Content for the Public

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.

Rockpoint Legal Funding proudly participated in the annual conference hosted by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), showcasing its commitment to supporting legal professionals and their clients. As the only funding company endorsed by CAOC, Rockpoint Legal Funding leveraged this premier event to connect with new and prospective partners reinforcing its position as a trusted funder within California’s legal community.

The CAOC is a prestigious network of attorneys dedicated to protecting the rights of California consumers. Each year, the organization hosts its annual convention, bringing together some of the brightest legal minds and innovators in the industry. For Rockpoint Legal Funding, this event was an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate its unwavering dedication to empowering attorneys and their clients through tailored legal funding solutions.

During the convention, Rockpoint operated a booth where team members engaged with attendees, offering insights into the company’s services and how they benefit both legal professionals and consumers seeking justice. From new attorneys looking for funding solutions to established firms aiming to streamline their case workflows, Rockpoint provided personalized advice and showcased its comprehensive suite of legal funding options.

“Rockpoint is proud to partner with the Consumer Attorneys of California. We take a lot of pride in serving the attorneys and their clients of this prestigious organization,” said Ramtin Ghaneeian, Founding Partner of Rockpoint Legal Funding. His statement highlights the company’s commitment to strengthening its collaboration with CAOC and continuing to support its mission of safeguarding the rights of California consumers.

President of Rockpoint Legal Funding, Maz Ghorban, emphasized the value of building strong relationships at events like this, stating, “It’s a privilege to connect with our law firm partners at the CAOC convention each year while ensuring our values align with protecting California consumers through legal recourse.”

Rockpoint’s presence at the CAOC annual convention underscores its dedication to fostering meaningful connections within the legal community. By being the only CAOC-endorsed funding company, Rockpoint reinforces its credibility and reliability in the legal funding landscape. This endorsement is a testament to Rockpoint’s shared vision with CAOC in championing consumer rights and providing critical support to those navigating the justice system.

For attorneys and law firms, Rockpoint Legal Funding offers a variety of non-recourse funding solutions, ensuring clients have the financial support they need during ongoing litigation. This commitment aligns perfectly with CAOC’s mission to advocate for justice and fairness for California consumers.

As Rockpoint continues to deepen its relationships with legal professionals, events like the CAOC annual convention remain a cornerstone of its outreach efforts. The company looks forward to future collaborations and furthering its impact within the legal community.

For more information about Rockpoint Legal Funding and its services, visit Rockpointlegalfunding.com or call (855) 582-9200.

About Rockpoint Legal Funding

Rockpoint Legal Funding is a leading provider of non-recourse legal funding solutions, serving attorneys and their clients with unparalleled expertise and care. With a mission to empower justice and support favorable case outcomes, Rockpoint is committed to providing financial assistance during critical times, ensuring no one is denied access to legal recourse due to financial constraints.

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.”

The following was contributed by Aaron R. Winston, Strategy Director of Express Legal Funding.

Express Legal Funding, a nationally recognized pre-settlement funding company, is proud to announce the launch of its completely redesigned website. Built on a fully custom WordPress theme, the new website reflects the company’s commitment to innovation, usability, and educating clients through high-quality resources.

Custom-Built for an Exceptional Experience

Unlike generic templates, Express Legal Funding’s new site is crafted from the ground up to provide a tailored experience for its users. The custom theme ensures superior functionality, faster load times, and an optimized design that serves both plaintiffs and attorneys. Key elements were developed to improve user engagement and make essential resources more accessible.

Highlighting the Blog: A Resource Hub for Legal Education

One of the standout features of the new site is the expanded and enhanced blog section. The blog serves as a comprehensive resource hub, offering expert insights, step-by-step guides, and practical advice for personal injury plaintiffs and attorneys. Articles are carefully curated and optimized for clarity, ensuring visitors gain valuable knowledge about legal funding and related topics.

Recent posts include:

• Guaranteed Pre-settlement Funding: Eligibility & Approval
• Are Insurance Policies Public Record? Access & Privacy Law
• 15 Must Ask Questions in a Free Lawyer Consultation

Aaron Winston, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding, shared, “Our blog has become an indispensable tool for helping consumers make informed legal and financial decisions. With the redesign, we’ve elevated it to a new level, blending visually engaging content with highly relevant information.”

Key Features of the Redesigned Website:

• Custom Theme Development: Tailored design and functionality to meet the unique needs of Express Legal Funding’s clients and partners.
• Interactive Case-Type Summaries: A dynamic widget allows visitors to explore various case types and their funding options in detail.
• Responsive Design: Built with mobile-first principles, ensuring a seamless experience across all devices.
• Enhanced Blog: A centralized platform for high-quality, SEO-optimized content that provides actionable insights and legal education.
• Transparent Pricing Comparison: A detailed section highlights how Express Legal Funding’s rates outperform competitors, reinforcing its commitment to affordability and fairness.

A Commitment to Transparency and User Empowerment

The new website demonstrates Express Legal Funding’s dedication to educating and empowering its audience. Each feature is designed with transparency and ease of use in mind, ensuring that clients have the tools and information they need to make confident decisions about pre-settlement funding.

“Our custom redesign reflects who we are as a company—dedicated, transparent, and forward-thinking innovators,” said Winston. “We’re excited to share our new look and continue to be a trusted resource for personal injury plaintiffs and attorneys.”

Visit the New Website Today

The newly redesigned website is now live at ExpressLegalFunding.com. Explore the updated features and discover how Express Legal Funding continues to bridge the gap between lawsuits and settlements through affordability, transparency, and client-centric services.

About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a pre-settlement funding company based in Plano, Texas, offering financial support to plaintiffs during their legal battles. With an emphasis on education, affordability, and transparency, the company empowers clients to cover essential living expenses while pursuing fair settlements.

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

Wexler AI, the AI-powered legal fact intelligence platform, today announced major enhancements driving adoption among leading law firms, including Burges Salmon and a top AmLaw100 firm. Clifford Chance is also exploring the platform for use in its world-leading litigation and dispute resolution practice. Wexler’s platform automates essential fact-checking and intelligence gathering in high-stakes legal disputes, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic value-driven activities. These advancements follow a $1.4M pre-seed funding round led by Myriad Venture Partners, with support from Entrepreneur First, prominent angel investors at ComplyAdvantage, Moonpig, Tractable, and CreditKudos, fueling Wexler’s growth and mission to redefine litigation worldwide.

Since its launch in April of this year, Wexler AI has processed over one million queries, achieved approximately 2X month-over-month growth, and more than tripled its annual recurring revenue (ARR). Wexler’s advanced platform enables law firms to help manage large caseloads with greater accuracy, reallocating resources from time-intensive manual review to high-value legal strategy. Built by security and privacy experts, the platform uses user-specific encryption keys, masks personal data, and meets ISO 27001, GDPR, and AWS Cloud Security standards.

“Wexler assists lawyers working on the world’s most complex cases. The platform delivers critical, verified facts that legal teams can act on with full confidence,” said Gregory Mostyn, co-founder and CEO of Wexler AI. “With support from Myriad Venture Partners, and Entrepreneur First, and working closely with Burges Salmon and also Clifford Chance, among others, we’re not just transforming how the legal industry tackles the time and efficiencies of fact-finding, but helping our customers generate greater business value for their clients.”

There is significant potential to improve efficiencies in the litigation document review process. Wexler’s AI approach reduces manual work, minimizes risk, and uncovers critical facts faster. Unlike traditional eDiscovery tools that merely organize documents, Wexler is purpose-built for high-stakes dispute resolution, delivering insights with an accuracy matching seasoned litigators.

Central to this is KiM, Wexler’s advanced agent for complex dispute tasks, which produces verified work output directly from case facts, automating steps like drafting, generating court applications, and extracting data from vast document sets. More than a passive tool, Wexler uncovers red flags, suggests follow-ups, and enhances case strategy as an active partner, enabling legal teams to drive efficiency and deliver results on the most challenging cases.

“Wexler is a powerful AI tool that is clearly designed for the types and volumes of work faced in dispute resolution,” said Tom Whittaker, director at Burges Salmon. “It allows us to identify relevant facts and produce useful work in a relatively short time, augmenting the work of our expert teams by providing them with additional methods to achieve their objectives. It has been a pleasure to work with the Wexler team over a number of years to continually improve its functionality to help meet our clients’ and colleagues’ high expectations.

With new funding from Myriad, Wexler is expanding its platform in 2025 including new features such as automated document drafting, advanced fact-checking tools, and streamlined discovery requests. These enhancements will extend Wexler’s impact beyond the legal sector, offering new applications in compliance and HR investigations.

“Wexler AI is redefining fact-finding for legal and investigative work, and we see enormous potential in its unique approach,” said Chris Fisher, founder and managing partner of Myriad Venture Partners. “Their rapid growth and ability to deliver verified, actionable information are transforming how legal teams and other professionals manage complex data. We’re excited to support Wexler’s journey and look forward to their continued momentum and innovation.”

Wexler’s founding team blends deep expertise in AI, law, and business. Gregory Mostyn and Kush Madlani met at Entrepreneur First, united by a vision of creating a category defining applied AI company. Gregory saw the inefficiencies of litigation firsthand when his barrister, then judge father, returned from work with binders piled high to the roof of his office. Kush, a former JP Morgan derivatives trader, began automating workflows with Python before completing a Machine Learning Master’s at UCL and joining Tractable, where he developed fraud-detection models and continuous improvement systems. Kush’s scientific background pairs perfectly with Gregory’s commercial experience as a marketing and sales director to transform dispute resolution. 

Wexler AI collaborates with partners across the legal sector, from AM 100 law firms to in-house teams at major enterprises. Interested clients can request a demo at https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Wexler AI

Wexler AI tackles the world’s most complex cases by streamlining fact analysis for legal, compliance, eDiscovery, tax, and forensics teams. Trusted by top global law firms, Wexler is redefining fact-finding through a combination of AI and human expertise. For more information, visit https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Myriad Venture Partners

Myriad Venture Partners is an early-stage venture firm defining the future of business solutions. Investing in visionary AI, clean technology, and B2B software leaders, Myriad brings decades of expertise and a robust corporate and financial partnership network. By connecting entrepreneurs, corporate partners, industry leaders, and co-investors, Myriad is changing the ways businesses operate, compete, and create value.

Reid Zeising is the Founder and CEO of Gain, a company transforming the personal injury landscape. Gain integrates the industry’s leading AI-enhanced Letter of Protection (LOP) servicing platform with professionally managed services and financial solutions, serving healthcare providers, attorneys, and plaintiffs. 

Company Name and Description: Gain

Company Website: gainservicing.com

Year Founded: 2011

Headquarters:  3424 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326, United States

Area of Focus:  Personal Injury ecosystem

Member Quote: Gain is committed to leveling the insurance playing field for those injured through no fault of their own, ensuring they have access to the quality healthcare and financial peace of mind they deserve.

Fenchurch Legal, a specialist in litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, has strengthened its board with the appointment of The Rt Hon Ranil Jayawardena as a non-executive director.

This appointment reinforces Fenchurch Legal’s strategic priorities of bringing independent views to its board, which enhances its governance processes, risk oversight, and decision-making capabilities.

As a former Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire, Ranil Jayawardena brings a distinguished track record. During his tenure in government, he held key positions, including International Trade Minister and Environment Secretary, where he worked on post-Brexit trade agreements, national infrastructure, and agricultural policy. Prior to his political career in Westminster, Ranil built his experience in the financial sector at Lloyds Banking Group – and served his community in local government, where he was responsible for £400 million AUM.

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: “We are delighted to welcome Ranil to the board as we embark on our next phase of growth. Ranil’s knowledge and experience of regulation and financial services, alongside his experience as a Non-Executive Director on other boards, will be invaluable during this important time. Ranil’s external oversight will complement our existing board, enhancing our focus on strong governance and risk management.”

Commenting on his new role, Ranil Jayawardena added: “Having served in government for many years, I am excited to embark on this new chapter in business and support Fenchurch Legal’s growth ambitions. Litigation funding is an important enabler of access to justice, and I look forward to contributing to the company’s continued success.”

Prominent legal funder, Nera Capital, is spreading festive cheer this holiday season with the opening of its £250,000 Access to Justice Fund for those in need of support.

The firm plans to launch the generous fund in December, which will be open to individuals throughout the world who are in need of legal assistance or financial support. With no limitation on the amount an individual can apply for, each application will be assessed by a committee on its merits and urgency. 

Speaking about providing this important assistance, Nera Capital Director Aisling Byrne explained: “The fund will provide critical support for those who have been harmed, marginalised or ignored. “It aims to assist those in vulnerable situations, whether by funding the pursuit of legal claims or offering general support. For example, the fund could help families living in hazardous housing conditions who lack the financial means to relocate to safer, more suitable accommodation. This could include a council property in severe disrepair causing health issues.”

She continued: “The fund is dedicated to empowering individuals to overcome systemic neglect and improve their circumstances.” As an international litigation funder, Nera Capital, already assists individuals who have fallen victim to financial mis-selling, data breach, undisclosed commissions, personal injury and more.

Established in 2011 in Ireland from the aftermath of the 2008 global economic downturn, Nera Capital was born to support local individuals who could no longer secure loans from traditional banks. The company pioneered a unique approach by structuring loans attached to personal injury or probate claims, providing much-needed liquidity to law firms seeking justice for its clients.

This innovative strategy quickly gained traction and fuelled the company’s growth, which now operates in five jurisdictions and has offices in Ireland, UK and The Netherlands funding law firms around the globe. For Ms Byrne, opening up the Access to Justice Fund is a way for the successful company to give back while recognising the reason they started Nera Capital.

She explained: “The firm was established with a bold ambition to assist individuals and families and revolutionise the legal finance sector by blending modern technology with traditional values, all while supporting access to justice.

Additional information on the fund and how to apply can be found on the Nera Capital website: www.neracapital.com.

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

The following is a contributed piece from Rupert Cunningham, Director for Growth and Membership Engagement at the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA).

In their call for more EU regulation last week, AmCham EU, Business Europe and their co-signatories make misleading and inaccurate allegations about third-party litigation funding. These calls have been repeated by the same groups over and over again, pushed by big corporations that simply do not want those harmed by their wrongful behaviour to have recourse in the judicial system. ILFA will continue to counter these claims in the strongest terms. Below we unravel some of the most common misleading statements:

Myth: “Third-party litigation funders currently operate in a regulatory vacuum and without any transparency requirements.”

There is no regulatory vacuum. Litigation funders are regulated under company law in the same way as any other business, for example, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Specific to litigation funding, activities are regulated by the Representative Actions Directive and the Collective Redress Directive.

Publicly traded funders are further regulated through legislation on securities and financial instruments and by the relevant stock exchanges and financial authorities. This includes publishing annual reports on financial performance. Examples of other EU rules that apply to listed funders include the Shareholder Rights Directive, Prospectus Regulation, MIFID II.

Lawyers engaged in litigation are bound by professional, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities to represent the best interests of their clients where they practise.

Myth: “A civil justice climate that is abundant in abusive claims and mass private third-party funded litigation, creates a chilling effect that deters businesses from innovating, investing, competing, and prospering.”

Supporting meritorious litigation does not deter businesses from innovating and prospering – it deters corporate wrongdoing. As long as companies behave responsibly and comply with the obligations set out in the law, they have nothing to fear from litigation funding.

Myth: “If civil litigation remains funded by unregulated private third parties, we expect a surge in speculative litigation in the EU, which would undermine public confidence in the European justice systems at a time when maintaining faith in our democratic institutions is so critical.”

Far from undermining public confidence in the legal system, a recent independent report from the European Law Institute (ELI) concluded litigation funding plays a ‘functionally vital role in facilitating access to justice in many jurisdictions’.^[1]

With public funding (legal aid) increasingly concentrated in the criminal justice sphere, litigation funding offers vital assistance to claimants bringing meritorious civil claims to courts. Greater access to justice, supported by litigation funding, leads to the development of better legal jurisprudence – a benefit to our legal system and to the rule of the law.

Myth: “TPLF is a for-profit business model that allows private financiers, investment firms, and hedge funds, to sign confidential deals with lawyers or qualified entities to invest in lawsuits or arbitration in exchange for a significant portion of any compensation that may be awarded, sometimes as much as 40% of the total compensation but can go even substantially higher.”

Litigation funder’s fees reflect the level of risk undertaken (which will vary) and are assessed case-by-case.

Many funded cases are “David vs. Goliath” in nature with well-resourced defendants. This requires substantial upfront financial investment to level the playing field and for cases to proceed. In the UK sub-postmasters’ recent successful claim against the Post Office, the Post Office spent nearly 250m GBP on its defence.

Myth: “The financial incentives of such practices encourage frivolous and predatory litigation, but they also shortchange genuine claimants and consumers.”

Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, i.e. if the case is unsuccessful, the funder loses their entire investment. There is no logical financial incentive for litigation funders to fund frivolous legal claims. Funders’ due-diligence checks assist the justice system by weeding out unmeritorious claims that have a poor chance of success when put before a court. The approval rate for funding opportunities is as low as 3-5%.

Myth: “The introduction of a purely profit-motivated third party, often non-EU based, into the traditional lawyer-client relationship, raises serious ethical concerns and presents an economic security threat for Europe.”

The letter presents no substantive evidence that litigation funding is being used by ‘non-EU’ entities to destabilise the European economy or legal systems. ILFA suggests that experienced judges and lawyers operating in EU legal systems are more than capable of identifying threats to the integrity of our legal systems and safeguarding against the misuse or abuse of the court system for geopolitical or other aims.

Myth: “Funders are frequently the initiators of claims and may exercise control over decisions taken on behalf of claimants, and in this context, they prioritise their own financial aims over the interests of claimants. Faced with years of litigation brought by claimants with support from well-resourced funders, expensive legal costs, and reputational risk, defendants are often forced to settle even unmeritorious claims.”

Litigation funders make passive outside investments, meaning that funders do not initiate claims or control the matters in which they invest. A recipient of legal funding, and their legal counsel, maintain full control over the conduct of the case, including strategy and ultimate decision-making.

Myth: “If Europe continues to neglect proper oversight of private TPLF we risk our courts becoming profit facilitators for litigation funders, at the expense of European companies, consumers, and the integrity of our court systems.”

The reference to European companies is a curious one. Litigation funders make no distinction between EU or ‘non-EU’ claimants, basing funding awards on factual criteria such as the legal merits of a case, budget, funding required, and any other award and risks associated with the case.

This latest call from big businesses makes clear they continue to side with corporate wrongdoers, diminishing the legitimate rights of businesses and consumers to access justice and exercise their rights before the courts.

“Misleading and inaccurate claims like these appear around the world as part of a global lobbying effort to encourage unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the legal finance sector,” said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s newly appointed Global Director for Growth and Membership Engagement.  “Robustly challenging these persistent myths is critical to improving understanding of the sector amongst policy makers and wider industry stakeholders. That is why it is so important that international organisations like ILFA are able to respond to these claims on behalf of the sector, wherever and whenever they appear.”

By enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims, litigation funding levels the playing field and creates an equality of means between otherwise unequal parties.

[1] https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Principles_Governing_the_Third_Party_Funding_of_Litigation.pdf

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of West U Capital to the organization’s rapidly growing membership base. 

West U Capital is an intellectual property investment firm actively seeking and engaging in a broad range of transactions, including patent litigation funding, law firm financing, patent acquisition, patent-based lending, or some combination of the four. West U’s team has decades of intellectual property-centric investment and capital management experience to provide patent owners and law firms with a range of capital options to help them monetize their patents and grow their businesses. 

“As the world’s leading association representing the commercial legal finance industry, ILFA is excited to welcome West U Capital as its newest member,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “The addition of West U and their IP investment and litigation expertise demonstrates the increasingly diverse arenas in which legal finance helps businesses and entrepreneurs access justice. The firm will play a significant role in promoting the highest standard of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector across investment areas.”

The firm was founded by Managing Partners Joseph Kessler and Mark Roche. Two experienced leaders in the intellectual property space, Kessler formerly co-founded and managed the IP Finance team at Fortress Investment Group, an ILFA member, and Roche co-founded and managed AT&T’s intellectual property arm, Knowledge Ventures, before co-founding IP investment firm Techquity Capital Management. 

“Joining ILFA marks an exciting milestone for West U Capital,” said Roche. “We’re eager to contribute our expertise in patent litigation and law firm financing to ILFA’s ongoing efforts to shape the future of commercial legal finance.” Kessler added, “ILFA’s dedication to promoting transparency and ethical practices aligns with our values at West U. We look forward to collaborating with fellow members to drive innovation and ensure the continued growth and integrity of our industry.” 

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 West U Capital 

West U Capital is an intellectual property-centric investment and capital management firm providing a variety of capital options to help maximize the value of intellectual property, including patent acquisitions, litigation funding, law firm financing, patent-based lending, and hybrid or tailored combinations. Its partners include small and medium companies, multinational corporations, research entities, and universities from a wide array of technology and market sectors across geographical regions. With decades of transactional and investment experience, West U’s growing team has underwritten, executed, managed, and exited hundreds of IP-related investments and transactions involving billions in invested capital. 

For more information, visit https://www.westucapital.com/

Athena Intelligence is the largest corporate intelligence firm in Switzerland, specializing in dispute resolution, litigation support and asset recovery. Liti Capital is a Swiss based litigation funders that made headlines in 2021 for tokenizing its equity and raising funds through cryptocurrency markets. The company has since invested in multiple global cases.

Company Website: https://athenaintelligence.ch/ – https://liticapital.com/

Year Founded: 2019 / 2021

Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

Area of Focus: Asset recovery, blockchain, unorthodox cases

Member Quote: If there is a way to extract returns from this, we will find it.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has today commented on the new position of BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, on the use of commercial funding for collective redress as expressed in their paper ’Justice unchained – BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding’. 

The BEUC paper acknowledges several key points:

• Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is essential to guarantee European consumers access to justice.
• There is ‘insufficient evidence’ for the repeated, unsubstantiated claims of the US Chamber of Commerce that TPLF undermines the justice system.
• There is ‘no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF’ at this time and additional regulation of TPLF risks ‘disproportionately disadvantaging consumer organisations’ and increasing the cost of litigation for those accessing funding. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organisations in the EU, rightly recognises the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organisations in exercising their rights.

We support the BEUC conclusion that further regulation at the EU level at this time does not make sense and that existing tools provide safeguards to ensure the system works fairly. While our critics like the US Chamber of Commerce continue to push unsubstantiated claims to constrain access to justice, BEUC has been able to see through and identify the clear benefits of litigation funding for consumers.’ 

The full paper from BEUC can be found here. 

About ILFA

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 global 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 like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About BEUC

BEUC is the umbrella group for 44 independent consumer organisations from 31 countries. Their main role is to represent them to the EU institutions and defend the interests of European consumers, covering areas such as competition, consumer rights, digital rights, redress and enforcement, financial services, safety, sustainability and trade policy.

The book La Financiación de Litigios en derecho español y comparado: estado del mercado y su regulación, (Thrid Party Funding in Spanish and Comparative Law) published by ARANZADI LA LEY, is being presented by Ramco Litigation Funding and ICADE University. This work provides clarity and reflection on this figure, which is undoubtedly a tool that helps to dynamise the legal sector and provides better access to justice.

This is the first collective book, with 21 leading authors, on Litigation Funding in Spain and is a guide to the status, nature and regulation of this figure in Spain and in Comparative Law. It is aimed at all professionals in the legal sector and includes, in a novel way, in a single work, the perspective of professionals from different areas of the legal sector (professors, lawyers, in-house lawyers, company lawyers, arbitrators, financiers, etc.) both nationally and internationally, on the different aspects of Litigation Funding. The book has been published in Spanish and will be published in English language at the beginning of next year.

Since the first funders entered Spain in 2017, Litigation Finance has seen exponential growth year on year, following the trend observed in other countries. Spain is the fourth country in its use in Europe, after the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, as indicated in the European Parliament report.

In recent years, the Spanish market has experienced a growing demand from companies, law firms and individuals, who see Litigation Finance as a tool to monetise their legal assets, reduce costs and manage risks.

The book was presented las Wednesday at ICADE’s headquarters with the intervention of the Dean of the Faculty of Law and author, Abel Veiga, who stated that a work of this nature was necessary for reflection and debate on this figure in Spain. Urquiola de Palacio, exchairman of the UIA and arbitrator, the book’s prologue writer, commented on the importance of the work in Spain, as well as its potential impact in other jurisdictions, and suggested that it should be translated into English in order to be sent to the European Commission in the process of research being carried out on the regulation of Litigation Funding.

The round table was moderated by Diego Agulló (professor of International Law in ICADE)  and the speakers were Antonio Muñoz Murillo, director of litigation at Iberdrola; Paulino Fajardo, partner at HSF Kramer; Ruth Rodríguez Lazcano, lawyer at the Technical Office of the Supreme Court; and Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding.

Antonio Muñoz Murillo spoke about the importance of the in-house figure in companies and the need for legal departments to adapt to business structures in order to be proactive, exploring new models that exist in the market to add value to their operations.

Paulino Fajardo insisted on the need to normalise the figure of the litigation funder as just another operator in the market and not as something extraordinary. He stated that lawyers owe it to their clients, and that it is up to their clients to decide whether or not to use these structures, while maintaining the lawyer’s total independence.

For her part, Ruth Rodriguez explained the importance of reference works to guide judges and help them to better understand the framework and the use of funders.

Cristina Soler closed the event by thanking all the authors and ICADE, highlighting how important it is for Ramco to have promoted a book of this magnitude to raise awareness of this figure, which continues to grow in Spain with a high degree of user satisfaction, as stated in the recent report published by Ramco in 2023. He insisted that funders do not generate more frivolous litigation, as they study cases in depth and their chances of success; on the contrary, they generate resources for better access to justice.

Ramco will continue to promote valuable activities that provide information and help to improve the understanding of Litigation Finance in a transparent and coherent manner.

For more information: www.ramcolf.com  

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified the £7 billion claim against Google brought by Nikki Stopford, a consumer rights campaigner, on behalf of tens of millions of UK consumers – rejecting Google’s attempt to torpedo the claim early, and adding to the Big Tech firm’s legal and regulatory woes.

The specialist UK court will require Google to defend its longstanding conduct in the search engine market, after approving the landmark legal action brought by Nikki Stopford and legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

The claim accuses Google of exploiting its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers. With certification now secured, millions of UK consumers are poised to pursue compensation for the economic harm caused by Google’s conduct.

The CAT’s decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for Google’s parent company Alphabet, which is fighting to preserve its all-important dominance in online search globally. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proposed that the US courts should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, prohibiting Google from entering into agreements that make it the default search engine on smartphones and browsers, and additional restrictions to ensure its Android smartphone software does not favour Google Search.

The full CAT judgment can be viewed here. The UK court dismissed Google’s arguments in full, including its attempt to have the claim struck out. The CAT held that Ms Stopford had put forward a serious case and authorised her to act as the class representative and permitted the claim to proceed to trial.

Following the CAT’s certification, Ms Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 years or over who, during the period from 1 January 2011 until 7 September 2023 (inclusive), purchased goods and/or services from a business selling in the UK, which used search advertising services provided by Google. The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

The case against Google

The collective action argues that Google used its dominant position in the UK search engine market to overcharge advertisers and that these costs were then passed directly on to the consumer.

Google forced mobile phone handset manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that used Google’s Android operating system; and

Google paid billions to Apple to ensure that Google was the default search engine on all devices, such as the iPhone, that used Apple’s iOS operating system.

Other proceedings

The DoJ action follows a long legal fight brought by the DoJ and several Attorneys General in the US, culminating in a judgment in August 2024 by the District Court of Columbia, which found that Google’s conduct is anti-competitive and unlawful.

This judgment also supports Nikki Stopford’s claim that Google’s commercial agreement with Apple foreclosed the market for search on iOS devices, as do recent findings by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

Meanwhile, the European Commission imposed the biggest fine in history on Google for the anti-competitive practices in Android.

It is alleged that the abuses by Google are possible because Google is set as the default search engine account for at least 94% of the mobile device sector, by usage. Google Ads generated over $224 billion in revenue in 2022, accounting for almost 80% of parent company Alphabet’s revenue ($283 billion in 2022).

Nikki Stopford, the class representative in the action, said:

“This green light from the tribunal is a significant victory for UK consumers. Almost everybody uses Google as their go-to search engine, trusting it to deliver quality results at no cost. But its service isn’t genuinely free because its dominance has resulted in increased costs for consumers. Google has been warned repeatedly by competition regulators. Yet it continues to rig the market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers. This action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable and ensure that consumers are compensated for the harm caused by its conduct.”

Luke Streatfeild, Partner at legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP, who is leading the litigation, said:

“This judgment is good news for UK consumers, as the case for compensation brought by our client on their behalf can now proceed to trial. The judgment is also helpful in clarifying the standard for assessing exclusionary conduct by dominant companies, in particular in digital markets with high barriers to entry, and it will be a useful reference point in future cases that aim to promote fairer competition and better outcomes for consumers in those marketplaces.”

Further information

The certified claim against Google is being brought at the CAT against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited under CAT Claim No. 1606/7/7/23.

Who is eligible to be part of the claim?

All that is necessary is that a consumer purchased goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. It is not necessary for them to have seen the goods or services advertised on Google or used Google to purchase the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these higher prices affected all a business’ products if it advertised on Google.

Those who are interested in finding out more about the claim and signing up for regular updates should visit www.searchclaim.co.uk.

About the class representative

Nikki Stopford is co-founder of Consumer Voice and brings 25 years of experience in advocating and raising industry standards for consumers. She is Chair of the British Standard Institute’s Consumer Forum and a member of its Standards Policy and Strategy Committee. She has held executive leadership roles running successful digital and content-led consumer-facing businesses that have engaged and advocated for millions of consumers. Most notably, she was Group Director of Research and Publishing at Which? – the UK’s largest consumer organisation – for more than 10 years.

Additional notes

Affected claimants, on whose behalf the class action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by global commercial litigation funder Hereford Litigation. The action is insured, which means that class members have no adverse cost risk in relation to the claim.

Ms Stopford is represented by:

• Hausfeld & Co. LLP, Partners Luke Streatfeild and Simon Bishop, supported by Counsel Jonothan Broadbent and Stella Gartagani, Associates Natalie Jukes, Ginevra Bicciolo and Lisa Amrani and paralegals Martha Papapostolou and Alice Caroff
• Charles Rivers Associates, Oliver Latham, Vice President, supported by Director Sam Marden and Senior Associate Liam Connolly
• Rosamilia Consulting, Davide Rosamilia, co-founder and principal consultant
• Ben Lask KC of Monckton Chambers
• Daniel Jowell KC and Colin West KC, both of Brick Court Chambers
• Mehdi Baiou and (formerly) Andrew Lomas, both of One Essex Court.

Detlef is a German attorney, former executive of a Swiss reinsurance company and as head of former Carpentum Capital Ltd. one of the pioneers of litigation funding in Latin America. Through his activities as executive in the insurance claims area and litigation funder he gained a wealth of experience in arbitrations/litigations in various businesses. He is certified arbitrator of ARIAS US and ARIAS UK (AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society) and listed on the arbitrators panel of DIS (German Arbitration Institute).

He studied law in Germany and Spain, obtained a Master in European Law (Autónoma Madrid) and doctorate in insurance law (University of Hamburg).

Detlef speaks German, Spanish, English fluently and some Portuguese.

Company Name and Description:  AURIGON LRC (Litigation Risk Consulting) is at home in two worlds: dispute funding and insurance. They set up the first European litigation fund dedicated to Latin America many years ago and operate as consultants in the re/insurance sector since over a decade.

Both worlds are increasingly overlapping with insurers offering ever more litigation risk transfer products and funders recurring to insurance in order to hedge their risks. Complexity is increasing for what is already a complex product.

Aurigon acts as intermediary in the dispute finance sector and offers consultancy on relevant insurance matters.

Company Website: www.aurigon-lrc.ch

Year Founded: 2011, since 2024 offering litigation risk consulting  

Headquarters: Alte Steinhauserstr. 1, 6330 Cham/Zug Switzerland

Area of Focus:  Litigation funding related to Latin America and re/insurance disputes

Member Quote: “It´s the economy, stupid. Not my words but fits our business well. Dont focus on merits, focus on maths.”

Manolete (AIM:MANO), the leading UK-listed insolvency litigation financing company, today announces its unaudited results for the six months ended 30 September 2024. 

Steven Cooklin, Chief Executive Officer, commented: 

“These are a strong set of results, particularly in terms of organic cash generation. In this six-month period, gross cash collected rose 63% to a new record at £14.3m. That strong organic cash generation comfortably covered all cash operating costs, as well as all cash costs of financing the ongoing portfolio of 413 live cases, enabling Manolete to reduce net debt by £1.25m to £11.9m as at 30 September 2024. 

As a consequence of Manolete completing a record number of 137 case completions, realised revenues rose by 60% to a further record high of £15m. That is a strong indicator of further, and similarly high levels, of near-term future cash generation. A record pipeline of 437 new case investment opportunities were received in this latest six month trading period, underpinning the further strong growth prospects for the business. 

The record £14.3.m gross cash was collected from 253 separate completed cases, highlighting the highly granular and diversified profile of Manolete’s income stream. 

Manolete has generated a Compound Average Growth Rate of 39% in gross cash receipts over the last five H1 trading periods: from H1 FY20 up to and including the current H1 FY25. The resilience of the Manolete business model, even after the extraordinary pressures presented by the extended Covid period, is now clear to see. 

This generated net cash income of £7.6m in H1 FY25 (after payment of all legal costs and all payments made to the numerous insolvent estates on those completed cases), an increase of 66% over the comparative six-month period for the prior year. Net cash income not only exceeded by £4.5m all the cash overheads required to run the Company, it also exceeded all the costs of running Manolete’s ongoing 413 cases, including the 126 new case investments made in H1 FY25. 

The Company recorded its highest ever realised revenues for H1 FY25 of £15.0m, exceeding H1 FY24 by 60%. On average, Manolete receives all the cash owed to it by the defendants of completed cases within approximately 12 months of the cases being legally completed. This impressive 60% rise in realised revenues therefore provides good near-term visibility for a continuation of Manolete’s strong, and well-established, track record of organic, operational cash generation. 

New case investment opportunities arise daily from our wide-ranging, proprietary, UK referral network of insolvency practitioner firms and specialist insolvency and restructuring solicitor practices. We are delighted to report that the referrals for H1 FY25 reached a new H1 company record of 437. A 27% higher volume than in H1 FY24, which was itself a new record for the Company this time last year. That points to a very healthy pipeline as we move forward into the second half of the trading year.” 

Financial highlights: 

• Total revenues increased by 28% to £14.4m from H1 FY24 (£11.2m) as a result of the outstanding delivery of realised revenues generated in the six months to 30th September 2024.
  • Realised revenues achieved a record level of £15.0m in H1 FY25, a notable increase of 60% on H1 FY24 (£9.4m). This provides good visibility of near-term further strong cash generation, as on average Manolete collects all cash on settled cases within approximately 12 months of the legal settlement of those cases
  • Unrealised revenue in H1 FY25 was £(633k) compared to £1.8m for the comparative H1 FY24. This was due to: (1) the record number of 137 case completions in H1 FY25, which resulted in a beneficial movement from Unrealised revenues to Realised revenues; and (2) the current lower average fair value of new case investments made relative to the higher fair value of the completed cases. The latter point also explains the main reason for the marginally lower gross profit reported of £4.4m in this period, H1 FY25, compared to £5.0m in H1 FY24. 
• EBIT for H1 FY25 was £0.7m compared to H1 FY24 of £1.6m. As well as the reduced Gross profit contribution explained above, staff costs increased by £165k to £2.3m and based on the standard formula used by the Company to calculate Expected Credit Losses, (“ECL”), generated a charge of £140k (H1 3 FY24: £nil) due to trade debtors rising to £26.8m as at 30 September 2024, compared to £21.7m as at 30 September 2023. The trade debtor increase was driven by the outstanding record level of £15.0m Realised revenues achieved in H1 FY25.
• Loss Before Tax was (£0.2m) compared to a Profit Before Tax of £0.9m in H1 FY24, due to the above factors together with a lower corporation tax charge being largely offset by higher interest costs. 
• Basic earnings per share (0.5) pence (H1 FY24: 1.4 pence).
• Gross cash generated from completed cases increased 63% to £14.3m in the 6 months to 30 September 2024 (H1 FY24: £8.7m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 39%.
• Cash income from completed cases after payments of all legal costs and payments to Insolvent Estates rose by 66% to £7.6m (H1 FY24: £4.6m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 46%.
• Net cashflow after all operating costs but before new case investments rose by 193% to £4.5m (H1 FY24: £1.5m). 5-year H1 CAGR: 126%.
• Net assets as at 30 September 2024 were £40.5m (H1 FY24: £39.8m). Net debt was reduced to £11.9m and comprises borrowings of £12.5m, offset by cash balances of £0.6m. (Net debt as 31 March 2024 was £12.3m.)
• £5m of the £17.5m HSBC Revolving Credit Facility remains available for use, as at 30 September 2024. That figure does not take into account the Company’s available cash balances referred to above.

Operational highlights:

• Ongoing delivery of record realised returns: 137 case completions in H1 FY25 representing a 18% increase (116 case realisations in H1 FY24), generating gross settlement proceeds receivable of £13.9m for H1 FY25, which is 51% higher than the H1 FY24 figure of £9.2m. This very strong increase in case settlements provides visibility for further high levels of cash income, as it takes the Company, on average, around 12 months to collect in all cash from previously completed cases.
• The average realised revenue per completed case (“ARRCC”) for H1 FY25 was £109k, compared to the ARRCC of £81k for H1 FY24. That 35% increase in ARRCC is an important and an encouraging Key Performance Indicator for the Company. Before the onset and impact of the Covid pandemic in 2020, the Company was achieving an ARRCC of approximately £200k. Progress back to that ARRCC level, together with the Company maintaining its recent high case acquisition and case completion volumes, would lead to a material transformation of Company profitability.
• The 137 cases completed in H1 FY25 had an average case duration of 15.7 months. This was higher than the average case duration of 11.5 months for the 118 cases completed in H1 FY24, because in H1 FY25 Manolete was able to complete a relatively higher number of older cases, as evidenced by the Vintages Table below.
• Average case duration across Manolete’s full lifetime portfolio of 1,064 completed cases, as at 30 September 2024 was 13.3 months (H1 FY24: 12.7 months).
• Excluding the Barclays Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”) pilot cases, new case investments remained at historically elevated levels of 126 for H1 FY25 (H1 FY24: 146 new case investments).
• New case enquiries (again excluding just two Barclays BBL pilot cases from the H1 FY24 figure) achieved another new Company record of 437 in H1 FY25, 27% higher than the H1 FY24 figure of 343. This excellent KPI is a strong indicator of future business performance and activity levels.
• Stable portfolio of live cases: 413 in progress as at 30 September 2024 (417 as at 30 September 2023) which includes 35 live BBLs.
• Excluding the Truck Cartel cases, all vintages up to and including the 2019 vintage have now been fully, and legally completed. Only one case remains ongoing in the 2020 vintage. 72% of the Company’s live cases have been signed in the last 18 months.
• The Truck Cartel cases continue to progress well. As previously reported, settlement discussions, to varying degrees of progress, continue with a number of Defendant manufacturers. Further updates will be provided as concrete outcomes emerge.
• The Company awaits the appointment of the new Labour Government’s Covid Corruption Commissioner and hopes that appointment will set the clear direction of any further potential material involvement for Manolete in the Government’s BBL recovery programme.
• The Board proposes no interim dividend for H1 FY25 (H1 FY24: £nil).

The full report of Manolete’s half-year results can be read here.

Theo Ai, the first predictive AI platform for litigation, announces $2.2MM in pre-seed funding. The round was co-led by NextView and nvp capital with participation from Ripple Ventures, Beat Ventures, and SCVC Fund. Using a proprietary data model and prediction engine, Theo Ai helps legal professionals make educated decisions about the likely outcome of cases. The funding will be used to further enhance their prediction engine, expand practice categories, and accelerate customer growth.

With over 275,000 new lawsuits filed each day, choosing which cases to take is essential for the legal industry. The average mid-sized firm reviews roughly 650 cases per year, which can take anywhere between 7 to 30 days to manually review. With Theo Ai, that time is compressed into seconds – allowing legal teams to cover more ground and focus on winning cases. Led by Alex Alben (UCLA Law Professor and Tech Executive), Patrick Ip (ex-Google and UCLA Law MLS) and Tiago Luchini (4x CTO/Founder), Theo Ai is the first predictive tool to fully leverage the power of AI. Theo Ai enables customers to identify and predict cases with the highest odds of success, uncover cases they might have missed, and access case summaries and key financial drivers all in a single offering.

“With backgrounds in both law and tech, Theo Ai’s leadership team understands the complexities legal firms face and how to leverage advanced technology to address those challenges,” says Co-Founder and Partner at NextView, Rob Go. “Their experience allows them to build a platform that addresses the needs of the everyday economy and truly reflects the nuances of legal decision-making, giving customers a significant edge in strategy and case outcomes.”

“The legal industry is undergoing significant change and this technology will accelerate the drive towards efficiency and prediction analysis. Theo Ai is perfectly timed to address the increasing demand for next-gen B2B tools,” says Dan Borok, Managing Partner at nvp. “With a stellar team that has decades of expertise in both law and tech, Theo Ai is delivering the right solution when firms need it.”

“When the Ripple Ventures team first met the Theo Ai team, it was clear they had a deep understanding of customer workflows and pain points, rooted in their extensive legal expertise. Their vision for transforming the legacy legal industry with AI, combined with a proven track record as repeat founders, gave us strong confidence in their ability to execute,” says Dom Lau, Partner at Ripple Ventures.

The ability to accurately predict a case’s outcome is a game changer for legal professionals. By analyzing similar cases and likely arguments, Theo Ai’s data model estimates the probability of winning a case, in addition to predicting the estimated award. Early users of Theo Ai found that the platform’s algorithms verified the results of their underwriting and due diligence teams. With Theo Ai, firms have access to a data-driven pipeline using real-time analytics and predictive modeling as new facts and evidence emerge.

To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: https://theoai.ai/#product

About Theo Ai
Theo Ai is the first predictive engine designed by technical and legal professionals to forecast the outcome of legal disputes. Its AI models are trained on historical case data and incorporate real-time analytics with predictive modeling to deliver accurate and actionable insights. Theo Ai is meeting the most critical need for legal professionals – offering accurate case outcome predictions, backed by data. To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: https://theoai.ai/#product