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

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process”. 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

• Law firm: Piper Alderman
• Funder: Woodsford
• Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter

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

Litigation funding provides ‘substantial benefits’ to claimant organisations, and robust funding mechanisms are ‘essential’ to secure justice for consumers, an authoritative report found last month.

The report, Justice Unchained, by European consumer organisation BEUC, also found many of the common criticisms of litigation funding were not backed up by evidence.

The study found that consumer organisations across Europe face significant financial challenges to starting collective redress actions. It noted that initiating a collective action is ‘complex, risky, and expensive’, often involving lengthy proceedings that need significant resources.

The report said: ‘Without sufficient funding, important cases will remain unaddressed and risk making the Representative Actions Directive (RAD)2 an empty shell’.

BEUC said that as public funding, membership fees and donations were often insufficient or unavailable, litigation funding had emerged ‘as a solution to bridge a funding gap’. Benefits for the claimant included access to necessary resources, risk transfer, and ‘a more equal playing field between consumer organisations and powerful defendants’, it said.

The report added that frequent criticisms of litigation funding, such as ‘the risk of frivolous litigation, undue influence by funders, or targeting competitors’ were ‘not well-substantiated’, and ‘insufficiently evidenced by specific cases’.

According to the report, the potential risks of litigation funding in the context of collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Actions Directive, which requires member states to establish a framework that includes procedures to prevent conflicts of interest and undue influence, with judicial oversight to ensure compliance.

The report found that additional regulation of litigation funding at EU level should therefore only be considered if it is necessary. It said: ‘Two-thirds of EU Member States have opted not to regulate [litigation funding] beyond the RAD’s requirements, finding these safeguards sufficient to govern [litigation funding] effectively for collective redress actions. Besides, [litigation funding] can be managed through judicial oversight, as is the case in several Member States with a longer history of using [it]’.

The BEUC report suggested that a set of ‘best practices’, jointly established and agreed by funders, claimant organisations and others, may provide for ‘a balanced solution, ensuring [litigation funding] remains viable while promoting fairness and transparency.’

It said such best practice could encompass transparency over the funder’s sources of capital; full decision-making autonomy for the consumer organisation and its legal counsel; clear agreements on all expenses covered by the funder; clearly defined funder’s remuneration; assurance of the funder’s financial adequacy to meet obligations; strict compliance with transparency requirements set by the law; effective detection and disclosure of any conflicts of interest; well-defined conditions for termination of the funding; and a robust dispute resolution mechanism.

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

The legal profession is evolving rapidly, and so is the workforce driving it. This makes retaining top talent critical to ensuring continuity, quality of service, and avoiding the costs and disruption of frequent recruitment.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 47 million Americans left their jobs in 2021 alone, with millions continuing to do so each month. For businesses , this turnover presents both a challenge and an opportunity to understand what employees truly value and how to build a workplace they won’t want to leave.

Here are five steps to guide you in creating a workplace where professionals feel supported, motivated, and committed to growing with your firm.

1. Hire for Culture and Potential

The stakes are high in legal recruitment, and hiring the wrong person can have a ripple effect on morale, productivity, and client relationships. So, let’s slow down and hire right.

Instead of focusing solely on technical skills and qualifications, look beyond the resume for candidates whose values align with your firm’s culture and long-term goals. Diversity of thought and perspective is an asset in all business and adaptability is increasingly important. The first step is to revisit your hiring process to ensure you’re asking the right questions and seeking individuals who can not only excel in the role today but also grow with your firm in the future.

2. Invest in Their Professional Journey

Your people are your greatest assets, and just like your clients, they require attention and investment. You’ve spent time hiring right, now, it is time to invest in your choices, ensuring that they are set up to succeed from day one.

Make their onboarding experience seamless and engaging but also show them the culture and career path you promised during recruitment. Then, continue this thinking beyond the onboarding and provide opportunities for professional development through training, mentoring, and clear advancement pathways.

In the competitive legal sector, demonstrating a proactive commitment to employee growth and well-being is key to retaining top talent, ensuring your team feels valued and supported in reaching their full potential.

3. Foster Engagement Through Purpose

We all know that engaged employees are productive employees, but often it is forgotten that engagement starts with clarity. Do your team members understand how their daily work contributes to the firm’s overall success?

Lawyers are often driven by purpose—whether it’s delivering justice, protecting client interests, or achieving innovative outcomes. So, make it a priority to connect their individual roles to the bigger picture and, in doing so, celebrate their contributions, involve them in decision-making, and foster an environment of trust and open communication.

By aligning their goals with the firm’s mission, you create a workplace where everyone feels invested in the outcomes.

4. Lead with Empathy and Kindness

The legal world is often synonymous with high pressure and long hours, but that doesn’t mean kindness should take a backseat. Empathy and understanding go a long way in fostering loyalty and trust. It is important, therefore, to recognize achievements, whether big or small, and make time to connect with your team on a human level. From writing a personal thank-you note for a job well done to ensuring flexible working arrangements during challenging times, it’s often the little things that make the biggest difference.

Kindness isn’t a sign of weakness—it’s a powerful tool for building a resilient and loyal team.

5. Make Retention a Continuous Process

Retention isn’t a one-time initiative—it’s an ongoing commitment. Law is a people-centered business so embed employee well-being, recognition, and development into the core of your firm’s culture.

Create an environment where your people feel genuinely appreciated, understood, and aligned with the firm’s vision. By doing this, you’ll cultivate a culture of loyalty and stability, where your team thrives—and your clients benefit as a result.

Why Employees Stay

In a profession where your people are your greatest asset, putting them first is essential. A happy, engaged team isn’t just good for employee retention; it directly impacts client satisfaction and the firm’s reputation.

By investing in your employees, fostering connection, and leading with empathy, you can ensure your firm remains competitive, resilient, and ready to face the future with the best team by your side.

Top litigation finance firm Nera Capital is ending the year on a high with the announcement of yet another successfully closed funding deal, this time securing $25 million to bolster UK consumer protection claims.

The funding, secured through a US-based investment partner, reflects yet another significant milestone for the firm as it continues to build momentum and strengthen its foothold in the market. 

This recently closed funding deal builds on a prosperous year of growth for Nera Capital, further demonstrating its capabilities across the globe. The investment will be directed towards advancing claims that protect UK consumers, enabling greater access to justice for individuals seeking redress.

With offices in Dublin, Manchester, and Amsterdam, Nera Capital has consistently demonstrated its commitment to driving innovation and impact in litigation finance worldwide. This latest funding announcement underscores Nera Capital’s ability to forge strategic international partnerships that deliver meaningful results. 

In 2024, Nera have hit record numbers of settlements, deployment and company profitability but also grown major portfolio positions in Europe and the USA.

Aisling Byrne, Director at Nera Capital, commented on the announcement: “We are happy to have closed yet another significant funding deal, further cementing our position as a leading force in consumer protection litigation. We anticipate this initial facility figure will increase as our partnership strengthens and thrives over time.

She added: “This is not just about financial growth; it’s about expanding our ability to make a difference. With this funding, we are reinforcing our commitment to fairness and justice, empowering consumers, and holding organisations accountable.”

The announcement follows the recent launch of Nera Capital’s £250,000 Access to Justice Fund, aimed at providing legal and financial support to those who may otherwise face barriers to justice.

The firm’s efforts come at a time of heightened focus on consumer rights across the world, driven by evolving legal frameworks, increased attention to data privacy, and growing concerns about sustainability and corporate accountability.

“This funding is another step forward in a year of tremendous progress for Nera Capital,” Aisling continued.

“As we look to 2025, we remain committed to leveraging our resources and expertise to protect consumers and advocate for justice on both sides of the Atlantic.“ 

About Nera Capital 

·       Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.  

·       Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector. 

·       Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and Holland. 

·       Member of European Litigation Funders Association

.     www.neracapital.com

Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There’s been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what’s good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn’t say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift – if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that – and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don’t think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that’s right. What’s interesting is, there hasn’t been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we’re seeing a lot of that. We’re also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We’ve seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we’ve seen those deals – especially the ones that happened before Covid – there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you’re debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we’ve seen a shift away more to – I won’t say single cases – but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We’ve also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We’re seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We’re just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

When not reading fantasy novels or torturing his family with off-key showtunes, Joshua Libling manages Arcadia Finance’s operations and financial analytics. For clients, his focus is on translating subjective legal merits assessments into trackable risk data that informs Arcadia’s investment decisions and portfolio construction. It’s a topic he loves to discuss, so don’t ask him what that means if you’re looking for a short conversation.

He is also responsible for modeling and operations at Arcadia. Joshua joined the litigation finance industry at the beginning of 2020, quickly gravitating to risk analysis and control. For his work, he has been recognized among Lawdragon’s “Global 100 Leaders in Legal Finance.” Before co-founding Arcadia in June of 2024 with fellow Managing Directors Ronit Cohen and David Kerstein, Joshua served as a member of the senior leadership at Validity Finance, with primary responsibility for risk analysis and pricing tools. He was previously a litigator at Boies Schiller Flexner, where he was involved in some of the country’s highest-profile and highest-stakes litigations.  

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital – fast.

Led by industry veterans with over $425 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

Area of Focus: With a focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration, Arcadia Finance is open to the full spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross-border and offshore matters. We consider cases in all federal and state courts, as well domestic and international arbitrations.    

Member Quote: “At Arcadia Finance, we specialize in helping our partners find the path from a good legal claim to a good legal investment.”

Delta Capital Partners Management, an SEC registered investment adviser specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce as additions to the firm Jason Searfoss as Chief Financial Officer, Elinoar Sofer as Chief Operations Officer, and Michael Ouliel as Chief Intelligence Officer. 

Mr. Searfoss will be responsible for Delta’s finance, accounting, and administrative functions and will oversee all capital market activities, tax and valuation matters. Ms. Sofer will oversee the day-to-day operations and management of Delta, while Mr. Ouliel will assist with business intelligence activities in the firm’s management and monitoring of the cases in its portfolio or under consideration for investment.

Mr. Searfoss, an advisor to numerous startup and growth-stage technology companies, is a Cofounder of and served as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Boomtown, a leading technology startup accelerator with more than 200 portfolio companies. A veteran of the litigation finance industry, Mr. Searfoss was also the founding Chief Financial Officer, a General Partner, and member of the Investment Committee of Longford Capital, a leading litigation funder. “I have known and worked closely with Chris DeLise and the Delta team for well over a decade and I am excited about the future of the organization. Litigation finance is an attractive and evolving asset class, and Delta’s strengths stand out in the industry,” said Searfoss.

Prior to joining Delta, Ms. Sofer previously served as the Chief Operating Officer of BlackSwan Technologies, a leading global technology AI startup. In this capacity, she scaled the company across six subsidiaries within the US, EMEA and Asia and successfully raised capital and secured valuable commercial partnerships with leading Fintech companies. “I am thrilled to be joining the very talented team at Delta and I am looking forward to collaborating with Chris DeLise and the senior team in building on their ongoing success and executing Delta’s ambitious growth plans,” said Ms. Sofer.

Before his tenure at Delta, Mr. Ouliel founded and acted as the CEO of Ripples Homeland Security Group. Ripples was a global technology company with a focus on building large and complex intelligence and investigation systems for governments and large multinational enterprises globally. Mr. Ouliel was also the founder and CEO of BlackSwan Technologies, where he was named among the Top 50 AI CEOs of 2021 by Technology Innovators magazine. In recent years, Mr. Ouliel has been acting as a special advisor to multiple governments and federal agencies in the area of technology, primarily focused on intelligence, counter terror, HUMINT, and extremism. Mr. Ouliel expressed that he is “thrilled and excited to join the excellent team at Delta” and that the opportunity presented an “outstanding value proposition and business model for which his “skills and expertise will bring unique opportunities to the litigation funding market.”

Christopher DeLise, Delta’s founder, CEO and Co-CIO stated that he is “very proud to have such esteemed professionals join Delta as it is continues its growth and development in dynamic markets and verticals. The litigation finance industry has significantly changed over the past 14 years, which necessitates bringing on board very seasoned professionals to best enable the firm to adapt and profit from these developments. I have known each of Jason, Michael and Elinoar for over a decade, frequently collaborating on one-off projects, and therefore it made great sense to have them join the Delta team on a permanent basis as we embark on our latest set of growth initiatives and new product offerings.”   

About Delta

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global asset management firm specializing exclusively in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery.  Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants to enable them to investigate claims, pursue litigation or arbitration, recover assets, enforce judgments or awards, and more effectively manage their risks, cash flow, and capital expenditures.

Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea—a Mexican lawyer with international experience, business executive, and entrepreneur—has come up with a technological solution that aims to transform the litigation funding space by streamlining and optimizing the traditionally time-consuming funding process.

With a Law Degree from Mexico’s prestigious Universidad Panamericana, a Business Degree from IPADE Business School, and a Master’s in Finance from Duke University, Gabriel brings extensive expertise in arbitration, capital raising, private equity, and litigation finance. Recognizing a critical gap in the industry, he designed a democratized, efficient platform that empowers investors of all sizes to participate while providing owners of legal rights, across a broader spectrum of claim values, with accessible funding opportunities.

Company Name:   RIDER LITIGATION FINANCE, L.L.C.

Company Description:  Built on proprietary technology, RIDER’s automated and efficient processes address a critical need: simplifying and expediting deal sourcing, closing, and post-closing updates. Acting as a matchmaker within its carefully curated network, RIDER connects claimholders, law firms, and investors already registered on its platform.

By democratizing litigation funding, RIDER makes the industry accessible to investors of all sizes while empowering claimholders with large, medium, and smaller-scale claims to secure the financial support they need. This disruptive model expands the litigation finance ecosystem, delivering fairness and efficiency to all stakeholders. RIDER serves as the ultimate dealmaker enabler on a global scale.

1. Tailored Applications: RIDER meticulously prepares Funding Applications in a format funders prefer, presenting key financial and material aspects with clarity and precision.
2. Rigorous Filtering: We pre-select cases with a high likelihood of success, backed by double Legal Opinions, ensuring funders are presented with only the most compelling opportunities.
3. Aligned Expectations: Before negotiations begin, all stakeholders are fully informed about financial expectations and other critical terms, fostering transparency and reducing delays.
4. Streamlined Negotiations: RIDER’s assistance during negotiations accelerates agreement finalization, providing funders and claim holders with a seamless experience.

Year Founded:   2022, Launching Operations in November 2024.

Headquarters:  Mexico City, although with Global reach.

Area of the Company:   Founder & CEO

Member Quote:   “Democratizing Justice, Empowering Investment on a Global scale”.

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, is pleased to announce the appointment of David Collins, Chief Financial Officer, to its Board of Directors, effective immediately.

David has brought significant expertise and fresh perspective to LCM during his first five months as CFO, making a positive impact on the company’s financial operations and strategic planning. David is a Chartered Accountant and brings more than 20 years’ experience in senior finance and capital markets roles across a range of leading institutions including EY, Morgan Stanley, Och-Ziff Capital (now Sculptor Capital) and Prudential plc.

Jonathan Moulds, Chairman of LCM, commented: “David’s appointment to the Board reflects our confidence in his capabilities and his contributions to the business in a short period. We look forward to leveraging his experience as we continue to execute on our strategy for growth and value creation.”

The following information is disclosed in accordance with Schedule 2(g) of the AIM Rules for Companies:

David Andrew Collins, aged 47, holds/has held the following directorships/partnerships in the last five years:

Jason is a former litigation funder who now leads Alliant’s Global Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance team.  He designs and brokers bespoke policies that cover a range of legal and regulatory exposures, and he regularly assists litigants, law firms, litigation funders, private equity clients, and other stakeholders in structuring and obtaining cutting-edge contingent risk insurance solutions.

Jason is a Chambers Band 1-ranked litigation insurance broker and he has placed some of the largest and most creative contingent risk insurance policies, including multiple nine-figure policies. Jason frequently assists clients in monetizing contingent risk insurance policies and structuring transactions that incorporate insurance policies as investment collateral. Leveraging his background as a front-office finance analyst, Jason has helped clients obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing collateralized by contingent risk insurance policies.

Prior to joining the contingent risk insurance industry, Jason was a member of the Litigation Investing team at the D. E. Shaw group, a global investment and technology development firm with more than $60 billion in investment and committed capital. He is a former litigator at Susman Godfrey LLP, and a former law clerk for the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Company Name and Description:  Alliant Insurance Services is one of the nation’s leading distributors of diversified insurance products and services. We operate through a network of specialized national platforms and local offices to offer our clients a comprehensive portfolio of solutions built on innovative thinking and personal service. The business of managing risk is getting more complex, and Alliant is meeting this complexity head-on, not with more layers of management, but with more creativity and agility. Alliant is changing the way our clients approach risk management and benefits, so they can capitalize on new opportunities to grow and protect their organizations.

Alliant is recognized as a leading destination for top-tier brokerage talent in the U.S, attracting brokers and specialists across a diverse spectrum of disciplines who are eager to advance their careers. With the advantage of being majority employee-owned, professionals choose Alliant for autonomy, unparalleled resources, and a unique equity ownership opportunity. As a testament to our commitment to excellence, Alliant maintains an impressive 99% producer retention rate and has earned Forbes’ prestigious title of one of America’s Best Large Employers.

Company Website: https://alliant.com/

Headquarters:  Jason is based in New York, NY

Area of Focus:  Litigation and contingent risk insurance 

Member Quote:  As a former litigation funder, I believe that litigation funding and contingent risk insurance are complementary products. Combining the two can unlock enormous value for funders and their counterparties.  And designing creative insurance solutions for litigation funders is one of the most rewarding parts of my job.

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

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all.

Understanding the UAE’s Legal Landscape

Onshore Jurisdictions

In the UAE’s onshore courts, the legal framework is based on federal laws and elements of Sharia law. While there are no explicit rules prohibiting litigation funding, the absence of clear regulations requires careful navigation. Key considerations include:

• Principles of Good Faith: Parties must ensure that funding agreements align with the core principles of UAE law and avoid speculative transactions (Gharar).
• Sharia Compliance: Agreements must balance financial interests with the broader public good (Maslaha), enabling parties to pursue valid claims ethically.

Offshore Jurisdictions

Offshore jurisdictions, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), offer a more structured environment for litigation funding. These jurisdictions follow common law principles and have implemented specific guidelines:

• DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017: Requires disclosure of funding agreements to promote transparency and grants courts the authority to impose cost orders on funders.
• ADGM Funding Rules 2019: Ensures that funded parties receive independent legal advice and fosters ethical practices in third-party funding.

WinJustice operates across both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, leveraging its expertise to guide clients through the complexities of litigation funding in the UAE.

How Litigation Funding Benefits UAE Businesses

Litigation funding provides a lifeline for businesses facing high-stakes legal disputes, particularly in sectors like construction, real estate, and finance. Key benefits include:

1. Access to Justice: Enables businesses to pursue claims without worrying about upfront legal costs.
2. Risk Mitigation: Shifts the financial burden to the funder, allowing clients to focus on their core operations.
3. Leveling the Playing Field: Empowers smaller businesses to compete with larger opponents in complex disputes.

The Role of Arbitration in Litigation Funding

Arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution method in the UAE, governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 and updated regulations in the DIFC and ADGM. Notably:

• Both DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and arbitrateAD guidelines emphasize transparency by requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements.
• Arbitration proceedings offer a flexible and confidential framework, making them ideal for cases involving third-party funding.

WinJustice specializes in funding arbitration cases, ensuring our clients have the financial support needed to achieve favorable outcomes.

Why WinJustice is the Right Choice

As the pioneer in UAE litigation funding, WinJustice offers:

• Expert Guidance: Decades of combined experience in navigating UAE’s legal systems.
• Custom Solutions: Tailored funding arrangements to meet the unique needs of each client.
• Ethical Standards: Commitment to transparency, fairness, and compliance with UAE regulations.

Whether you are pursuing a commercial dispute, arbitration claim, or high-value litigation, WinJustice provides the financial resources and expertise to secure justice.

Conclusion

Litigation funding is transforming the UAE’s legal landscape, and WinJustice is proud to lead this change. By bridging the gap between justice and affordability, we are enabling businesses and individuals to take control of their legal challenges with confidence.

Visit WinJustice to learn more.

Dr Rachael Kent’s over £1.5bn collective action against Apple for alleged overcharging in relation to the Apple App Store will go to trial on 6 January 2025. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed the trial will run for eight weeks, with the first week reserved as a reading week. Hearings will commence on 13 January 2025 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Salisbury Square House, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP.

The claim, which seeks compensation for millions of UK consumers and businesses, alleges that Apple breached competition law by abusing its dominant position through its conduct relating to its App Store. According to the claim, Apple has excluded competition and charged unfairly high commissions of up to 30% on app and in-app purchases (including subscriptions) made on iPhones and iPads.

Dr Kent has issued a revised Trial Hearing Notice, available here, which confirms the trial schedule and provides further information about the case. For more information on the claim, visit www.appstoreclaims.co.uk/Apple. Class members are encouraged to check the website for updates about the claim, including access to Tribunal orders and further guidance. The Notice can also be found in the “Documents” section of the claim website.

For those interested in observing the trial, it will be open to the public both in person and online via the Tribunal’s website. A “Watch Now” link will be available under the Diary section on the Tribunal’s homepage (www.catribunal.org.uk) on the trial commencement date.

Further information on the claim

The legal claim applies to purchases made on many popular apps on iPhones and iPads, including Fortnite, YouTube and Tinder. It does not apply to apps providing “physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app”. These include Deliveroo and Uber, which are not required to use Apple’s payments system or pay Apple the disputed 30% commission on every purchase of and/or within their apps.

Affected app purchasers, on whose behalf the collective action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by Vannin Capital, a global litigation funder. The action is insured, which means that class members have no financial risk in relation to the claim.

Dr Kent is represented by Lesley Hannah, Sofie Edwards, Kio Gwilliam, Emma Poland, Jonathan Amior, Natalie Jukes, Jake Henderson, Abigail Masters and Kazi Elias at law firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP, with barristers Mark Hoskins KC and Matthew Kennedy from Brick Court Chambers, and Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia Fitzpatrick from Monckton Chambers

About Hausfeld & Co. LLP

Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of collective redress and group claims.

The following was contributed by Reid Zeising, CEO & founder of Gain.

Health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods, yet the insurance industry is structured on a for-profit model, which focuses on increased profits and shareholder returns, often over the needs and welfare of policyholders and claimants. Today’s largest insurers, especially third-party liability carriers, reap over $100 billion in annual profits, [1] while premiums and costs are on the rise for those depending on the policies that they issue for their financial protection. The insurance industry has a moral responsibility and a duty as a corporate citizen to prioritize its policyholders and claimants. By transitioning to a public utility model, the industry can refocus its priorities without jeopardizing liability carrier’s needs to cover operating costs and pay shareholder returns. By thinking like – and actually being – a public utility, insurers can fulfill their duties as a provider of an essential public good without imperiling their own financial health.

Transitioning to a Public Utility Model

The insurance industry predominantly operates on a for-profit model, emphasizing profit maximization[2] and shareholder returns.[3] This model, however, often neglects the welfare of policyholders and claimants.[4] It also does not reflect the reality that health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods. A public good is a benefit or service that should be available to all citizens and that ultimately contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole.[5] One proven and effective model for delivering public goods is the public utility company, which is privately owned by investors, but committed to the provision of public good. A public utility company oversees essential services, ensuring their accessibility, reliability, and affordability.[6] By restructuring third-party liability carriers along these lines, we can elevate the role of insurance carriers from profit-centric entities to institutions focused on consumer welfare.[7] Similar to utilities, carriers could receive a fixed, reasonable return,[8] enabling investments in increased technology and efficiencies and sustainability while preventing the accumulation of excessive profits at the expense of policyholders.

Benefits of the Public Utility Model

Enhanced Payouts: Transforming the current model would necessitate that carriers pay out all remaining premiums to claimants, after covering operational costs, guaranteed returns and dividends. This fundamental change would translate to increased payouts for claimants, alleviating their financial burden and ensuring adequate compensation. This contrasts with the present situation, where substantial portions of premiums are often reserved for investments and increased profit margins, limiting the resources allocated to claimants. The Affordable Care Act sought to cap profits by mandating that health insurance companies could spend no more than 20 percent of revenue from premiums on administrative costs, marketing, and profits. However, insurers have skirted these rules by increasing overall costs and raising premiums, boosting revenues.[9] Therefore, further reform, along the lines proposed here, is needed.

Industry Shift to Public Good: By orienting the industry towards the welfare of policyholders and the larger community, we can establish a new standard of corporate responsibility within insurance carriers. This alteration fosters a climate where the pursuit of public good[10] becomes inherent, eclipsing the erstwhile emphasis on profit maximization. Under this paradigm, carriers become stewards of societal welfare and financial responsibility, ensuring equitable distribution of resources and safeguarding policyholder interests.[11]

Policyholder Centric: In this reimagined model, policyholders would be the primary beneficiaries, receiving enhanced protections and services. This framework mandates a focus on policyholder needs and aspirations, catalyzing the development of consumer-centric policies and practices. Additionally, the compulsory dividend payouts would ensure that policyholders receive tangible, financial benefits, contributing to economic stability and welfare.

A More Equitable Economy: The proposed transition has profound economic implications, marking a departure from purely capitalistic orientations to a more balanced, equitable economic structure. The substantial increase in payouts would stimulate consumer spending and economic activity, while the emphasis on public good would promote social cohesion and mutual responsibility. Moreover, this shift would mitigate the socioeconomic disparities[12] emanating from the current profit-driven model, fostering a more inclusive and equitable economic environment.

Redefining the Insurance Industry

The transformation of the insurance industry — particularly third-party liability carriers – into a public utility model is a radical yet necessary step towards creating an equitable and consumer-oriented industry. By guaranteeing returns and mandating the allocation of remaining premiums to claimants, we can ensure the industry serves the public good and prioritizes policyholder welfare. This transition is not merely a structural adjustment; it symbolizes a philosophical shift, redefining the purpose and responsibilities of insurance carriers in a way that recognizes that third-party liability insurance carriers are essential public goods. This revolutionary approach promises increased payouts, enhanced policyholder benefits, and a collective pursuit of societal well-being. The pivot from a profit-centric paradigm to a model centered on public welfare, where the interests of consumers are placed above unchecked profit accrual. In the long term, this alteration can be a catalyst for more claims being paid and funds being utilized for the purposes they were intended.  Insurance is in place to reimburse those who have suffered through no fault of their own, and a utility model can assure that more monies are paid to consumers and less goes into the coffers of companies beyond what is needed to service these portfolios.

[1] “Visualizing the 50 Most Profitable Insurance Companies in the U.S.,” HowMuch.net, https://howmuch.net/articles/top-50-most-profitable-us-insurance-companies-2020. Data is based on Fortune 500 listings.

[2] Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Insurance policy: How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit,” Stanford Medicine Magazine, May 19, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit/.

[3] Nathalia Bellizia, Davide Corradi, and Jürgen Bohrmann, “Profitable Growth Is King: The 2022 Insurance Value Creators Report,” Boston Consulting Group, September 2, 2022, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/insurance-total-stakeholder-return-value-creation-report/.

[4] Rosenthal, “Insurance policy.”

[5] National Consumer Law Center, Access to Utility Service, 6th ed. 2018, 1.1.5, www.nclc.org/library; Jason Fernando, “What Are Public Goods? Definition, How They Work, and Example,” Investopedia, March 20, 2022, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp.

[6] David E. McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure,” in Social and Political Science 2016, October 28, 2016, 3-18, Elgar Online, https://www.elgaronline.com/display/9781785365522/chapter01.xhtml.

[7] Jonathan D. Washko, “It’s Time to Resurrect the Public Utility Model Concept–But This Time for Healthcare,” Journal of Emergency Medical Services, October 18, 2017, https://www.jems.com/news/it-s-time-to-resurrect-the-public-utility-model-concept-but-also-for-healthcare-this-time/.

[8] McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure.”

[9] Marshall Allen, “Why Your Health Insurer Doesn’t Care About Your Big Bills,” NPR, May 25, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/25/613685732/why-your-health-insurer-doesnt-care-about-your-big-bills.

[10] Samuel S. Flint, “Public Goods, Public Utilities, and the Public’s Health,” Health & Social Work, Volume 36, Issue 1, February 2011, 75–77, https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-abstract/36/1/75/659133?redirectedFrom=PDF.

[11] Carter Dredge and Stefan Scholtes, “The Health Care Utility Model: A Novel Approach to Doing Business,” NEJM Catalyst, July 8, 2021, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0189.

[12] Samuel L. Dickman, David U. Himmelstein, and Steffie Woolhandler, “Inequality and the health-care system in the USA,” America: Equity and Equality in Health 1, The Lancet, April 8, 2017, Volume 389, 1431-1441, https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/US-equity-and-equality-in-health-1491475717627.pdf.

Competition law expert Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s multi-billion pound case against Meta has been certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. Meta failed to prevent the case from proceeding as neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the Court of Appeal granted Meta leave to appeal.

The case is now proceeding to trial, opening up the prospect of compensation for 46 million UK Facebook users.

Every Facebook user who were domiciled in the UK on 15 February 2024 and accessed Facebook at least once in the period between 14 February 2016 and 6 October 2023 will be automatically included in the case unless they opt out by 5 March 2025.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen says: “We welcome the opportunity to hold Meta to account for abusing its dominant position by exploiting 46 million UK users’ data. Meta abused its market dominance by imposing unfair terms and conditions on UK users and imposing an unlawful price. We are very pleased that the Tribunal has approved me to go ahead and represent the class in our pursuit of redress for each individual affected”

The Tribunal ruled Meta’s attempts to challenge Dr. Lovdahl Gormsen’s claims were “insufficient” after expert testimony from leading economist Fiona Scott Morton, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. Whilst Meta attempted to appeal this decision, the Court of Appeal in October refused permission for them to do so.

Class action claims have risen in the UK in the past three years but do not always receive a Collective Proceedings Order. As of November 2024, only a third of all cases have reached this stage, underscoring the importance of this decision.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s case argues that Meta set an ‘unfair price’ for UK Facebook users. The “price” set for granting access to the social network was the surrender of UK users’ highly valuable personal data on a take-it-or-leave-it basis for access to the network. In return, users only received “free” access to Facebook’s social network, and zero monetary recompense whilst Facebook generated billions in revenues from its users’ data. This unfair deal was only possible due to Meta’s market dominance, meaning users had no other social network they could use to get the same service.

The claim seeks damages of at least £2.1 billion, plus interest, on aggregate for all UK consumers affected.

Kate Vernon, partner and Head of Competition Litigation Practice at law firm Quinn Emanuel, representing Dr Lovdahl Gormsen said: “This groundbreaking case promises to redefine the application of competition law in the context of data exploitation. It sets a legal framework for approaching this pivotal matter and represents a significant shift in how we address the associated critical issues.”

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s legal action is an opt-out class action brought under the Competition Act 1998 and the first to protect individuals’ data rights against Meta under competition law in England and Wales. The case is backed by some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers and economists, such as the Rt. Honourable Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, Professor Richard Whish, Honorary Kings Counsel, economist Chris Pike, and Peter Vicary-Smith, former CEO of Which?.

A notice of the collective proceedings order, which sets out how users may opt out of the claim, can be found here.

About Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen

The case is being led on behalf of the class by Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the director of the Competition Law Forum.The Competition Law Forum is a noted centre of excellence for European competition and antitrust policy and law.

In addition, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is a Board Member of the Open Markets Institute and sits on the advisory board of the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (OUP).

As an international expert in the field, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen co-authored the paper “Facebook’s Anticompetitive Lean in Strategies” (2019) and “Facebook’s Exploitative and Exclusionary Abuses in the Two-Sided Market for Social Networks and Display Advertising” (2021). The latter argues that antitrust enforcement is required to prevent the company from reinforcing its data-driven abuse of market power.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, one of the UK’s leading competition law specialists. The case is spearheaded by Quinn Emanuel partner Kate Vernon, a highly respected competition law specialist, and assisted by partner Leo Kitchen, and associates Megan Hiluta, Aadil Master and Alexander Groes. Also advising Dr Lovdahl Gormsen are counsel Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Tom Coates of Blackstone Chambers, Greg Adey of One Essex Court and Ian Simester of Fountain Court Chambers.

The case is being funded by Innsworth, one of the world’s largest civil litigation funders.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) today announced the addition of Arcadia Finance to the only global association of commercial legal finance companies. 

Launching in June, Arcadia provides specialized services for U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation, domestic and international arbitration, and funding for a wide variety of other litigation-based assets, from mass torts and law firm lending to patent acquisition. 

“ILFA is pleased to welcome the newly founded Arcadia Finance to its growing membership base,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “Arcadia’s team is one of the most experienced in the industry, and the firm will play a crucial role in promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector worldwide.” 

Arcadia was founded by three litigation finance industry veterans with over 25 years of combined experience and who have invested over $425 million across 80+ deals. The trio formerly led various legal and investment units at ILFA member firms, and each holds the title of managing director at Arcadia: Dave Kerstein, former managing director and senior investment officer at Validity and senior investment manager at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway; Ronit Cohen, former portfolio counsel at Validity and legal counsel at Bentham IMF; and Joshua Libling, former director of risk analytics at Validity. 

“At Arcadia Finance, we believe that innovative financial solutions are a crucial part of the legal industry and capable of benefitting all participants in their pursuit of just outcomes,” Joshua Libling, Managing Director, stated. “ILFA is the preeminent industry association and we’re proud to join it and to share our expertise in pursuit of responsible and sustained evolution of our industry. We look forward to working alongside other leaders to set new standards and expand the possibilities of legal finance.” 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About Arcadia Finance 

Arcadia is a U.S. commercial litigation, patent litigation, and domestic and international arbitration-focused legal funder offering solutions to all participants in the legal market. Led by industry veterans with over $425 million invested across over 80 deals, the firm offers customized financial solutions for all — from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, the team find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Arcadia aims to make securing litigation funding as fast and convenient as possible. Going beyond traditional litigation finance agreements, Arcadia provides “frictionless funding” through the adaptable and transparent partnerships necessary for clients and law firms to make the most well-informed decisions. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist. 

For more information, visit https://www.arcadiafin.com/meet-our-team