When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct by the law firm entrusted with a funder's financial resources.

An article in Reuters covers the approval of a settlement between MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates) and two litigation funders, which will see the bankrupt law firm sell more than 6,000 cases to repay debts owed to the funders. Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund had sued MMA in Texas state court, and under the new settlement will receive a minimum of $18 million from the sale of the cases. The settlement brings the dispute between the funders and law firm to a close, following years of court battles over MMA’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent.

The settlement, which was approved by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez, requires that 75% of the proceeds from the sales go to the two funders, with the remaining percentage of proceeds distributed to MMA’s other creditors. The $18 million figure set as a minimum return for the funders under the settlement is still significant below the nearly $38 million that they claim to be owed by MMA. The mass tort cases include claims related to pharmaceutical drug, a weed killer, and a baby formula.

The troubles facing MMA go back several years, with LFJ reporting back in 2023 on a petition lodged by the same two funders in a Louisiana court over MMA’s improper filing of claims on behalf of property owners who suffered damage to their properties from hurricanes. The law firm and its founder, Zach Moseley, were reported to be under investigation by the FBI over these filings of claims but there is currently no update as to the status of that investigation. 

The settlement also allows MMA and Moseley to continue working on other cases on its books, on the condition that the latter does not receive any form of salary increase or bonus before the funders have been repaid.

The prolonged duration of investor-state treaty disputes often means that updates on these claims are few and far between. However, the presence of litigation funding allows these claims to proceed at their own pace without the claimant being concerned over the significant financial resources needed to support these disputes. 

In an announcement released today, Panthera Resources Plc provided an update on the arbitration claim being brought by its subsidiary company, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL), against the Republic of India over the Bhukia project. The announcement revealed that IGPL has issued its Memorial to the arbitration tribunal, which includes a claim for damages totalling $1.58 billion. 

The filing of the memorial and statement of claim to the tribunal follows IGPL’s formal issuance of a Notice of Arbitration to India in July 2024, and the tribunal’s later order to file the memorial by 16 May 2025.

As LFJ previously reported in August 2023, Panthera Resources has secured litigation funding through LCM Funding, a subsidiary of Litigation Capital Management. The funding agreement provides for up to $13.6 million in financing to support the dispute through to a conclusion.

The claim being brought by IGPL centres on alleged breaches of the 199 Australia-India Bilateral Investment Treaty, claiming that the Government of Rajasthan ‘denied and frustrated’ IGPL’s right to be granted a prospecting license over the Bhukia mining project. Furthermore, IGPL’s claim alleges that it suffered a total loss of investment following the passing of new legislation in 2021 which amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 2015 and thereby revoked the preferential right to a prospecting license and mining lease.

One of the common talking points at industry events is the need for increased standardisation in legal funding, with a set of agreed upon best practices often viewed as an important step forward for the maturation of the industry.

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) announced that it has created and released a Template Insolvency Litigation Funding Agreement. AALF explains that the template is designed ‘to optimise efficiency for lawyers and insolvency practitioners involved in funded insolvency litigation’, providing a practical industry baseline for the use of such funding agreements in Australia. 

The ‘insolvency claim funding deed’ template as shown in the announcement offers a basic layout for the details of the funder, claimant, insolvency practitioner, and lawyers. The deed structure then outlines the following four key components that the deed will be comprised of: commercial terms, funding deed – general funding terms, definitions, and three annexures. The annexures include an insolvency practitioner’s report, a lawyer’s report, and a payment claim report for other funded costs.

AALF expressed its thanks to its members who contributed to the completion of this template with special thanks to the following individuals: Frances Dreyer (Johnson Winter Slattery), Doug Hayter (Ironbark Funding), Heather Collins GAICD (Court House Capital), Stuart Price (CASL), Lisa Brentnall (Clover Risk Funding), John Walker (CASL), Michelle Silvers (Court House Capital), and Kelly Trenfield (FTI Consulting).

The template can be viewed here, and AALF encourages any parties interested in using this resource to contact them.

Alexander Wolfson, a highly experienced barrister of more than 25 years standing, has issued an opt-out class action claim against software giant Microsoft. He is issuing the claim on behalf of all UK-domiciled natural and legal persons (including public bodies) that purchased licences for certain specified Microsoft software products (including Microsoft Office and Windows). 

The claims allege that the software giant abused its market dominance and engaged in conduct that restricted competition to its new licences from pre-owned licences for Microsoft products. That conduct affected and inflated the prices of both new licences and pre-owned licences. 

The claim is one of the most significant class action cases currently underway in the UK, with a potential value reaching into the billions. 

Wolfson has retained the services of the Head of Competition at Stewarts, Kate Pollock, alongside partners Stuart Carson and Marc Jones (and others), and is instructing Counsel teams at both Monckton and Matrix Chambers, together with a team of experts to provide testimony on the economics of the case. The claim is funded by Harbour. 

Alex Wolfson, Proposed Class Representative, said: “Microsoft’s actions have had a significant and far-reaching impact on UK consumers, businesses and public bodies. This claim seeks to hold Microsoft to account and to secure compensation for the many affected members of the class. With billions of pounds potentially at stake, this case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules.”

Kate Pollock, Head of Competition Litigation at Stewarts, said: “Microsoft’s conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organisations that rely on its software for daily business operations. We believe that Microsoft abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices. We’re proud to be supporting Alexander Wolfson in bringing this claim. With our specialist experience in complex competition litigation, we are well placed to help secure justice for the millions affected. This case has the potential to restore greater fairness and accountability to the UK’s increasingly digital economy.” 

Ellora MacPherson, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer at Harbour, which is funding the case, said: “We are delighted to be able to support Alex Wolfson, Kate Pollock and the rest of the Stewarts team by funding this important case which will give access to justice to tens of thousands of individuals and public and private organisations in the UK. This action is likely to be one of the largest the UK has seen and is an example of how big corporate entities can be held to account.” 

For more information about the case, visit MicrosoftClaim.com

For litigation funders in their early years of growth post-founding, the ability to continue to raise capital and expand to new markets are often key signs of strengths in these businesses, as demonstrated by an Australian family law funder with its latest announcement.

In a post on LinkedIn, JustFund revealed that it has launched funding services for family matters in New Zealand, marking its first expansion outside of Australia since the funder’s inception three years ago. The announcement explained that JustFund is looking to support both lawyers who need support for their clients or an individual who needs the financial assistance to secure legal representation.

This expansion follows JustFund’s $92 million capital raise in November of last year, with the funds consisting of a combination of seed round financing, a senior debt facility, and additional mezzanine funding. At the time of the capital raise, JustFund said that in the two years since its founding it had provided more than $95 million in legal funding for family law cases, resulting in over $1 billion in relationship property settlements.

Andy O’Connor, co-founder and CEO of Just Fund, commented on the announcement saying, “It's been an incredible first week meeting with client-centric law firms looking to deliver solutions for their clients.” O’Connor also stated that JustFund is recruiting for its Auckland office to support this expansion, with the funder hiring for family lawyer and client experience positions.

More information about JustFund’s offering to New Zealand clients can be found on its website.

A statement released by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) offers a response to recent media speculation that the funder is facing a potential investigation by the office of the Dubai Public Prosecutor (DPP).

LCM’s statement is as follows: “The article states that the original complaint was made in 2022. The Company confirms that it has not been contacted by any legal authority, either historically or recently, in relation to the allegation. Furthermore, the Company does not believe any such allegation, were it to be made, would have any merit whatsoever. The Company is investigating further and will update the market as appropriate.”

The article that prompted LCM’s statement was published by Intelligence Online on 13 May, claiming that “the Dubai Public Prosecutor's office commenced a court-assisted investigation into LCM and its chief executive Patrick Moloney in March.” The headline of the article suggests that the investigation is a “money laundering probe”, with the DPP’s office reportedly “examining details from a complaint made in late 2022.

The full article available to Intelligence Online subscribers here.