News and analysis dedicated to the commercial litigation funding sector including regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

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

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October. 

The following article was contributed by Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal Funding.

On Friday 1^st August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on car finance commission complaints. While banks avoided the massive £44 billion liability some predicted, one customer called Johnson won his case – and that victory has opened the door for thousands of similar claims totalling somewhere between £9bn and £18bn – still a huge market.

The Bottom Line: Johnson proved his finance deal was “unfair” because:

• The dealer received a massive undisclosed commission (55% of all the interest he paid)
• He was misled about getting independent advice when the dealer was actually tied to one lender
• Important information was hidden in small print

What This Means

The Supreme Court has given us a clear roadmap. Claims will succeed where customers can show:

• Excessive hidden commissions (Johnson’s was 55% of his interest payments)
• Poor disclosure – burying commission details in terms & conditions isn’t enough
• Misleading sales practices – claiming to offer “best deals” while being tied to one lender
• Pre-2021 agreements often have the strongest cases

Why This Is Good News

• No government bailout risk – the ruling removes fears of political intervention to protect banks
• Clear success criteria – we now know exactly what makes a winning case
• Settlement pressure – lenders know more claims are coming and want to avoid court
• Immediate opportunity – claims can start now without waiting for regulators

Our Position

Our cautious approach to date has been vindicated. While others rushed in with untested legal theories, we waited for clarity. Now we have it.

The car finance opportunity is very much alive – it just requires smarter case selection. We’re actively evaluating opportunities and expect to be funding cases that meet the Johnson criteria in the coming weeks.

The FCA will announce their compensation scheme plans in October, but the legal pathway is already clear. Well-selected cases with Johnson-style facts have strong prospects of success.

Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP, the inaugural fund from litigation funding disruptor Lexolent, and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, has achieved its first successful investment in a case litigated before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts. The matter—Claim No. CFI 081/2023, concerned an unpaid commission claim by Dubai based businessman, Michael Forbes.

Absent Lexolent’s funding, Mr Forbes would have been unable to pursue the case and secure the payment to which he was rightfully entitled. The investment, which was concluded over just 21 months, will generate a very high internal rate of return (IRR) for Lexolent’s Limited Partner (LP) investors, showcasing the fund’s ability to deliver both strong financial performance and tangible social impact.

The result was a resounding success for both parties. Lexolent secured a strong return on its investment, while Mr Forbes obtained a substantial and life-changing judgment in his favour.

“Without Lexolent’s help, I would not have been able to right the wrong that was done to me,” said Mr Forbes. “Lexolent gave me access to justice, and I am delighted to have been introduced to them. I have learned through this experience that not all litigation funders are the same. Nick Rowles-Davies is very much one of the original founders of this industry and is exceptionally easy to work with. His expertise and experience made this transaction straightforward and highly professional.”

Lexolent CEO, Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, commented: “This is a perfect example of litigation funding in action. Without our investment, Mr Forbes would not have been able to secure such a substantial and transformative judgment. It was our pleasure to assist him—and, from our perspective, it was also a very strong investment, particularly given the high IRR that will be achieved for our LPs over a short 21-month period.”

This first win for Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP marks a significant milestone for the company as it continues to reshape the litigation finance landscape both in the Middle East and globally. The case underscores the vital role litigation funding plays in levelling the playing field between claimants and well-resourced defendants, ensuring that justice is not a privilege but a right accessible to all.

Syed Mujtaba Hussain, founding partner of UAE based boutique law firm Emirates Legal, acted for Mr Forbes and instructed David Parratt KC and William Frain-Bell KC.

Mr Hussain commented: “This was the first time I have used litigation funding but I will certainly do so again. Lexolent were easy to work with and allowed the lawyers to do their job without concern over fees being met. Litigation funding is a valuable tool and it assisted in producing a great result for Mr Forbes. We are all delighted with the outcome.”

About Lexolent:

Lexolent is a globally coordinated network for legal finance professionals and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, offering innovative funding solutions and unmatched expertise in litigation finance. Led by industry pioneer Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, Lexolent connects capital providers with high-value legal claims, delivering results for claimants and investors alike.

Burford Capital has delivered its strongest quarterly performance in two years, buoyed by a swelling pipeline of high-value disputes and a fresh infusion of investor cash.

A press release in PR Newswire reveals that the New York- and London-listed funder more than doubled revenue and profitability in the three months to 30 June 2025. CEO Christopher Bogart credited “very substantial levels of new business” for the uptick, noting that demand for non-recourse financing remains “as strong as we’ve ever seen.”

The stellar quarter follows a lightning-quick, two-day debt offering in July that raised $500 million—capital Burford says will be deployed across a growing roster of commercial litigations, international arbitrations, and asset-recovery campaigns. Management also highlighted significant progress in portfolio rotations, underscoring the firm’s ability to monetise older positions while writing new ones at scale. Investors will get a deeper dive when Burford hosts its earnings call today at 9 a.m. EDT.

Burford’s results arrive amid heightened regulatory chatter in Washington and Westminster, yet the numbers suggest the industry’s largest player is unfazed—for now—by talk of disclosure mandates and tax levies. The firm emphasised that its legal-finance, risk-management and asset-recovery businesses remain uncorrelated to broader markets, a pitch that continues to resonate with pension funds and endowments hunting for alternative yield.

For litigation-finance insiders, Burford’s capital-raising prowess and improving margins could have ripple effects: rival funders may face stiffer competition for marquee cases, while law-firm partners might leverage the firm’s deeper pockets to negotiate richer portfolio deals.

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below: