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

With over 26 years of extensive experience in Telecommunications Management and more than 15 years specializing in Dispute Resolution and Financial Claims, Obaid Bin Mes’har is a distinguished leader and expert in both fields. As the founder of Taswiyah Consultancy and Settlement of Claims in Dubai, UAE, he has established a strong reputation for resolving complex commercial and civil disputes.

Obaid’s expertise encompasses acting as an Arbitrator, Mediator, Negotiator, Counsellor, and Legal Representative, focusing on Mediation, Arbitration, Financial Settlement Claims, Debt Purchase, and Litigation Funding across national and international sectors. His professional journey has touched industries such as Telecommunications, Utilities, Construction, and Finance, as well as Mergers & Acquisitions in the International Markets.

Company Name and Description: WinJustice is the first UAE-based firm dedicated exclusively to litigation funding, established to empower individuals and businesses in their pursuit of justice. With a clear vision to transform the legal landscape, we provide innovative financial solutions that enable our clients to navigate complex legal proceedings without the burden of financial constraints.

Company Website: https://winjustice.com/

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Area of Focus:  WinJustice focuses on delivering tailored litigation funding solutions that empower diverse clients, from individual claimants to SMEs and multinational corporations. Our expertise spans supporting arbitration cases, commercial litigation, and financial settlements. We prioritize access to justice for clients facing financial constraints, enabling them to pursue strong legal claims without the burden of legal expenses. This includes assisting financially stressed firms, the manufacturing and industrial sectors, and service-oriented businesses in overcoming the challenges of complex legal disputes.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding is not just a financial solution; it’s a powerful tool for justice. At WinJustice, we believe that everyone deserves the chance to pursue their legal rights without the fear of financial barriers.”

Guillermo Ruiz Medrano is a Spanish lawyer based in Barcelona, specializing in advising local and international clients on litigation finance deals and restructuring transactions, with a focus on international and cross-border deals, and engaged in the implementation of cutting-edge litigation funding structures.

Company Name and Description: CUATRECASAS – a leading multi-disciplinary Spanish law firm, providing comprehensive legal services to clients across various industries. With a strong presence in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, among others, the firm is recognized for its innovative solutions and commitment to excellence.  

Company Website: https://www.cuatrecasas.com/en/spain/

Year Founded: 1917

Headquarters: Barcelona and Madrid (Spain).

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Restructuring

Member Quote: Litigation funding in Spain is experiencing a dynamic transformation, making it an exciting jurisdiction for both national and international players. With the market expanding rapidly and new regulations on the horizon, particularly for consumer cases, Spain offers a fertile ground for innovative funding solutions. This burgeoning landscape ensures that litigation funding here is not only robust but also poised for sustainable growth, making Spain a premier destination for legal investment.

Pegasus Legal Capital, LLC (“Pegasus”) (mylawfunds.com), a prominent pre-settlement legal funding company in the United States, announced today that it has successfully completed a $74 million litigation finance securitization. This achievement marks Pegasus’ second securitization transaction in the asset class and another significant milestone in its capital market journey. The proceeds from this transaction will further propel Pegasus’ growth across key markets in the United States.

Pegasus Managing Director, Alexander Khanas, expressed, “With the successful completion of this transaction, Pegasus will expand its business in the personal injury market while upholding its industry-leading service standards.”

GreensLedge Capital Markets LLC played the role of Placement Agent for Pegasus. GreensLedge Senior Managing Director, Douglas Lipton, added, “We are delighted to continue expanding Pegasus’ investor base through their second securitization issuance and assisting them in creatively developing their platform.”

Headquartered in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Pegasus was founded in 2008 as a pre-settlement litigation finance company. Since its inception, the company’s management team has successfully sourced, underwritten, and serviced over half a billion dollars through more than 30,000 advances. While Pegasus has traditionally focused on the New York market, it has established a strong presence in the Southeast and Texas markets as well.

Pegasus is a proud member of the American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), a national organization comprising companies that provide non-recourse funds to personal injury victims. ALFA’s primary objective is to establish industry standards for transparency in legal funding transactions, ensuring upfront and clear disclosure to consumers.

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new research entitled “Energy transition disputes: GCs and senior lawyers on the business impacts of legal challenges to come,” which demonstrates how businesses are preparing for a likely rise in legal disputes related to the global energy transition. This transition―or the shift to renewable sources of energy―is likely to cause an increase in expensive commercial disputes.

Businesses are investing significant sums in this transition, and corporate commitments highlight the scale of economic engagement as they invest in the new technologies, infrastructure and other resources that will be needed. But multifaceted legal and commercial pressures present businesses with a myriad of potential challenges including contractual disagreements, regulatory compliance issues and the need for intellectual property enforcement or litigation. Burford’s research report aims to offer a unique perspective on how corporations foresee the expected rise in litigation and arbitration related to this energy transition, examining the areas of business impact related to this evolving landscape.

Burford commissioned this independent research by capturing insights from 300 GCs and heads of litigation across key industries impacted by the energy transition and spanning North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

Key findings from the study include:

Disputes relating to the energy transition are rising

·       76% of GCs report they are already encountering disputes related to the energy transition and nearly half (47%) expect a further rise in the volume of such disputes in the next decade, driven by evolving laws, new technologies and infrastructure requirements.

Disputes relating to the energy transition are expected to be costly

·       Almost two in three GCs (63%) expect legal fees and expenses to exceed $4 million per energy transition case; a notable minority (29%) expect per case costs to exceed $10 million.

·       Over half (52%) view high costs as a significant factor in deciding not to pursue disputes.

·       Half (50%) of GCs agree that the energy transition will create the need for additional capital sources for the business.

Expected disputes span all types of business conflict

·       GCs are most likely to predict (77%) that the energy transition will result in more contractual disputes and commercial arbitration.

·       Joint ventures are expected to be particularly prone to disputes over profit allocation (76%) and intellectual property rights (65%).

·       Over half of GCs (57%) also expect their businesses to face arbitrations to resolve investor-state conflicts relating to the transition.

New tools are needed to manage the rising dispute costs

·       Legal finance is increasingly used to mitigate the financial burden of these disputes; three in four (75%) GCs have used or would consider using legal finance to offset the cost of disputes relating to this transition.

·       In particular, GCs value monetization―or advancing some of the expected entitlement of a pending claim, judgment or award― to generate liquidity from claims tied up in litigation and arbitration. With legal finance, companies can also offset the cost of pursuing affirmative litigation to generate liquidity, shifting legal departments from cost centers to value drivers.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “Businesses face significant challenges related to the global energy transition due to cross-border projects, differing legal frameworks and rapidly evolving policies. Additionally, long-term energy contracts may not keep pace with energy markets and technologies, resulting in conflicts among stakeholders. Burford’s latest research demonstrates the value of corporate finance for law, as legal finance helps companies manage the high costs of energy transition disputes and allows them to pursue meritorious claims without depleting resources.”

Burford’s research is based on a 2024 survey conducted by GLG and is supplemented by interviews with ten global energy transition experts conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors.

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

Jason Geisker is the Head of Claims Funding Australia (CFA), the litigation funding arm and wholly owned subsidiary of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers in Australia. He also serves as a Principal Lawyer at Maurice Blackburn’s Sydney office. With over 30 years of experience in commercial litigation and class actions, Jason has been recognized by his peers in the Doyles’ Guide rankings in Australia as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation/dispute resolution and class actions.

Jason holds a Master of Laws from the University of New South Wales. Since his admission to practice in 1996, he has been involved in several high-profile cases, including shareholder, investor, and consumer class actions. Notably, Jason led the Australian class actions against Volkswagen, Audi, and Skoda following the global ‘dieselgate’ scandal, resulting in settlements exceeding $170 million for over 100,000 Australian motorists.

In more recent years, as Head of CFA, Jason has collaborated with law firms across Australia and New Zealand to fund numerous commercial, insolvency, and class action claims. This includes a +NZD$300 million class action on behalf of approximately 3,000 people affected by the Southern Response insurance scandal following the Christchurch earthquakes in 2011. Under his leadership, CFA has achieved a 94% success rate in its funded cases. Jason is also the co-author of the Australian and New Zealand chapters of ‘The Third Party Funding Law Review’, an annual guide to the law and practice of third party funding, which is currently in its 8^th edition.

Company Name and Description: Claims Funding Australia (CFA) is a litigation funding specialist with operations and offices throughout Australia. CFA funds a broad range of litigation in Australia and overseas. Backed by Maurice Blackburn, Australia’s leading class action law firm, CFA is part of the Claims Funding Group, providing third-party litigation funding services across Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Founded over a decade ago, CFA has been successful in 94% of its funded cases, recovering almost half a billion dollars for its clients. CFA leverages the expertise, resources, and reputation of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, whose advisory team includes some of the most experienced class action, insolvency, and commercial litigators in Australia. With the solid financial backing of Maurice Blackburn, CFA brings extensive knowledge and experience in litigation and dispute resolution, offering dependable litigation finance. CFA works with a diverse range of clients, including liquidators, trustees, individuals, businesses, and government agencies, sharing Maurice Blackburn’s commitment to providing greater access to justice and leveling the litigation playing field against well-resourced defendants.

Company Website: www.claimsfunding.com.au

Year Founded: 2014

Headquarters: Melbourne, Australia, (with offices in Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth)

Area of Focus: Civil, commercial, and insolvency litigation funding across Australia, and class action and commercial litigation funding in New Zealand and Canada.

Member Quote: “Define your goal, assess the cost, commit to the journey, and relish the rewards with peace of mind and no regrets.”

Hannah Sadler has joined the firm as a vice president and member of the patent investment team.

“We are very happy to welcome Hannah to GLS Capital as a vice president and member of our team focusing on patent investments,” said Adam Gill, a GLS Capital managing director, co-founder, and leader of the firm’s patent-related investing. “Attracting top-tier talent is essential for continuing to help our clients achieve success, and Hannah’s background in patent litigation will be invaluable for navigating the complexities of patent investments and helping to drive our mission forward.”

Sadler focuses on diligence around qualified underwriting opportunities and monitoring and managing the firm’s patent litigation investments.

Before joining GLS Capital, Sadler was a patent litigator at Global IP Law Group in Chicago. She has over a decade of experience with all aspects of patent portfolio management and enforcement, including prosecution, litigation, sales, licensing, and portfolio valuation.

Sadler earned her J.D. (cum laude) from DePaul University College of Law and her Bachelor of Arts from the University of San Diego.

Luke Darkow is a Portfolio Manager at Aperture Investors, bringing over 13 years of experience in investing with a specialization in litigation finance private credit investments. Throughout his career, he has been instrumental in sourcing, analyzing, structuring, and managing investments, deploying more than $1 billion into the litigation finance asset class. Luke leverages a well-established network of plaintiff law firms and legal service providers to access and originate opportunities within this specialized field.

Before Aperture, Luke was a Principal and Portfolio Manager at Victory Park Capital, where he led a litigation finance asset-based lending strategy. His background also includes roles at TPG Capital and Morgan Stanley, further enriching his expertise in finance and investment management. Luke holds a B.S. in Business Administration with a focus on Finance – Applied Investment Management from Marquette University.

Company Name and Description:  Aperture Investors is an alternative asset manager founded by Peter Kraus, focusing on specialized credit and equity strategies across global markets. The firm aims to generate compelling returns in capacity-limited strategies, emphasizing a client-centric approach. Aperture operates as part of the Generali Investments ecosystem, combining boutique agility with large-scale resources. Aperture supports private credit litigation finance, structured credit, and diverse equity strategies, managing over $3 billion in assets.

Company Website: https://apertureinvestors.com/

Year Founded: Founded in 2018 by Peter Kraus in partnership with Generali Group, one of the largest global insurance and asset management companies

Headquarters:  Headquartered in New York with offices in London and Paris

Area of Focus:  Aperture Investors approaches litigation finance through a private credit perspective, prioritizing capital protection and steady income by utilizing structured term notes. These notes are backed by diversified, settled, or short-duration legal claims, offering lower volatility than traditional litigation funding, which depends on individual case outcomes and carries higher uncertainty and risk.

We primarily focus on lending against legal claims that are either post-settlement or procedurally mature, near-settlement, and/or short-duration. This approach emphasizes secured lending on more predictable claims to reduce volatility and enhance income stability

Member Quote: “The litigation finance asset class generally exhibits minimal correlation with broader capital markets, is highly inefficient, and continues to grow as demand for legal funding exceeds available capital, creating a compelling opportunity for private credit lenders like Aperture Investors.”

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) (Omni Bridgeway, OBL, Group) announces the key investment performance metrics for the three months ended 30 September 2024 (1Q25, Quarter). 

Summary 

• Investment proceeds of A$105.8 million in 1Q25; A$14.2 million provisionally attributable to OBL¹, excluding management and performance fees. 
• Performance fees of A$9.7 million received during the Quarter². 
• Management, transaction and equivalent fees of A$5.9 million during the Quarter. 
• 15 full and partial completions in the Quarter, delivered an overall multiple on invested capital (MOIC) of 2.7x. 
• 7 full completions during the quarter had a combined fair value conversion ratio of 97%³. 
• A$129 million in new fair value added from A$138 million of new commitments. 
• Strong pipeline, with agreed term sheets outstanding for an estimated A$198 million in new commitments, if converted. 
• Transaction fees have successfully been included in nearly all new commitments made in FY25 and/or negotiated in new term sheets. 
• OBL cash and receivables of A$114 million at 30 September 2024. 
• A$0.8 billion of fair value in potential completions over the next 12 months. 
• Good progress in relation to the strategic focus areas of cost optimisation and secondary market transactions. 

Key metrics and developments for the Quarter 

Income and completions 

• During the Quarter, five full completions and seven partial completions were recognised, and two full completions and one partial completion were recorded as income yet to be recognised (IYTBR), resulting in proceeds of A$105.8 million for the quarter, with A$14.2 million provisionally attributable to OBL (excluding management and performance fees¹). 
• The overall MOIC on these 15 full and partial completions during the quarter (incl. IYTBR) was 2.7x.
• The seven full completions during the Quarter (incl. as IYTBR) had a combined fair value conversion ratio of 97%.³ The fair value conversion ratio for all 31 fully completed investments (excl. as IYTBR) since transitioning to fair value per 31 December 2023 is 111%. 

New Commitments

• As per the date of this report, new commitments of A$138 million were made to 10 new investments as well as to a number of investments with increased investment opportunities. This level, proportionate to the full year target, reflects the typical northern hemisphere seasonality, and is in line with prior years.
• Total new commitments include A$28 million of potential external co-fundings for new investments originated and managed by OBL. OBL will be entitled to separately agreed management fees, transaction and performance fees on such external co-funding.
• The fair value associated with these new commitments is A$129 million.
• Strong pipeline of 34 agreed exclusive term sheets, representing approximately A$198 million in investment opportunities.
• Transaction fees have been successfully included in the majority of new commitments made and term sheets signed in FY25. Transaction fees have typically been structured as a combination of an upfront fee and an annual recurring fee at or exceeding on average 2.5% of the investment commitment (in total over the life of the investment). 

Portfolio review

• As at 30 September 2024, A$0.8 billion of fair value is assessed to potentially complete in the 12 months until 30 September 2025 (12 Month Fair Value). The 12 Month Fair Value is the proportionate part of our total book fair value, which has expected cash inflows over the applicable 12 month period based on the underlying probability weighted net cash flows fair value models. All, part or none of these investment inflows may eventuate during the 12-month period.

Corporate 

As announced during the full year results presentation on 29 August 2024, the current strategic focus is on cost optimisation, and fair value validation through completions and secondary market transactions. 

Secondary market discussions on multiple assets are progressing well. A status update will be provided at the semi-annual results presentation or through specific prior ASX announcements.

The AGM of the Company will be held in Sydney, on 19 November 2024, and will be in person only. For more information, visit https://omnibridgeway.com/investors/annual-generalmeeting.

Cash reporting and financial position

At 30 September 2024, the Group held A$113.6 million in cash and receivables (A$71.2 million in OBL balance sheet cash, A$1.0 million in OBL balance sheet receivables and A$41.4 million of OBL share of cash and receivables within Funds).

In aggregate, at 30 September 2024 OBL had approximately A$114 million to meet operational needs, interest payments, and fund investments before receiving any proceeds from investment completions, secondary market sales, management and transaction fees, and associated fund performance fees.

Footnotes

1. Represents indicative cashflows (excluding management and performance fees) from the Funds to OBL in connection with the investment completions. It represents the aggregate estimate of the cash distributed and yet to be distributed under the various distribution waterfalls of the Funds assuming investment proceeds are gross cash proceeds. The Fund’s capital status and waterfalls operate on a cash collection and distribution basis and do not align with the accounting treatment. Accordingly, the income and NCI attribution disclosed in the Group Consolidated Financial Statements will not necessarily match this.
2. Performance fees received are subject to clawback arrangements, to ensure that performance fees ultimately reflect actual fund returns and applicable hurdles. As a result, accrual of performance fees for accounting purposes will generally occur in a later period to the cash receipt.
3. The fair value conversion ratio indicates the ratio of cash proceeds and deployments in connection with completed investments, discounted back to the date of the last reported portfolio fair value (30 June 2024 currently), compared to the reported fair value of such completed investments as at that prior reporting date.
4. All metrics presented are on a full investment basis, excluding the impact of co-investments or partial secondary sales. This reflects a change in methodology from market disclosures prior to FY25, and better reflects the performance of the investments originated, underwritten and managed by the Group.
5. Full life to date metrics include any partial completions in prior periods for the investments involved.
6. Relates to full completions recognised and yet to be recognised during the Quarter.
7. IYTBR reflects the status as per 30 September 2024. If a matter was originally reported as IYTBR for a period and has been recognised as revenue in a later quarter, it is no longer reported in this table as IYTBR in the initial period.
8. Includes Funds 2&3, Fund 4, Fund 6, and Fund 8 and represents OBL’s portion of each respective Fund.
9. Includes Fund 5, which is not consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements, and represents OBL’s 20% interest.
10. Includes Funds 2&3, Fund 4, Fund 6, and Fund 8 and represents the external investors’ portion of each respective Fund. 

Further information

Further information on terms used in this announcement is available in our Glossary and Notes:

https://omnibridgeway.com/investors/omni-bridgeway-glossary (Glossary)

https://omnibridgeway.com/docs/default-source/investors/general/omni-bridgeway-notes-toquarterly (Notes)

The Glossary and Notes contain important information, including definitions of key concepts, and should be read in conjunction with this announcement.

The investments of Funds 2&3, Fund 4 and Fund 6 are consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements, along with the interest of the respective external fund investors.

The investments of Fund 8 are consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements. Fund 1 was deconsolidated on 31 May 2023; its metrics, effective from this date, are not disclosed in this document. The Fund 4 IP portfolio was deconsolidated on 8 December 2023 following the sale of a 25% interest in these investments.

Fund 1 and Fund 5 are not consolidated within the Group Consolidated Financial Statements; the residual interest in Fund 1 and in the Fund 4 IP portfolio are recognised as an investment in associate, Fund 5 is brought in at the Group’s attributable 20% share of income, assets, and liabilities. Throughout this document, Fund 5 is presented at 100% values (except where otherwise stated) for consistency of presentation across OBL’s funds.

Commitments include conditional, and investment committee approved investments. This report includes a number of concepts, such as fair value and income yet to be recognised, which are classified as a non-IFRS financial measure under ASIC Regulatory Guide 230 “Disclosing non-IFRS financial information”. Management believes that these measures are useful for investors to understand the operations and financial condition of the group. Unless expressly stated, this non-IFRS financial information has not been subject to audit or review by BDO in accordance with IFRS.

The figures presented in this document are based on preliminary data and have not been audited. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, these figures are subject to change and should not be considered final. 

This announcement is authorised for release to the market by the Disclosure Committee.

NorthWall Capital (“NorthWall”), a leading credit investment firm delivering private capital solutions to counterparties in Western Europe, today announces the appointment of Shannon Cody as Head of Business Development, EMEA. Shannon will focus on strengthening relationships with existing global institutional investors, while expanding the firm’s client base through new partnerships. Her efforts will play a key role in driving capital growth across NorthWaII’s core strategies, which include Opportunistic Credit, Senior Lending, Asset-Backed Lending and Legal Assets.

Shannon brings with her over 15 years of experience in business development roles at leading financial institutions. Most recently as Head of EMEA Business Development at Mudrick Capital Management, she led the firm’s business development, sales and client services across EMEA and APAC. Shannon was pivotal in growing Mudrick’s London office, spearheading campaigns focused on distressed and stressed credit strategies. Prior to this, Shannon held senior roles at Barclays and Morgan Stanley, where she led capital introduction efforts across Europe.

Fabian Chrobog, Founder and Chief Investment Officer at NorthWaII Capital, said: “We are thrilled to welcome Shannon Cody to NorthWall at this exciting time for our firm. Her extensive experience in establishing long-term partnerships with investors will be crucial as we continue to expand our footprint across EMEA. Shannon will help us deepen relationships with our institutional investor base as we continue to scale our flagship credit strategies.”

Shannon Cody, Head of Business Development, EMEA at NorthWaII Capital, said: “I am excited to join NorthWall and look forward to working with the team to expand our presence across the region and drive continued fundraising success.”

Earlier this year NorthWaII announced the final close of its flagship North Wall European Opportunities Fund Il and associated vehicles attracting more than €640m in investor commitments, surpassing its initial €500m target and more than doubling the size of its predecessor vintage.

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

On the afternoon of September 25, the “International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry” was successfully held in Beijingi. The Conference was hosted by the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center (BIDRC), organized by Houzhu Capital, and co-organized by Dingsong Legal Capital.

The conference received support from the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Other supporting organizations included the Chinese Society of International Law, China-Asia Economic Development Association, China-Africa Business Council, Queen Mary University of London, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Hilco IP Merchant Banking, Nivalion, Dun & Bradstreet, Caijing, and Law Plus. The Conference attracted over 300 guests in person and more than 60,000 participants online.

Huang Jin, Chairman of the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center and President of the Chinese Society of International Law, and Yu Jianlong, Vice President of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and Vice President of the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), delivered opening remarks. The Conference was moderated by Jiang Lili, Commissioner and Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC.

Huang Jin first warmly welcomed and sincerely thanked all participants and supporters on behalf of BIDRC. He stated that this Conference is the first international conference hosted by BIDRC, marking a significant milestone. As the operational entity of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, BIDRC plays a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the international commercial arbitration center and leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China. He emphasized the need to understand the key trends in the development of international commercial arbitration, including humanization, modernization, internationalization, localization, integration, and digitization. He also stressed the importance of improving a robust arbitration system, cultivating world-class international arbitration institutions, and creating a top-tier business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law, and international standards. These efforts will enhance China’s foreign-related legal system and strengthen its capacity.

Yu Jianlong highlighted in his speech that, given the profound changes in the international situation and trade patterns in recent years, enhancing corporate competitiveness and strengthening corporate compliance are crucial for promoting high-level opening-up and facilitating the high-quality international expansion of Chinese enterprises. Third-party funding is an important tool for improving companies’ ability to address overseas disputes. With the accelerated pace of Chinese companies expanding abroad and the deepening integration of the domestic legal service market with international standards, third-party funding is gradually being accepted and utilized by more Chinese enterprises and legal professionals. He expressed that this conference provides an excellent platform for the industry to explore third-party funding. He hopes participants will strengthen collaboration between academia and practice, deepen their understanding of corporate needs, and continuously learn from international best practices. He also looks forward to fostering cooperation between third-party funding institutions and enterprises.

As a leading scholar in the field of third-party funding, Professor Mulheron from Queen Mary University of London was invited to deliver a keynote speech on the state of third-party funding in England and Wales. Full speech (recording and transcript) available at Houzhu Capital’s WeChat Official Account

In her address, Professor Mulheron examined the rise and evolution of third-party funding in the region, and talked about issues surrounding self-regulation and government oversight within the industry. She provided clear explanations of typical business models in third-party funding, the fee structures for funders, potential costs borne by funders, after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and protections for funded parties. She also offered in-depth insights into cutting-edge issues and perspectives within the field. Professor Mulheron concluded with five key takeaways about third-party funding in England: First, the market is very established and sophisticated, with many funders, brokers and ATE insurers in the market now; Second, third party funding features in both English litigation and arbitration;  Third, because of the criteria which funders apply to cases under their business models, only less than 10% of all cases pitched to the funders are funded; Fourth, third-party funding must comply with industry codes of conduct, which include minimum capital requirements for funders; Finally, while England possesses considerable experience in judicial practices concerning third-party funding, there have been debates and disagreements regarding the structure of funding and the validity of funding agreements, and the legislature is taking steps to address relevant issues to further support third-party funding, as it is indeed becoming a huge global market.

During Panel I, Professor Fu Yulin from Peking University Law School served as the moderator. The panelists included Zhang Haoliang, Head of the Business Development Division (International Cases Division) of the BAC/BIAC; Wei Ziping, Director of the Oversight and Coordination Office of CIETAC; Chen Bo, Deputy Secretary-General of CMAC; Yu Zijin, Consultant of HKIAC; Zhang Cunyuan, Director of the China Region of SIAC and Chief Representative of the Shanghai Representative Office; and Huang Zhijin, Director for North Asia and Shanghai Representative Office of ICC. The discussion centered on third-party funding and arbitration rules, drawing on the practices and experiences of the respective institutions. The panelists exchanged insights on recent updates to arbitration rules concerning third-party funding, disclosure requirements, measures to prevent conflicts of interest, and relevant cases processed by their organizations. The panelists concurred that third-party funding is evolving rapidly in practice, and arbitration institutions generally adopt a relatively open stance towards its use in arbitration. They also recognize the necessity for ongoing practice to fully understand the impact of third-party funding on arbitration procedures and rules, with the aim of maintaining the independence and justice of arbitration while better serving the parties.

During Panel II, the discussion was moderated by Fei Ning, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital. The panelists included Quentin Pak, Director at Burford; Fu Tong, Co-founder and CEO of Houzhu Capital; Michael D. Friedman, CEO of Hilco IP Merchant Banking; Lau chee chong, Senior legal counsel of Omni Bridgeway in Singapore; Falco Kreis, Senior Investment Manager and Head of the Munich Office at Nivalion; Zhang Zhi, Founder of Dingsong Legal Capital; and Zhu Zhen, Product Sales & Solutions Director of Dun Bradstreet. The panelists discussed third-party funding practices both domestically and internationally, sharing their institutions’ experiences across various jurisdictions. They explored a range of topics, including case selection processes and criteria, monetization and funding in the field of intellectual property, the interaction between arbitration rules and funding practices, and risk management for enterprises expanding into foreign markets. They noted that the client base and demand for litigation funding are becoming increasingly diversified, prompting third-party funding institutions to expand their product and service offerings. The panelists expressed optimism regarding the development of third-party funding in China while highlighting unique challenges that the Chinese market faces compared to the international landscape.

During Panel III, the discussion was moderated by Wang Jialu, Co-founder of Houzhu Capital. The panel featured Zachary Sharpe, Head of the Global Disputes Team at Jones Day’s Singapore office; Liu Xiao, Partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Zhong Li, Partner of Hui Zhong Law Firm; Wang Zheng, Partner of Hongqiao Zhenghan Law Firm; Li Zhiyong, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of CSCEC International; and Li Lu, Chief Compliance Officer of Essence Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. The panelists discussed the application of third-party funding, sharing common challenges and solutions they encountered in their past practices, each informed by their specific business contexts. They addressed various issues, including how to set and manage reasonable expectations regarding case progress and outcomes, effectively handle confidentiality and privilege concerns, and navigate disclosures along with related conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the panelists agreed that third-party funding plays a unique role in promoting dispute resolution and accessing justice, especially in bridging the gap between law firms and enterprises in complex cross-border litigation and arbitration.

The successful convening of this conference has established a valuable channel for ongoing communication between domestic and international practitioners and scholars in the field of third-party funding. It has enhanced understanding and awareness of third-party funding within the domestic market and facilitated positive interactions and cooperation among third-party funding institutions, dispute resolution agencies, and relevant users. This will significantly advance the further development of third-party funding in China and make an indispensable contribution to helping Chinese enterprises effectively address cross-border disputes and achieve high-quality development.

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

A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.

With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.

In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.

The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.

The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.

The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But – at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 – the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.

In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker – in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details – including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.

Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’

In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.

After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

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

This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.

We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.

Heather Collins is Chief Investment Officer at Court House Capital and a member of the Investment Committee and is responsible for assessing and overseeing investment opportunities across Australia and New Zealand, as well as identifying and managing a portfolio of funded claims through to resolution.

Heather brings over twenty years’ expertise in legal funding, commercial legal practice and in-house corporate counsel roles. In litigation funding, Heather has underwritten significant disputes. She is a veteran commercial litigator with significant experience advising clients on insolvency, banking and finance, property, construction, Corporations law, trade practices and employment matters. Her client base has spanned industry sectors including property, construction, infrastructure, finance and retail and she has acted for leading consumer brands such as Tiffany & Co, Ralph Lauren, Valentino, Aldi and Sephora.

Heather holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Adelaide and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors course (GAICD). Heather is the former President of the Women’s Insolvency Network Association NSW branch (WINA) and a Professional Member of the Australian Restructuring & Insolvency Association (ARITA) and the Turnaround Management Association Australia (TMA). She is recognised in Chambers and Partners Litigation Support (2024) and Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance (2021-2024).

Company Name and Description: Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Court House Capital was established with a mission to provide financial and strategic support to parties seeking capital, risk management and access to justice. Our team is led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, and is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration.

Company Website: courthousecapital.com.au

Year Founded: 2019

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

Member Quote: We offer cost and risk mitigation strategies for commercial clients and ‘a level playing field’ for those who cannot afford to pursue justice themselves. It is an honour to be co-founders of an industry that provides access to justice for so many, and to be the funder of choice for claimants and professional advisers. Our financial resources, industry network and knowledge has helped many claimants achieve successful outcomes.

Sarama Resources Ltd. (“Sarama” or the “Company”) (ASX:SRR)(TSXV:SWA) is pleased to advise that it has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (“LFA”) with Locke Capital II LLC, an arm’s length party that specializes in providing funding for dispute resolution (the “Funder”) to commence international arbitration proceedings in relation to its investment dispute (the “Dispute”) with the Government of Burkina Faso (the “Government”).

The Dispute pertains to the illegal withdrawal of the Company’s rights to the Tankoro 2 Exploration Permit (the “Permit”) (refer news release 5 September 2023). The Permit covered the Tankoro Deposit which was the focal point of the Company’s Sanutura Project (the “Project”) which featured a multi-million ounce gold resource.

Litigation Funding Agreement

The LFA provides a four-year non-recourse loan facility (“Facility”) of US$4.4 million to the Company to cover all fees and expenses related to its Claim to Arbitration (the “Claim”).

Security of the Facility is limited to the Claim, associated potential proceeds and all benefits arising from the property and assets of the subsidiary companies comprising the ownership chain (the “Chain”) pertaining to the Project (refer Annual Information Form, 2 April 2024). The Facility has been structured to enable the Company to continue to operate and consolidate its business outside the Chain without encumbrance or lien from the LFA.

All monies advanced through the Facility are non-recourse and repayable only in the event of a successful Claim or settlement of the Dispute that results in the receipt of Proceeds (“Proceeds”) by the Company or in the event of a default by Sarama under the LFA. In the event of the occurrence of a material adverse change under the LFA, the Funder shall be entitled to recover only those funds which were advanced but remain unspent. The Funder’s return is directly tied to the successful award and settlement of the Claim, with the total amount payable being a function of time and total Proceeds receipted. The priorities for distribution of receipted Proceeds are set out in the LFA and where commercially and legally sensitive, shall remain confidential.

If there is no settlement or award (or no default by Sarama under the LFA), the Company does not have an obligation to repay the loan. A detailed budget has been approved as part of the LFA, which covers all expected legal and ancillary costs associated with the arbitration process.

Plans for Arbitration

On 29 November 2023, the Company issued a Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso. The Government of Burkina Faso did not respond substantively to the Company’s efforts to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. With funding to support legal costs secured, the Company is now preparing to lodge a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). The Company will seek full compensation for the loss suffered which may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the Permit, the value of the Company’s historic investments in the Project, the value of the Project at the time the Permit was withdrawn and damages the Company has suffered as a direct result of the Government’s actions. The Project hosted a multi-million-ounce gold resource which was the subject of a substantially complete Preliminary Economic Assessment and fast-tracked development study at the time of the Government’s illegal actions.

The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP (“BSF”), a leading international law firm, to assist with legal matters pertaining to the dispute (refer news release 17 October 2023). BSF is an internationally recognised dispute resolution law firm with extensive experience representing investors in international investment arbitrations in the mining and natural resources sectors worldwide.

Background to Claim

On 31 August 2023, the Company received notification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Quarries of Burkina Faso (the “Minister”) that the Company’s application for the Permit, received in August 2021 and granted to Sarama in November 2021 had been purportedly “rejected”, even though the previous Minister had approved the Permit in accordance with the applicable laws nearly two years prior.

On 6 September 2023, during his public presentation at the Africa Down Under Mining Conference in Perth, the Minister, Simon-Pierre Boussim, stated that the Permit was available for purchase. Based on the notification from the Minister and his subsequent actions, the Company was forced to interpret the Minister’s letter of 25 August 2023 as withdrawing the Company’s rights to the Permit. The Minister did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Company on the matter.

The unlawful withdrawal of the Permit by the Minister, resulting in the removal of the rights to the land conferred thereunder, has rendered the Project valueless to Sarama, consequently destroying the value of the Company’s investment in the Project.

Sarama’s President, CEO & MD, Andrew Dinning, commented:

“The establishment of a non-recourse funding facility to cover all expenses related to the Company’s arbitration case represents a major step forward in its pursuit of redress for the substantial damages suffered as a result of the Government of Burkina Faso’s illegal actions.

Sarama’s legal representatives, Boies Schiller Flexner, are highly experienced and have a very successful track record in international investment disputes, including an arbitration claim brought by Indiana Resources (ASX:IDA) against Tanzania which saw the company recently receive the first tranche of a US$90M settlement.

The Company will now proceed with filing a Request for Arbitration and intends to prosecute its case to the fullest extent possible.”

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

Information in this news release that is not a statement of historical fact constitutes forward-looking information. Such forward looking information includes, but is not limited to: the sufficiency and continued availability of funding for arbitration; statements regarding the possibility of initiating international arbitration proceedings in accordance with the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso; the impact, if any, of the actions of the Government on the Company’s investments in mineral projects in Burkina Faso; the ability for the Company to successfully recover proceeds of an award or settlement from Burkina Faso; the filing of the material change report; the occurrence of an event of default or material adverse change under the LFA; and providing further information in due course. Actual results may vary from the forward-looking information due to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; the success of the Claim; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations and expropriation or nationalization of mining operations; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; as well as those factors disclosed in the Company’s publicly filed documents. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.

Sarama does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable laws.

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.