering access to justice.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found that both lower courts had ruled correctly, and when it came to the issue of timing re-emphasised the importance of access to justice. The justices highlighted the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that “access to justice is best achieved through a CFO being made as early as possible in a proceeding”, which in turn “gives the litigation funder a degree of assurance in relation to its return on its investment”.

The authors describe this decision as “a significant win for litigation funders and class action plaintiffs” and highlight the courts’ repeated “strong focus on access to justice in representative proceedings.”

The Supreme Court’s full judgment on the application for leave to appeal can be read here.

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 16, 2025

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has continued to dominate the legal funding headlines this week, as we have already seen two class actions commence at the Tribunal. However, a new judgment released yesterday provided an unexpected and disappointing result for another claim, as the Tribunal refused to certify the collective proceedings after raising concerns about whether the class representative “has the appropriate expertise and is supported by appropriate advice” to lead the claim.

Reporting by Reuters covers the decision by the CAT to deny certification for the collective proceedings brought by Professor Christine Riefa against Apple and Amazon, which alleged that the companies had colluded to remove resellers of Apple products and thereby inflate the prices of these products for consumers. The claim, which was valued at around £494 million, sought to represent a class size of over 36 million people, including any consumers who purchased Apple or Beats products from any retailer in the UK from 31 October 2018.

The decision to refuse the application for certification had its origins in the funding arrangements between Asertis and Hausfeld & Co to support the proceedings, and Prof Riefa’s ability as the Proposed Class Representative (PCR) to act in the interests of the class members balanced against the terms of the funding agreement.

The Tribunal’s judgment largely focused on the role of Prof Riefa as the PCR, and what they described as “considerable doubts about whether we could be satisfied that the PCR would fairly and adequately act in the interests of the class members, for the purposes of the authorisation condition.” The judgment provided a detailed account of the various iterations of the litigation funding agreement and the witness statements provided by the parties involved in the proceedings, with particular emphasis on Prof Riefa’s role as the PCR.

At the centre of the judgment, was the CAT’s view on whether Prof Riefa had satisfied the authorisation condition, finding that when it came to the funding arrangements, she did not “have a good understanding” of both the “terms being offered” and “the overall context in which it is being advised”. In their conclusion to their assessment on the authorisation condition, the Tribunal’s panel said that their “key concern in this case is that Prof Riefa has not demonstrated sufficient independence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests of the class.”

As to the further implications that this ruling might have on other collective proceedings, the Tribunal emphasised that they were neither “seeking to impose any specific conditions on the types of PCRs that are put forward”, nor were they “seeking to impose specific obligations on future PCRs as to the manner in which funding arrangements are negotiated.” However, the judgment made clear that the CAT’s primary concern “is for each PCR to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that it is suitably qualified to act for the class, and that the manner in which it has approached the funding arrangements reflects sufficient regard to the interests of the class members.” The judgment made clear that Prof Riefa had not demonstrated that she met those requirements in the application for the CPO.

More information about the case, Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others, can be found on the CAT’s website, with the full judgment available to read here

More information about the UK Apple and Amazon Claim can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 14, 2025

As LFJ reported yesterday, the start of 2025 has seen a flurry of activity at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), with two major class actions backed by litigation funders going to trial this week.

An article in City AM covers the start of the trial in the Car Delivery Charges class action at the CAT marking the first time that a follow-on cartel proceedings has gone to trial in the UK. The claim, which began in 2020, focuses on allegations that five shipping companies acted as a cartel between October 2006 and September 2012, raising the cost of shipping new vehicles to the UK and Europe. The trial against the two remaining defendants, MOL and NYK, follows the CAT’s approval of a settlement with CSAV in December 2023, and separate settlements with WWL/EUKOR and “K” Line in December 2024.

Mark McLaren, a former executive at consumer group Which?, is acting as the class representative on behalf of UK consumers and businesses who were overcharged for vehicle purchases. Scott+Scott has been instructed as the solicitors for the claim, with Woodsford providing the litigation funding for the class action. The counsel team for the trial includes Sarah Ford KC and Sarah O’Keefe from Brick Court Chambers, and Nicholas Gibson from Matrix Chambers.

Belinda Hollway, lead partner at Scott+Scott, emphasised that “this trial marks a very significant milestone in the case and is the culmination of five years of hard work and dedication.” Holloway also highlighted the CAT’s approval of the previous settlements in the case, which she argued “demonstrates the power of the UK opt out regime to secure compensation for class members”.

In a post on LinkedIn, Woodsford said that they are “proud to be supporting Mark McLaren in the landmark Car Delivery Charges class action trial”, and that they “remain committed to the consumers affected by the cartel with settlements, in respect of 3 out of the 5 cartelists, in excess of £38m having already been reached in the course of 2023 and 2024.”

The trial is provisionally expected to last for ten weeks, with the claimants seeking to achieve around £100 million in compensation from the two remaining defendants.

More information about the class action can be found on the Car Delivery Charges website.

Past orders, judgments, transcripts and notices in Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others can be found on the CAT’s website.

Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 14, 2025

Whilst the new year is now in full swing and industry leaders are fully focused on their strategic priorities for 2025, it is still an apt time to recognise the work and achievements of law firms and litigation funders across the previous year.

The inaugural Chambers UK Awards is set to be hosted in London on Thursday 13 February. Building upon the firm’s work highlighting the world’s top legal professionals through its guides, Chambers' first annual awards event will celebrate the top legal teams across the UK. The awards categories cover a range of practices, from commercial disputes to international arbitration, with only a select few firms shortlisted for each award.

As part of this inaugural awards ceremony, Chambers will be honouring the top litigation funders in the UK and has already announced the five funders who are shortlisted for this award:

Bench Walk Advisors
Harbour
Manolete Partners
Therium Capital Management
Woodsford

Those firms selected have already been recognised in the 2025 Chambers UK Guide, with the awards recognising each legal team for their outstanding legal work and achievements, impressive strategic growth and excellence in client service delivery. The awards are not exclusive to national law firms, with teams shortlisted in the ‘Regional Firm of the Year’ and ‘Scottish Firm of the Year’ categories.

The inaugural event is already sold out, but the full list of firms shortlisted across each category can be found on the Chambers website.

Harvey and LawPage, two legal tech companies, are sponsoring the event.

Public

Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

Rockpoint Legal Funding Highlights TrialBase’s Deposition Services as a Game-Changer for Legal Professionals

By Harry Moran | January 14, 2025

Rockpoint Legal Funding is excited to introduce their integration with TrialBase (TrialBase.com), a leader in certified deposition services and legal reporting solutions, as a valuable resource for legal professionals. Attorneys can now instantly apply for litigation funding from Rockpoint directly within Trialbase in order to cover deposition costs on their cases.

TrialBase's cutting-edge deposition management services are uniquely positioned to enhance the efficiency of legal teams, while Rockpoint Legal Funding continues to provide trusted non-recourse funding solutions that empower attorneys to focus on winning cases.

Why TrialBase is an Ideal Resource for Legal Professionals:

Legal professionals often face complex challenges, from managing intricate discovery processes to ensuring financial stability for their clients. Together, TrialBase and Rockpoint Legal Funding can address these issues through:

1. Streamlined Deposition Services:

TrialBase offers certified deposition management solutions through an integrated platform, helping legal teams save time and enhance case preparation.

2. Financial Stability for Clients:

Attorneys can use Rockpoint's litigation funding to cover deposition costs and to reduce financial stress - allowing attorneys to focus on their case strategies without unnecessary delays.

3. Secure Digital Workflow:

Both companies leverage secure, user-friendly platforms, enabling seamless, efficient support for legal professionals.

Case Developments Commercial

By Harry Moran | January 13, 2025

The influence of multinational technology companies has unsurprisingly made them targets for collective proceedings brought on behalf of consumers and businesses, who allege that their positions of market dominance have been leveraged to unfairly raise prices. In what is likely to be the first of many in the UK, a lawsuit brought against Apple has commenced at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

An article in Reuters covers the start of the trial in the UK Apple App Store claim, with the claimants seeking up to £1.5 billion in compensation for Apple’s alleged abuse of its market dominance in charging app developers a 30% commission on its digital store and thereby causing customers to be overcharged for their App Store purchases. The claim is representing UK consumers who purchased an app, content, services or subscriptions from the App Store since 1 October 2015 whilst using an iPhone or iPad device, with the class action reportedly representing around 20 million customers.

Dr Rachael Kent, a researcher and senior lecturer at King’s College London is acting as the class representative, with Hausfeld & Co. providing legal advice and Vannin Capital financing the class action. The trial is expected to continue for seven weeks and conclude on February 27, with the Tribunal’s ruling to follow at some point in the next year.

More information about the class action can be found on the UK Apple App Store Claim website.

Past orders, judgments, transcripts and notices in Dr. Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd can be found on the CAT’s website.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

John Freund's Posts

Key Takeaways from LFJs Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on the Middle East

Stephen Kyriacou Exits Aon

The Rise of Arbitral Awards as an Asset Class in Latin America

CJC Extends Deadline for Submissions to Litigation Funding Review

Georgia Governor Announces Tort Reform Package and New Litigation Funding Rules

LCM Releases Trading Update for First Half of 2025 Financial Year

Fortress Investment Group Seeking $1B for New Legal Assets Fund

The Next Wave of AI: What’s Really Coming in 2025

Montero Agrees to Distribution of US$27 Million Settlement from Tanzania

Thomas Jones Joins TRGP Capital as Managing Director

Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

Arena Investors, LP and Fort Morgan Capital Partner to Launch $50 Million Litigation Finance Venture

Community Spotlight: Jeffrey Stern, Partner, Reed Smith

Industry Leaders Share Views on the State of Third-Party Funding

A Funder’s Top Tips on Litigation Valuation for GCs

Heirloom Fair Legal Acquires Hayes Connor and Launches Law Firm

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding Reports Updates to Zantac Lawsuits

CAT Finds in Favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in Amazon Claims

Ayse Yazir Appointed Managing Director at Bench Walk Advisors

Judge Preska Orders Argentina to Comply with Burford Discovery Request

Latest Burford Quarterly Explores Key Trends Driving Innovation in Commercial Disputes in 2025

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

Community Spotlight: Uliana Pak, Vice President of Growth, Torticity

Amsterdam Court Approves Foundation in Privacy Class Action Against Google

New Zealand Supreme Court’s Ruling Affirms Importance of Access to Justice in Common Fund Orders

CAT Denies Certification for £494 Million Claim Brought Against Apple and Amazon

CAT Trial Underway for Shipping Cartel Class Action Funded by Woodsford

Five Funders Shortlisted for Inaugural Chambers UK Awards

Rockpoint Legal Funding Highlights TrialBase’s Deposition Services as a Game-Changer for Legal Professionals

CAT Trial Begins in Apple App Store Class Action Funded by Vannin Capital

Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts

Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!

Newsletter Signup Form