Content for the Public

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales today refused BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s landmark liability judgment in the Mariana disaster litigation.

The High Court found BHP responsible for the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil, concluding that BHP is liable for the disaster under both the Brazilian Civil and Environmental law.

The Court of Appeal heard BHP’s application for permission to appeal the decision on 12 March after BHP was refused permission to appeal by the High Court in January.  BHP asked the court for permission to contest the findings that it was a polluter, and that it had knowledge of the risks associated with the dam before the collapse. The mining company also challenged the finding that all claimants brought their claims in time.

The Court of Appeal’s refusal marks a further victory for the hundreds of thousands of Brazilian victims who have spent over ten years pursuing justice, and a major setback for BHP. The High Court’s liability judgment remains in force, and BHP has exhausted the ordinary routes by which it could seek to overturn it.

In today’s ruling, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.  The decision means that the parties will proceed to the trial of Stage 2 of the proceedings, which will determine issues of causation, loss and damages. The trial evidence is to be heard from April 2027 to December 2027, with closing submissions listed for March 2028.

Lord Justice Fraser wrote in the decision: “I do not accept that any of the grounds relating to BHP’s liability for the dam collapse are reasonably arguable. I do not consider that there is any foundation for the different complaints that the trial judge failed to engage with BHP’s case.”

Jonathan Wheeler, lead partner for the Mariana litigation at Pogust Goodhead, said: “The Court of Appeal has now joined the High Court in finding that BHP’s grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success – an emphatic and unambiguous outcome. BHP remains liable for the worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history, and it will not be given another bite at the cherry.”

“Our clients have waited more than a decade for justice while BHP pursued every procedural avenue to avoid accountability; those avenues are now closed. We are focused on securing the compensation that hundreds of thousands of Brazilians have been owed for far too long.”

Legal Asset Servicing (LAS) has appointed Gian Kull as Chief Executive Officer to lead the institutional scale-up of its operational platform for litigation finance. The London-based platform currently supports more than €7 billion in claim value across litigation funders, law firms, and insurers backed by leading institutional investors.

According to the National Law Review, Kull joins LAS from Omni Bridgeway, where he served as Regional Portfolio Manager and led the UK office to become the funder’s largest globally by investment volume. He previously served as Chief Investment Officer at Augusta Ventures, where he managed one of the UK’s leading litigation finance portfolios.

LAS positions itself as the financial infrastructure layer for legal assets, providing funders, law firms, insurers, and capital providers with a single platform to monitor, manage, and report on legal asset portfolios. “Billion-dollar portfolios are still being managed on spreadsheets and fragmented tools,” Kull said in the announcement. “LAS exists to fix that. We’ve built the operational layer that litigation finance needs to function at institutional scale.”

The platform also targets one of the structural barriers to a secondary market in litigation finance: due diligence friction. Because LAS holds structured, multi-party data tied to each case, it functions as an instant data room for secondary transactions — reducing diligence timelines from weeks to hours and supporting cleaner information transfer when portfolio assets change hands. Kull’s appointment marks the start of an accelerated commercial phase for LAS as the asset class continues to mature.

Jonathan Sablone, a commercial disputes attorney with three decades of cross-border, financial services, and litigation finance experience, has launched Sablone Advisory LLC — a Boston-based boutique positioned to serve claimants, funders, and insurers across the legal finance ecosystem under the tagline “at the intersection of law and finance™.”

According to Sablone Advisory LLC, the new firm offers underwriting, diligence, monitoring, and asset management services to litigation funders and to insurers offering contingent risk products. On the claimant side, Sablone Advisory works with plaintiffs and their counsel to position cases for funding, including packaging case portfolios for cross-collateralized funding and insurance wrappers — services that have become increasingly central as funders and insurers structure deals across multiple matters and risk layers.

“I founded Sablone Advisory to assist clients with the most intractable problems and issues facing the legal finance industry,” said Sablone in announcing the launch. “‘At the intersection of law and finance’ is not just a slogan, but a practical, commercial approach to legal problem-solving that I have practiced for decades.”

The launch reflects a continuing trend in the litigation finance industry: senior practitioners with capital-markets and complex-litigation backgrounds spinning out of large institutional platforms to offer specialized, independent advisory and underwriting services. As funders increasingly structure portfolio-level deals, layer ATE and contingent risk insurance into capital stacks, and pursue cross-border recoveries, demand for senior independent diligence and asset management — particularly from professionals fluent in both legal strategy and structured finance — has grown.

For claimants and their counsel, the firm’s case-positioning services are likely to resonate in a market where funders are increasingly selective about case quality, structure, and counsel pedigree. For funders and insurers, an independent boutique offering monitoring and asset management — separate from origination — represents the kind of service-provider infrastructure that more mature alternative-asset markets typically develop as they scale.

Inquiries can be directed to Jonathan Sablone at jsablone@sabloneadvisory.com or via www.sabloneadvisory.com.

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

When the Financial Conduct Authority pushed back its redress consultation deadline to 12 December 2025, its reasoning sounded awfully familiar: the regulator needed more time to ‘get it right’.

What eventually landed in the FCA’s final redress scheme rules in Policy Statement 26/3 on 30 March 2026 was, depending on where you sit, the good, the bad, and the ugly all at once.

• Good, in that an estimated £7.5 billion will move from lenders to consumers, and the regulator will clean up a historically disorderly market in the process.
• Bad, in that the final rules are more complicated, conditional, and fairly transparently the product of a protracted negotiation between the FCA and lenders.
• And ugly, in that the scheme ultimately falls materially short of the full remedy the FCA promised many mis-sold consumers—a point the regulator itself has effectively conceded.

For law firms, claims management companies, and funders, this is a more interesting combination than it may appear at first glance.

The rules introduced:

• two schemes, not one—albeit there was some logic behind the regulator’s reasoning on this point; 
• tightened eligibility;
• a cap on compensation in roughly a third of claims;
• an APR adjustment that the FCA itself described as a ‘bounded regulatory judgement’; and 
• rebuttable presumptions on certain agreements.

All of this prompts a question worth asking: what do the FCA’s delays, and the scheme that eventually emerged from them, actually mean for law firms, claims management companies, the funders behind them, and, most importantly, the consumers who are waiting to get their money back?

The drumbeat that never stopped

Between the FCA commencing its investigation into historical car finance mis-selling tied to the use of discretionary commission arrangements on 11 January 2024 and the recent publication of the final rules, motor finance mis-selling has become the biggest consumer finance news in the UK. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rulings in the Johnson, Wrench and Hopcraft test cases gave the scandal legal weight. The regulator’s October 2025 proposals provided the redress framework. Every court ruling, extension of the complaint-handling pause, public comments by the FCA, or advice from consumer advocates ensured that motor finance mis-selling was never far from the headlines.

None of this was free publicity for the FCA’s preferred outcome of a tidy, do-it-yourself scheme. In addition to coverage of these events themselves, each development generated further news by prompting additional rounds of lender provisioning and speculation about the industry’s total liabilities.

The FCA estimates that:

• 79% of motor finance customers know their lenders may owe them compensation;
• 61% are aware of the redress scheme; and
• 75% of eligible people will participate in the scheme and receive redress.

The awareness percentages, in particular, still seem lower than you might expect, given the scandal’s extensive coverage. But these numbers did not come from nowhere. They came from over two years of accumulated noise.

And behind the noise—the removal of 800 misleading adverts by FCA-regulated claims management firms, the new joint taskforce to deal with law firms and CMCs failing to adhere to good practice, the regulator’s continued insistence that consumers do not need professional representation—sits the reality the regulator will not admit. 

Professional representation remains in demand and for very good reasons. If it did not, the FCA would not be spending considerable resources on campaigns dedicated to dissuading customers from using it.

Complexity favours expertise

The FCA’s scheme does not inspire confidence that the average consumer will be able to work it out on their own.

Policy Statement 26/3 divides affected agreements into two schemes based on whether the loan began before or after 1 April 2014. Within both schemes, eligibility for redress depends on whether there was a DCA, commission above certain thresholds, or an undisclosed contractual tie. Lenders will calculate consumers’ redress using either a hybrid remedy, which is the average of commission paid and an APR-based estimated loss, or full commission repayment for the estimated 90,000 cases closely aligned with Johnson. Compensatory interest, the Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point, with a 3% annual floor, applies. There are certain inclusions, exclusions, and permissible rebuttals. There are even rules for deceased customers.

The bottom line is that a consumer who took out an agreement 10 years ago and receives a redress offer full of legalese and jargon from their lender probably won’t be able to work out what any of it means over breakfast.

Of course, some people will be able to work it out, or at least receive an offer they deem acceptable, take the money, and get on with their lives. These are exactly the people the FCA has in mind, and the regulator itself even admits that the scheme is more about giving as many eligible people as possible something back rather than fully remedying what has happened.

That is an honest admission, and an uncomfortable one. Getting something back is not the same as getting back what you were owed.

It is right that the FCA has made the scheme as accessible as possible. The problem is that the scheme covers 12.1 million agreements, and our data estimates that most mis-sold consumers will have had at least 2 or 3 motor finance agreements during the relevant period. Expecting millions of people to assess whether their lender has correctly assessed their eligibility or calculated their redress offer is not a realistic view of how consumers engage with financial services. It also paints a picture of an out-of-touch regulator—one that has, separately, decided to let lenders assess the scale of their own wrongdoing. And one whose scheme is now itself the subject of a confirmed legal challenge, which is hardly a vote of confidence in the regulator’s promise of an orderly, do-it-yourself route to compensation. Especially as the challenge is that the FCA’s final rules come down too heavily in favour of lenders. The regulator’s response? To call the challenge ‘disappointing,’ focus on the delay it may cause, and call on those bringing it to explain themselves to their clients. Consumer Voice, which is bringing the challenge with Courmacs Legal, says that the scheme need not be delayed at all, as only specific elements are in dispute.

The FCA wants to kill the category, but it will actually weed out the bad actors

The FCA’s joint taskforce with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Advertising Standards Authority is, on the face of it, a warning shot to professional representatives. Exit fees are under scrutiny. Seven law firms have been closed down by the SRA, with some facing multiple ongoing investigations into their practices, and others have agreed to stop signing up new clients until they can demonstrate compliance with FCA rules. 

This, however, is not going to kill the category. Nor will it discourage consumers who have experienced harm. Many are simply not prepared to take lenders’ word that they’re doing right by them this time. Nor do they want to listen to or unquestioningly trust a regulator that allowed this misconduct to happen on its watch in the first place. Instead, it will ensure that what remains is a disciplined, well-run consumer claims market. The firms that can prove to the various regulatory bodies that they are operating fairly and correctly will be left standing and continue to demonstrate and deliver genuine value over and above the outcome of simply waiting for your lender to tell you what they think is a fair redress offer.

For funders, this is a welcome tidying of the sector. The surviving market will be smaller. It will also be more investable.

Where does this all leave law firms and funders?

Delays have given well-run firms time, something they rarely get. Time to refine their onboarding procedures. Time to build a case-vetting methodology worth the name. Time to prepare for a scheme whose final shape only recently became clear. Time to prime their clients for what’s coming. And time to watch the FCA’s own messaging evolve from confident proclamations that consumers do not need representation to an awareness campaign that implicitly concedes that it knows many will seek it anyway.

The scheme that has emerged is more complex and favourable to lenders than the one initially floated. The public awareness that has built up in the meantime has outgrown the neat category of ‘people who will just claim directly’. And the FCA and SRA’s regulatory housekeeping is doing what it should have been doing all along—removing the bad actors responsible for an entire sector being tarred with the same brush, raising the floor for good practice and operational standards, and giving the industry the credibility it needs to grow.

The FCA wanted to take the time to get things right. But it got some things right, some things wrong, and left others visibly short of the mark.

And in delivering its final motor finance redress scheme rules, it has arguably made the case for professional representation more clearly than any law firm could have.

Kansas has become the latest state to adopt a regulatory framework for consumer legal funding, with Governor Laura Kelly signing the Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act into law. The measure passed with unanimous bipartisan support in both chambers of the Kansas legislature and establishes baseline standards for how consumer legal funding companies operate in the state.

According to EIN Presswire, the new law affirms that consumer legal funding is not a loan and codifies several consumer protections. Those include a 10-day cancellation window allowing consumers to rescind agreements without penalty, a non-recourse structure ensuring consumers owe nothing if their case is unsuccessful, and a requirement that contracts be written in plain language. Funding companies must also provide full financial disclosure of funded amounts, fees, and maximum repayment schedules.

The statute additionally prohibits funders from influencing settlement decisions or the direction of litigation, preserving attorney independence and client control over case strategy. A referral fee ban eliminates kickbacks to attorneys or medical providers, addressing a long-standing concern among industry critics.

Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, called the legislation “a thoughtful, balanced framework that ensures consumers fully understand their agreements while preserving access to critical financial support during litigation.” The Kansas law adds to a growing patchwork of state-level consumer legal funding regulations and reflects continued momentum toward standardized disclosure requirements across the industry.

The following article was contributed by Celso Filho, Global Head of Special Projects at Market Securities, and co-founder and CEO of Rachel AI.

Life insurers and other institutional investors face a structural allocation challenge: securing sufficient volumes of rated, long-duration, yield-bearing assets to match long-tail liabilities. Public investment-grade bond markets remain large, but they do not consistently provide the spread, structure, or customization required. As a result, insurers have steadily increased allocations to private placements, asset-backed securities, and other forms of private credit.

According to Milliman’s 2026 analysis of NAIC statutory filings, private bonds now account for approximately 46% of U.S. life insurers’ bond portfolios — up from 29% a decade ago — reflecting a sustained and accelerating shift toward alternative sources of yield and duration. The trend is sharpest among PE-owned life insurers, where structured securities account for approximately 49% of total bonds — underscoring how deeply the search for rated, yield-bearing paper has become embedded in the asset allocation strategies of the most capital-active players in the sector.

Market Securities is addressing that demand by bringing to market asset-backed securities backed by legal finance receivables, including pre-settlement plaintiff advances and receivables linked to contingent fee arrangements with law firms. These assets introduce a distinct return profile driven by legal case cash flows rather than traditional corporate credit cycles, and they can be structured into rated securitizations suitable for institutional portfolios.

The opportunity is crystallizing across three investor tiers — each approaching the asset class from a different angle, but converging on the same structure and, together, driving the institutionalization of legal finance.

1. Insurers and other rated-mandate investors represent the largest pool of demand. Operating within strict capital and rating constraints, they allocate to investment-grade instruments at 125 to 200 basis points over Treasuries and can deploy hundreds of millions per transaction. Their participation defines the scale of the opportunity — and creates the demand for rated, structured exposure that legal finance ABS is uniquely positioned to meet.
2. Private credit managers, sovereign wealth funds, and large family offices occupy the senior and mezzanine tranches, targeting enhanced yield with structural protections. Unlike insurers, these investors are not dependent on ratings and underwrite assets directly, focusing on risk-adjusted returns, structure, and downside protection. They provide the capital depth required to scale transactions and anchor issuance.
3. Specialist legal finance investors sit in the junior and equity tranches, underwriting legal risk directly and targeting returns in excess of 25%. These investors take first-loss positions, pricing legal risk at the asset level — and for them, securitization offers a compelling strategic advantage: lower cost of capital and greater leverage availability than traditional fund formation, particularly relevant in today’s challenging fundraising environment.

These tiers are complementary rather than competitive. Rated investors bring scale and duration demand; private credit and sovereign capital provide flexible, non-rating-constrained liquidity; and specialist managers contribute underwriting expertise and first-loss alignment. Securitization is the architecture that aligns them — converting legal finance receivables into a format that institutional capital can size, rate, and deploy against.

Market Securities sees this convergence as structural rather than cyclical, and legal finance ABS as the mechanism through which it becomes permanent.

—

Celso Filho, CFA, CAIA is Global Head of Special Projects at Market Securities, based in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). He is also co-founder and CEO of Rachel AI, a London-incorporated litigation finance technology and analytics platform. Celso began his career as a lawyer, practising for seven years before transitioning into investment banking and specialty finance, with prior roles at Citigroup and Credit Suisse. He holds an MBA from INSEAD.

Pre-settlement funding provider Legal Bay has released an update on several major Catholic Church diocese bankruptcy settlements that are approaching the payout phase after years of delays in bankruptcy courts.

As reported by PR Newswire, the firm is tracking six diocesan bankruptcies where survivors of clergy abuse are awaiting resolution. Among the cases closest to distributing funds are the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York with a $323 million court-approved settlement, the Diocese of Rochester with a $246–$256 million approved settlement, and the Diocese of Syracuse with a $176 million approved settlement.

Three additional cases remain pending court approval: the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey at $180 million, the Archdiocese of New Orleans at $230 million, and the Diocese of Buffalo with a proposed settlement ranging from $150 million to $274 million.

Legal Bay CEO Chris Janish said the company receives daily requests from clients seeking updates and “felt it was important to provide a clear snapshot of which cases are closest to reaching the payout stage.” The firm provides settlement funding and lawsuit loans to abuse survivors facing financial hardship during the prolonged litigation process.

The update underscores the continued role of pre-settlement funding in mass tort cases where claimants often wait years for bankruptcy proceedings to conclude before receiving compensation.

Written by Ankita Mehta, founder of Lexity.ai – a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

In litigation finance, you can win the case and still lose money.

This is often due to duration risk – the silent, persistent killer of a fund’s IRR. It’s a primary threat to projected returns, tying up capital for months (or years) longer than planned. In a market where every delay erodes value, monitoring becomes a critical, high-stakes function.

For years, that monitoring process has relied on analysts manually scanning dockets and then logging events in a static spreadsheet. But let’s be clear: this is no longer a sustainable process. It’s a liability.

The true failure of the manual model is twofold. First, the initial diligence (often taking weeks) is too slow and key for preventing loss of deals, and second – when a new development is spotted, analysts have no way to measure its downstream financial impact. By the time a human calculates the damage of a delay, the damage is already done.

This article provides a pragmatic framework for shifting from this reactive, “dead data” model to a proactive, AI-driven workflow.

Early warning signs your team is likely missing

Your expert team is your greatest asset, but they are buried in the grunt work of diligence and shallow monitoring. Ironically, the highest-value insights are lost in this process.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

1. A “minor” discovery motion is spotted by an analyst. They note it in an Excel file. What they can’t do is instantly model its domino effect on the summary judgment and trial dates, or see that this exact motion by this opposing counsel has historically added 90 more days.
   
2. A late expert report is received, which is logged as a single missed deadline. The team lacks a system to immediately see how this one event threatens the entire return profile by breaking a chain of dependencies.

An analyst’s “gut feel” about a jurisdiction is helpful. But a workflow that quantifies that gut-feel by comparing a new case against historical jurisdictional data is infinitely better.

The solution? An AI-powered analytical workflow

No, this isn’t me writing about a “magic” AI tool. This is more about having a disciplined AI-powered workflow that gives your team the right analysis at the right time by pulling out the relevant data for accurate decision making. Here, the value isn’t in just finding a new event, but in understanding its impact instantly.

A carefully thought out workflow delivers value on three distinct levels:

1. Automated diligence and baseline modeling: The system first ingests the initial case documents, automatically extracting critical milestones and deadlines. This alone cuts initial review and diligence time by over 70% and creates an accurate, “live” baseline model of the case before a single dollar is deployed.
   
2. Proactive impact analysis: This is the crucial step. When an analyst spots a new development (from a docket or a counsel call) and inputs it, the platform instantly analyzes its impact. It connects that “minor” motion to the entire case timeline and budget, flagging the precise IRR and duration risk. This shifts the team from a “data entry” to a “proactive risk management” role.
   
3. Portfolio-level pattern recognition: The system links procedural changes to their impact on case valuation and portfolio returns, flagging delay-patterns that a human analyst under heavy load could otherwise miss.

The ROI of proactive mitigation for your business

Here’s the business case for moving beyond outdated manual processes:

Benefit #1: Protect your projected IRR

Instead of reacting to delays or logging events in a void, you can now start measuring their impact the moment they happen. A modern workflow gives you the foresight to have critical conversations or adjust reserves before a slight delay can escalate into a crisis.

Benefit #2: Save your team the “grunt work”

The experts don’t need to spend a disproportionate amount of time to do data entry or check dockets. Think of it like cutting with a blade: the work will get done eventually, but without a sharp blade it takes far more time and effort. 

Here, having the right AI-powered workflow can sharpen that blade so routine monitoring happens instantly and your team can focus on the actual analysis that drives returns. 

Benefit #3: Create a defensible, data-driven risk model

Move your risk assessment from a subjective “gut feel” to an objective, consistent data-backed model based on facts and verification that your investment committee can rely on every time.

The impact of this shift is tangible. According to our firm’s benchmarks, a $500M litigation fund we work with cut diligence time by 70% while tripling its case throughput.

A pragmatic framework for your first AI workflow

For a non-technical leader, “adopting AI” can sound like a complex, six-month IT project. But it needn’t be this way. Allow me to share with you a clear three-step framework for a successful, low-risk adoption.

Step 1: Identify the grunt work

Start by asking “What repetitive, low-value tasks steal time from real analysis and what would be the value to the firm if we could automate these tasks using technology? Here, the goal isn’t to replace your experts’ judgment, but to empower them to take on more cases while keeping their judgement intact.

Step 2: Start from a single high-value problem

Don’t try to boil the ocean. The goal is not to merely “implement AI” and tick a box. You are doing this because you want to solve one specific business problem (e.g. preliminary case assessment). For many funds, this alone could become a 2-3 day manual bottleneck. With the right workflow, it’s possible to complete this in under half a day. Solve that one piece of the puzzle, prove the ROI, then scale up.

Step 3: Focus on your process and not the tech

When evaluating any solution ask: “How does this fit into our existing workflow?” If it requires your team to abandon current processes and learn from scratch, the adoption rate won’t exactly be high. The right solution should enhance your process – and not just add pile more tech on top of it.

Conclusion

These days, duration risk has shifted from being an unavoidable reality of doing business to yet another variable we can control. Keeping the old approach of manual monitoring could put your value, and your capital at risk. Conversely, by embracing AI in specific processes, you get a pragmatic and provable way of shielding your capital and your IRR, all while empowering your team to do what they do best. Implementing AI the right way will give you a definite boost in efficiency and returns, just depends on implementing it the right way.

But how do you build a business case for this shift? The next step is moving from the operational benefit to assessing ROI. More on this in another article.

The following piece was contributed by Eric Schurke, CEO, North America at Moneypenny.

From the very first interaction, litigation finance firms and legal teams should be capturing structured, decision-ready information that enables early case assessment, risk evaluation, and efficient routing. 

This typically includes:

• Who the potential claimant or referrer is and their preferred method of communication
• The context of the matter, including jurisdiction and type of claim
• The stage, urgency, and timeline of the case
• Key parties involved and any relevant documentation
• How the opportunity originated

When captured consistently, this information allows for faster triage, more effective screening, and quicker progression from initial enquiry to investment decision. 

What are the most common mistakes organizations make when handling inbound investment or M&A inquiries?

In litigation finance, the most common mistakes are operational but they have direct commercial and reputational consequences:

1. Slow response times
Prospective clients often contact multiple firms at once. Delays can signal lack of availability or interest.

2. Unstructured information capture
Inquiries can come in over the phone, through email, website forms and LinkedIn, resulting in fragmented or incomplete information.

3. Over-automation or under-humanization
Generic automated responses can feel impersonal, while entirely manual processes create inconsistency and delays.

4. Poor routing and follow-up
Without clear ownership, communications can sit in inboxes or be passed between teams meaning opportunities can stall or be lost internally.

Ultimately, the biggest mistake is treating first contact as administrative rather than strategic, when, in reality, it is the starting point of deal quality.

The most effective approach is a hybrid one – using technology for speed, structure, and consistency and people for judgement and relationship-building.

Technology can:
• Capture and structure case data
• Provide immediate acknowledgement
• Ensure questions are routed quickly and consistently
• Create a clear audit trail

People can:
• Understand nuance and context
• Build rapport and trust
• Ask the right follow-up questions
• Represent the funder’s brand and values

At the start of any case or investment journey, relationships matter. Technology should enhance that experience, not replace it.

What measurable impact can better first contact have on pipeline strength, relationships, and deal outcomes?

Stronger first contact directly improves:

• Pipeline quality: better intake leads to more qualified, investment-ready opportunities
• Conversion rates: fast, more professional responses increase engagement and exclusivity, as well as the likelihood of securing instructions
• Investor confidence: structured early-stage data improves decision-making
• Operational efficiency: less time chasing incomplete information and faster conflict checks
• Deal velocity: quicker progression from enquiry to evaluation and funding decision.

Small improvements at the top of the funnel compound across the entire investment lifecycle.

If firms could make just one or two changes today to improve their approach to inquiries, what would you recommend?

1. Create a standardized intake framework
Define the essential data needed for case screening and risk assessment, and ensure it is captured consistently across every channel.

2. Treat first contact as a strategic touchpoint
Ensure every enquiry receives a prompt, professional and human response that reflects the firm’s brand and client-care standards.

In litigation finance, early impressions don’t just shape relationships, they shape deal outcomes. These two changes alone can significantly improve conversion, efficiency and client relationships.

—

Eric Schurke is CEO, North America at Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts. He works with legal firms, litigation funders, and professional services to transform how they manage and qualify inbound opportunities. Eric is passionate about helping organisations strengthen deal flow, improve first impressions, and deliver exceptional client experiences from the very first interaction.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

“Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society.”

— Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Few phrases better capture the promise of the American legal system than “Equal Justice Under Law.” Carved into the stone above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, those words symbolize the belief that every person, regardless of wealth, status, or background, stands equal before the law.

But as Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. observed, those words must represent more than an inscription on a building. They must be an operational principle, a reality experienced by everyday people who rely on the legal system to resolve disputes and obtain justice.

In practice, however, the ideal of equal justice often collides with an uncomfortable truth. Litigation takes time. Legal claims, particularly personal injury claims, can take months or years to resolve. During that time, the injured person frequently faces mounting financial pressure. Medical bills accumulate. Income may be lost due to the injury. Rent, utilities, and everyday expenses continue regardless of the progress of a legal case.

Meanwhile, the opposing party is often backed by a large insurance company or corporate defendant with deep financial resources and the ability to delay litigation for extended periods.

This imbalance creates a fundamental tension in the civil justice system. If one side can afford to wait and the other cannot, the outcome of a case may be influenced not by the merits of the claim, but by financial pressure. Consumer legal funding emerged as a practical solution to this problem.

At its core, consumer legal funding helps preserve the promise behind Justice Powell’s words by helping injured individuals maintain financial stability while their legal claims proceed.

The Economic Reality of Litigation

Civil litigation is rarely quick. Personal injury claims often require extensive investigation, medical treatment, negotiation with insurance companies, and in some cases trial preparation.

For injured plaintiffs, this process can be financially devastating. Many individuals involved in serious accidents cannot return to work immediately. Others face large medical expenses that accumulate before a settlement or judgment is reached.

Even individuals who previously had stable financial lives may suddenly find themselves struggling to pay for basic necessities.

Insurance companies and large defendants, by contrast, face no such pressures. Insurers are structured to manage litigation risk over long periods of time. They have legal departments, litigation budgets, and the ability to delay or extend negotiations.

This difference in financial endurance can shape the dynamics of settlement negotiations.

When an injured person faces the possibility of eviction, unpaid medical bills, or an inability to provide for their family, the pressure to settle quickly increases dramatically. The settlement decision may become less about fairness and more about survival.

This is where consumer legal funding plays a crucial role.

Consumer Legal Funding: Supporting Plaintiffs During Litigation

Consumer legal funding provides monies to plaintiffs with pending legal claims, typically personal injury cases. These funds are designed to help cover everyday living expenses while a case is ongoing.

Importantly, consumer legal funding is structured as non-recourse funding. Repayment occurs only if the plaintiff successfully resolves the case through settlement or judgment. If the case is unsuccessful, the consumer does not owe repayment.

This structure reflects the reality that the funding company is accepting risk tied to the outcome of the legal claim.

The purpose of the funding is not to finance litigation strategy or influence legal decisions. Rather, it helps injured individuals pay for basic necessities such as housing, food, transportation, and medical needs while the legal process unfolds.

In this way, consumer legal funding functions as a financial stabilizer during one of the most vulnerable periods in a plaintiff’s life.

Restoring Balance in Settlement Negotiations

The civil justice system assumes that parties negotiate settlements based on the merits of the case, the strength of the evidence, and the applicable law. In reality, financial pressure can significantly influence settlement behavior.

When plaintiffs face immediate financial hardship, they may feel compelled to accept settlements that do not fully reflect the value of their claims.

Insurance companies understand this dynamic. The longer a case continues, the greater the financial strain on many injured plaintiffs.

Consumer legal funding helps address this imbalance by giving plaintiffs the ability to withstand financial pressure during the litigation process.

By helping consumers remain financially stable, consumer legal funding allows settlement decisions to be based more on the actual merits of the case rather than immediate economic desperation.

In essence, it helps ensure that the legal process functions as intended.

The Role of Consumer Legal Funding in Access to Justice

Access to justice is often discussed in terms of legal representation. Ensuring that individuals have access to attorneys is unquestionably important. Contingency fee arrangements have long helped individuals pursue claims they might otherwise be unable to afford.

However, legal representation alone does not solve the financial challenges that plaintiffs face during litigation.

Even when attorneys represent clients on contingency, plaintiffs must still manage everyday living expenses while their cases proceed. Medical treatment may prevent them from working. Insurance disputes may delay compensation.

Without financial support, many plaintiffs find themselves in impossible situations.

Consumer legal funding addresses this gap. It supports the plaintiff personally, rather than the litigation itself.

This distinction is important. The funds are not intended to create lawsuits or encourage unnecessary litigation. Instead, they allow individuals with legitimate claims to endure the legal process required to resolve those claims fairly.

This support can make the difference between a plaintiff pursuing justice and abandoning a claim prematurely due to financial hardship.

Consumer Legal Funding and the American Tradition of Risk Sharing

The structure of consumer legal funding aligns with other widely accepted financial arrangements that involve risk sharing.

For example, insurance companies accept risk every day when they issue policies. If an insured event occurs, the insurer pays the claim. If it does not, the insurer retains the premiums.

Similarly, venture capital investors accept risk when they fund startup companies. If the company succeeds, the investor benefits. If it fails, the investor absorbs the loss.

Consumer legal funding operates on a similar principle. The funding company provides monies with the understanding that repayment depends on the success of the legal claim.

This risk-based structure distinguishes consumer legal funding from traditional lending, where repayment is required regardless of outcome.

The contingent nature of repayment reflects the uncertain nature of litigation itself.

Protecting the Integrity of the Civil Justice System

Critics sometimes argue that consumer legal funding interferes with litigation or encourages lawsuits. In reality, the opposite is often true.

Consumer legal funding does not determine whether a lawsuit is filed. That decision is made by the plaintiff and their attorney based on the merits of the case.

Funding companies review cases carefully before providing funds. The evaluation process often includes reviewing case documentation, attorney involvement, and the likelihood of a successful resolution.

This evaluation process means that funding companies generally support claims that already have legal merit and professional representation.

Rather than encouraging frivolous litigation, consumer legal funding tends to operate within the existing framework of legitimate claims.

Its primary impact is helping plaintiffs remain financially stable while the legal system runs its course.

Preserving the Meaning of “Equal Justice Under Law”

Justice Powell’s words remind us that the promise of the legal system extends beyond formal procedures. Equal justice requires more than access to a courtroom. It requires that individuals have a realistic ability to pursue their claims without being forced into premature settlement by financial hardship.

In many cases, the difference between a fair settlement and an inadequate one is time.

Insurance companies can afford time. Corporations can afford time.

Injured individuals often cannot.

Consumer legal funding helps bridge this gap. By providing financial support during the litigation process, it allows plaintiffs to remain engaged in their cases and pursue outcomes that reflect the true value of their claims.

This role aligns directly with the broader principles of fairness and equality embedded in the American legal tradition.

Funding Lives, Not Litigation

Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

This phrase captures the essence of the product. The purpose of consumer legal funding is not to finance lawsuits or drive litigation strategy. It is to help real people navigate the difficult period between injury and resolution.

Behind every legal claim is a person whose life has been disrupted. There are families dealing with lost income, individuals recovering from serious injuries, and households struggling to meet everyday expenses.

Consumer legal funding recognizes these realities.

It provides a practical tool that helps injured consumers maintain stability while the legal system works toward a resolution.

Conclusion

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. reminded us that “Equal Justice Under Law” must represent more than an inscription on a courthouse wall. It must be a living principle that guides how the legal system operates.

For many injured plaintiffs, the greatest obstacle to justice is not the law itself, but the financial pressure that arises while a case is pending.

Consumer legal funding helps address this challenge. By providing financial stability during litigation, it allows plaintiffs to remain in the process long enough for their claims to be evaluated fairly.

In doing so, it supports the very principle Justice Powell described.

Equal justice cannot exist if only those who can afford to wait are able to pursue it. Consumer legal funding helps ensure that justice is determined by the facts and the law, not by who runs out of money first.

And in that sense, it plays a meaningful role in turning one of America’s most inspiring ideals into a practical reality.

Loopa Finance has been recognized as the winner in the Litigation – General Counsel Team category at the Lexology European Awards 2026, one of the leading recognitions in the international legal sector.

The award was received in London by Ignacio Delgado, General Counsel Europe at the firm, on behalf of Loopa Finance’s European team, composed of Ignacio Delgado (General Counsel Europe), Marina Gouveia (Investment Manager), Fernando Pérez Lozada (Senior Investment Manager), and Fernando Folgueiro (Managing Partner).

The Lexology European Awards recognize outstanding legal teams across the region through a methodology that combines independent research, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and thousands of nominations supported by clients and industry peers, as well as the annual research conducted by the Lexology Index (formerly Who’s Who Legal) and Client Choice.

The selection process is based on performance evaluations related to effective communication, commercial understanding, technical expertise, strategic management, and team strength, and is supported by a global community of more than 940,000 subscribers.

This recognition positions Loopa Finance’s European team among the leading practitioners in complex litigation and strategic legal management in Europe.

“This award reflects the strength of a team operating across two continents that understands litigation not only from a legal perspective, but also through financial analysis and risk management. It is the result of collective work and a rigorous, strategic approach to structuring complex disputes,” said Delgado during the ceremony.

More Than an Award: Validation of a Model

The award comes at a time of consolidation for the firm. Loopa Finance recently completed its rebranding process, evolving from Qanlex to Loopa Finance and reinforcing an identity aligned with its growth in continental Europe and its broader international positioning.

It also coincides with the closing of Fund III, raising €65 million to finance complex litigation and arbitration across Europe and Latin America, significantly expanding the firm’s investment capacity and supporting the continued growth of its platform in the region.

This milestone adds to the firm’s recent rankings, including its Band 1 classification by Chambers & Partners in Latin America and Europe, its recognition as “Highly Recommended” by Leaders League across multiple jurisdictions, and the inclusion of members of its team among the Thought Leaders in Third-Party Funding by the Lexology Index. Together, these results confirm the strength of Loopa Finance’s model and the consolidation of its team as a reference in the strategic financing of disputes at an international level.

About Loopa Finance

Loopa Finance is an investment fund specializing in the financing and monetization of litigation and arbitration across continental Europe and Latin America, supported by a technology-driven model and rigorous risk analysis. The firm provides capital to cover legal costs or monetize ongoing claims through non-recourse structures, where the recovery of the investment depends exclusively on the successful outcome of the case, assuming the financial risk of the dispute while fully aligning its interests with those of clients and law firms.

One of the oldest litigation finance firms in the United States has announced a strategic partnership aimed at expanding mainstream investor access to the asset class.

As reported by Business Wire via Yahoo Finance, Scottsdale-based Pravati Capital has partnered with financial services firm SEI to provide registered investment advisors with structured access to litigation finance as an alternative investment option. The collaboration will leverage SEI’s distribution platform to make litigation funding opportunities available within advisor portfolios.

The partnership reflects growing institutional interest in litigation finance as an alternative asset class. Historically, litigation funding has been difficult for mainstream financial advisors to access on behalf of their clients, with the market largely dominated by specialized funds and institutional investors. The Pravati-SEI arrangement seeks to bridge that gap by creating a more accessible pathway for advisors seeking diversification through non-correlated investments.

The announcement underscores a broader industry shift as litigation finance continues to move from a niche strategy toward greater acceptance within traditional wealth management channels. As the global litigation funding market grows — projected to reach over $25 billion in 2026 — partnerships like this one may signal a new phase of institutional adoption.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

If policymakers want to understand consumer legal funding, they should start with insurance, not lending. At first glance, insurance and consumer legal funding may appear unrelated. One protects against risk. The other provides funds to plaintiffs in pending lawsuits to help pay for their day-to-day expenses. But structurally, they share a defining characteristic: risk is assumed by the capital provider, not imposed on the consumer. That single feature separates consumer legal funding from loans and aligns it more closely with underwriting.

Public policy depends on accurate classification. When a product is mischaracterized, regulation can miss its mark. Consumer legal funding is frequently labeled a “loan,” yet its mechanics contradict that description. A loan creates a guaranteed repayment obligation. Consumer legal funding does not. To regulate wisely, lawmakers must understand that distinction.

Insurance is built on underwriting risk. An insurance company evaluates probabilities. It examines health risks, property risks, liability exposure, accident frequency. It prices policies accordingly. The insurer does not lend money to the policyholder. Instead, it assumes risk in exchange for compensation. If the insured event occurs, the insurer pays. If the event does not occur, the insurer retains the premium. In either case, the insurer’s business model depends on accepting uncertainty. Insurance is not debt. It is risk transfer.

Now consider consumer legal funding. A funding company evaluates a legal claim. It assesses liability, damages, collectability, procedural posture, and likely duration. It underwrites the case. Instead of collecting premiums, it provides monies to the plaintiff. Its return depends entirely on a defined event: recovery in the lawsuit. If recovery occurs, the provider receives its agreed return from the proceeds. If recovery does not occur, the provider receives nothing. The funding company has effectively underwritten litigation risk. That is not lending. That is risk assumption.

The central question in distinguishing loans from contingent capital is simple: Who bears the risk of failure? In a loan, the borrower bears the risk. Repayment is mandatory regardless of outcome. In insurance, the insurer bears the risk. Payment depends on whether a covered event occurs. In consumer legal funding, the funding company bears the risk. Repayment depends on whether the case succeeds. If a plaintiff loses their case, they owe nothing. There is no collection action, no wage garnishment, no deficiency balance. The capital provider absorbs the loss. That structure is fundamentally inconsistent with debt.

To see the contrast clearly, consider the defining characteristics of a traditional loan: an unconditional obligation to repay, repayment regardless of performance or outcome, interest accrual over time, recourse against income or assets, and credit-based underwriting. If you borrow money to open a business and the business fails, you still owe the bank. If you lose your job after taking out a personal loan, you still owe the lender. If you use a credit card and experience hardship, the balance remains. Debt survives failure. Consumer legal funding does not. If there is no recovery in the legal claim, there is no repayment obligation. That single fact removes the defining feature of a loan.

Insurance companies price risk across portfolios. Some claims will generate losses. Others will generate gains. Sustainability depends on aggregate performance. Consumer legal funding companies operate similarly. Some cases succeed. Others fail. Pricing reflects probability of recovery, expected timeline, and litigation risk. Like insurers, funding providers must absorb unsuccessful outcomes as part of their business model. If policymakers were to impose lending-style interest caps on insurance premiums, the insurance market would collapse. Premiums are not structured like loan interest because repayment is not guaranteed. Similarly, consumer legal funding cannot be evaluated as if repayment were certain. The risk of total loss is real. When regulation ignores that risk allocation, it misunderstands the economics.

Labeling consumer legal funding as a loan may appear harmless, but it has significant policy consequences. Lending regulations are built around products where repayment is guaranteed and borrowers bear default risk. Those regulations assume predictable interest accrual and enforceable repayment obligations. Consumer legal funding lacks those features. If policymakers apply lending frameworks to non-recourse, outcome-dependent arrangements, they risk imposing regulatory structures that do not fit the product, distorting pricing models built around risk of total loss, reducing availability of funding for injured consumers, and eliminating a non-recourse option that differs fundamentally from debt. Regulation should reflect economic reality, not rhetorical convenience.

For injured plaintiffs, litigation is rarely quick. Cases may take months or years to resolve. During that time, medical bills accumulate. Rent is due. Utilities must be paid. Families rely on a steady income that may no longer exist. Traditional loans require fixed repayment regardless of outcome. Insurance does not. Consumer legal funding does not. That distinction explains why some consumers choose it. They are not borrowing against wages or income. They are accessing funds tied to a potential asset — their legal claim. If that asset produces value, repayment occurs from that value. If it does not, there is no personal debt. That is not debt stacking. It is risk sharing.

The core issue is risk transfer. Debt transfers risk to the borrower. Insurance transfers risk to the insurer. Consumer legal funding transfers litigation outcome risk to the funding company. The defining feature of a loan is an unconditional promise to repay. Without that promise, the structure changes entirely. If there is no recovery and the consumer owes nothing, the essential element of debt is absent. Policy debates should begin with that structural truth.

None of this suggests that consumer legal funding should operate without oversight. Transparent contracts, disclosure requirements, and consumer protections are appropriate in any financial arrangement. But regulation must match mechanics. Insurance is regulated as insurance because it is risk underwriting. Debt is regulated as lending because repayment is guaranteed. Consumer legal funding is non-recourse and outcome-dependent. It should be evaluated through that lens. When lawmakers start from the wrong definition, unintended consequences follow.

Consumer legal funding is non-recourse, payable only from legal proceeds, transfers outcome risk to the capital provider, and creates no unconditional repayment obligation. It shares structural similarities with insurance underwriting and other contingent compensation arrangements where payment depends on performance. The defining feature of a loan is guaranteed repayment. Consumer legal funding has no such guarantee. Before regulating it as debt, policymakers should ask a simple question: If the case fails and the consumer owes nothing, where is the loan? Sound public policy begins with structural accuracy.

Nera Capital has strengthened its litigation finance platform with the onboarding of a new South America-based funding partner committing £50 million across litigation finance and legal assets. The mandate not only expands Nera’s available capital base but also sees the firm formally appointed as asset manager for the new funds, reinforcing its growing role as both originator and portfolio steward within the UK litigation market.

In a press release, Nera Capital announced that the £50 million commitment will be deployed across a range of UK-based claims, with the firm responsible for underwriting, structuring, capital deployment, and ongoing portfolio management. The capital will be allocated in line with Nera’s established investment criteria and risk management framework, targeting carefully selected legal assets. The funding partner, described as having an “extensive track record” in high-yielding special situations investments uncorrelated to traditional asset classes, brings prior experience in litigation finance across South America.

Robin Grant, CFO at Nera Capital, emphasized that the partnership aligns with the firm’s disciplined approach to litigation finance and enhances its ability to deliver attractive, risk-adjusted returns to investors. Aisling Byrne, Director at Nera Capital, highlighted the funder’s blend of financial and legal expertise, noting that the asset manager appointment reflects international confidence in Nera’s ability to identify viable claims and manage them through to resolution.

Established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin, with offices in Manchester and Holland, Nera Capital provides law firm lending across consumer and commercial claim portfolios and is a member of the European Litigation Funders Association.

Longford Capital Management, LP today announced that it has launched the Longford Capital American Innovation Initiative to help American inventors protect their legal rights, access the U.S. legal system, and advance American innovation.

America is the greatest country in the world and Americans are achieving advancements in every facet of our lives, including healthcare, artificial intelligence, clean energy, technology, aerospace, cybersecurity, transportation, wireless communications, and many others. Intellectual property is critical to American exceptionalism and national security. American inventors are systematically the victims of intellectual property theft at the hands of foreign and domestic bad actors. Well-financed multi-national corporations steal the innovations of small and medium size American companies leaving them will little options to protect their legal rights in the expensive U.S. legal system. For more than a decade, Longford has been supporting American inventors, investing approximately $500 million to support nearly 100 intellectual property owners trying to defend their assets. These efforts have resulted in recoveries of more than $1.5 billion from patent infringers.

Take, for example, Malcolm Beyer, Jr., a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, retired Captain in the U.S. Marines, and small business owner. His company developed a communication system that increases safety and operational effectiveness for the U.S. military, law enforcement, and first responders. When his patented technology was infringed by foreign companies, he didn’t have the money to defend his legal rights in court. He turned to Longford Capital. Longford provided millions of dollars to pay his legal fees, which allowed Mr. Beyer to successfully defend his legal rights and protect his innovation. Without access to litigation finance, Malcolm Beyer’s company would not have survived.

Today, we are ramping up our efforts to support our country, American inventors, small and medium size businesses, and the advancement of American exceptionalism. The ability to protect innovation through the patent system and the U.S. legal system is essential to attract investment and encourage the best and brightest Americans to dedicate their careers to improving our lives. Longford’s funding empowers American innovation and makes America stronger. Members of Longford’s legal team are perennially recognized as leading IP strategists with an established record of developing and implementing world-class IP value creation programs for American companies.

About Longford Capital

Longford Capital is a leading private investment company that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, research universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes. Longford was one of the first litigation funds in the United States and is among the world’s largest litigation finance companies with more than $1.2 billion in assets under management. Typically, Longford funds attorneys’ fees and other costs necessary to pursue meritorious legal claims in return for a share of a favorable settlement or award. The firm manages a diversified portfolio, and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, claim monetization, insurance matters, and a variety of others.

Legal-Bay has highlighted an $8.5 million jury verdict against Uber in an Arizona bellwether trial arising from allegations of sexual assault by a rideshare driver. The verdict, delivered in a court proceeding serving as a bellwether for related claims, underscores potential jury reactions to evidence and theories that may recur across similar cases. For funders and insurers, an early result of this size in a bellwether setting can shape expectations for settlement ranges, defense costs, and the duration of case cycles.

An article in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay, a legal funding firm, is drawing attention to the $8.5 million award and positioning capital to plaintiffs pursuing claims tied to rideshare assaults. The company notes that the Arizona outcome is a meaningful datapoint for pending litigation and that it stands ready to evaluate funding requests from claimants awaiting resolution.

According to the release, the firm continues to underwrite pre-settlement advances across personal injury and mass tort matters, including ride-hailing cases where plaintiffs may face lengthy timelines before payment. The statement frames the verdict as a signal that juries may credit evidence of inadequate safety practices, while acknowledging that individual results will vary by jurisdiction and fact pattern.

If additional bellwethers produce comparable results, parties could move toward structured settlement programs and more predictable valuation bands. Funders will likely revisit pricing, case selection, and exposure caps in rideshare assault portfolios. Appeals and post trial motions in Arizona bear watching as they may affect timing and recovery risk. Insurance programs for platform operators may also adjust assumptions.

Legal-Bay announced an expansion of its legal funding services, aiming to offer clients more flexible options for pre-settlement funding. The move reflects rising demand from plaintiffs who need interim cash while cases progress and highlights the competitive dynamics in consumer legal funding.

According to the company, the initiative is intended to broaden availability of non-recourse advances and to streamline decisioning so applicants can access funds more predictably during litigation. Although the funder did not disclose detailed terms, the emphasis on flexibility suggests adjustments to how advances are sized and timed relative to case milestones, as well as potential enhancements to intake and support. For claimants, the changes could translate into more tailored funding paths during a period of financial strain.

A press release in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay is expanding its legal funding services to provide clients with more flexible options for pre-settlement funding, signaling a renewed focus on access and responsiveness. The release characterizes the update as a client-centric step and reiterates the company’s commitment to supporting plaintiffs seeking bridge financing while their matters are pending. It does not enumerate product features, timelines or pricing, but it frames the initiative as an effort to meet a wider range of circumstances and case timelines.

For the litigation finance industry, expansions like this reinforce steady demand among cash-constrained plaintiffs and continued product iteration by consumer funders. If flexibility becomes a wider theme, expect tighter competition on approval speed, disclosures and service quality, alongside ongoing attention to compliance in states evaluating consumer legal funding rules.

Pogust Goodhead today announces the appointment of Gemma Anderson as partner, a standout addition that reflects the firm’s continued growth and investment in senior talent as the Mariana case advances through the High Court in London. 

Gemma will work on the Mariana litigation alongside Jonathan Wheeler, who leads the case for the firm. Her appointment reunites the pair after fourteen years working together at Morrison & Foerster, where they collaborated on numerous high-stakes disputes. 

Gemma is a highly experienced commercial litigator specialising in complex cross-border disputes. She joins PG from Quinn Emanuel’s London office, where she has spent the last two years as a partner focused on significant, high value commercial cases.  

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead, said: “Gemma’s appointment is a fantastic moment for Pogust Goodhead. Her arrival is a clear signal of the team and platform we are building for the future – deep expertise, strong leadership, and the capacity to run major international cases at scale. We’re delighted to welcome her as a partner”. 

Jonathan Wheeler, partner and lead for the Mariana litigation, said: “Gemma is an exceptional disputes lawyer and a natural fit for the Mariana team. We worked closely for fourteen years at Morrison & Foerster, and I’ve seen first-hand the rigour and relentless drive she brings to complex cross-border matters. Her appointment strengthens our ability to deliver for clients as we build on the milestone liability decision and move into the next phase of the case.” 

Gemma Anderson said:  “I’m thrilled to be joining Pogust Goodhead at such a pivotal moment for the Mariana litigation. This is a truly landmark case – not only for the communities affected, but for what it represents globally on access to justice and corporate accountability. I’m looking forward to working with Jonathan and the wider team to help secure a fair outcome for hundreds of thousands of victims.” 

The Mariana proceedings in England involve over 600,000 Brazilian individuals, businesses, municipalities, religious institutions and Indigenous communities affected by the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Following the English court’s decision on liability on 14 November 2025, the case is now in its second stage, focused on damages and the quantification of losses. 

Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

The Real-World Consequences of Over-Regulation and Misclassification

State lawmakers across the country are increasingly focused on how to regulate third-party financial activity connected to litigation. That attention is appropriate and necessary. However, when Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) is misclassified as a loan, conflicted with commercial litigation finance, or subjected to regulatory structures designed for fundamentally different financial products, the consequences fall not on providers, but on consumers who need it the most.

Consumer Legal Funding, Funding Lives, Not Litigation, exists to help individuals with pending legal claims meet basic household needs while their cases move through the legal system. These consumers are often recovering from serious injuries, unable to work, and facing mounting financial pressure. When CLF disappears due to over-regulation or misclassification, those consumers do not suddenly become financially secure. Instead, they are pushed into worse, more dangerous alternatives, or forced into decisions that undermine both their legal rights and their long-term financial stability.

Who Uses Consumer Legal Funding and Why

Consumers who turn to CLF are not seeking to finance their litigation. They are seeking financial stability. On average, CLF transactions range between $3,000 and $5,000. These monies are used for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical co-pay. In many cases, it is differences between maintaining housing or facing eviction, between keeping a car or losing the ability to get to medical appointments or work.

CLF is non-recourse. If the consumer does not recover in their legal claim, they owe nothing. That structure places all financial risk on the provider, not the consumer. It is precisely this risk allocation that distinguishes CLF from loans and traditional credit products, and it is why courts and legislatures in numerous states have recognized that CLF is not a loan.

When lawmakers impose loan-based frameworks on CLF, including usury caps, amortization requirements, or repayment obligations disconnected from case outcomes, the product becomes economically impossible to offer. The result is not a cheaper product. The result is no product at all.

The Immediate Impact of CLF Disappearing

When CLF exits a state market, the effects are immediate and measurable.

First, consumer access disappears. Providers cannot operate under regulatory structures that ignore the non-recourse nature of the product. Capital exits the market, and consumers lose an option that previously helped them remain financially afloat during litigation.

Second, consumers are forced into inferior alternatives. Without CLF, injured individuals frequently turn to credit cards, payday lenders, installment loans, or borrowing from friends and family. These options often carry guaranteed repayment obligations, compounding interest, collection risk, and damage to credit. Unlike CLF, these products do not adjust based on whether the consumer recovers anything in their legal claim.

Third, financial pressure forces premature settlements. When consumers cannot meet basic living expenses, they are more likely to accept early, undervalued settlements simply to survive. This undermines the fairness of the civil justice system and benefits defendants and insurers, not injured parties or the courts.

Misclassification Harms the Most Vulnerable Consumers

The consumers most harmed by the elimination of CLF are those with the fewest alternatives. These are individuals with limited savings, limited access to traditional credit, and limited ability to absorb income disruption following an injury.

Ironically, regulations intended to protect consumers often end up harming precisely the consumers they sought to help. When CLF is treated as a loan, the regulatory burden drives responsible providers out of the market while doing nothing to improve consumer outcomes. Consumers do not gain safer options. They lose transparent, regulated, non-recourse funding and are pushed toward products with higher risk and fewer protections.

This is not hypothetical. States that have enacted overly restrictive frameworks or applied inappropriate rate caps have seen providers exit, access shrink, and consumer choice vanish. The lesson is clear. When regulation ignores economic reality, consumers pay the price.

CLF Does Not Drive Litigation or Verdict Inflation

A common concern raised in policy debates is whether CLF encourages litigation, prolongs cases, or contributes to so-called nuclear verdicts. The evidence does not support these claims.

CLF is accessed after a legal claim already exists. It does not finance attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation strategy. Providers have no control over legal decisions, settlement timing, or trial outcomes. Their only interest is whether a consumer recovers at all.

Moreover, the small size of typical CLF transactions makes it implausible that they influence case strategy or verdict size. A $3,000 to $5,000 transaction used to pay rent or utilities does not drive multi-million-dollar litigation outcomes. Conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance obscures these realities and leads to policy mistakes.

A Better Path Forward for Policymakers

Legislators can protect consumers without eliminating CLF. States that have enacted thoughtful CLF statutes have focused on disclosure, transparency, contract clarity, and consumer choice, rather than imposing loan-based rate structures that do not fit a non-recourse product.

Effective regulation acknowledges three core principles. First, CLF is not a loan and should not be regulated as one. Second, consumers benefit from access to a regulated, transparent product rather than being pushed into worse alternatives. Third, clear rules provide stability for both consumers and providers.

When policymakers get this balance right, consumers retain access to a product that helps them weather one of the most difficult periods of their lives without distorting the justice system or creating unintended harm.

Conclusion

The issue confronting lawmakers is not whether Consumer Legal Funding should be subject to oversight, but whether existing and future frameworks accurately reflect how the product operates and whom it serves. When CLF is swept into regulatory regimes designed for loans or commercial litigation finance, the result is not improved consumer protection. It is the quiet elimination of a non-recourse option that many injured consumers rely on to remain financially stable while their legal claims are resolved.

Careful, informed policymaking requires recognizing that Consumer Legal Funding is distinct, limited in size, non-recourse, and consumer-facing. Regulation that acknowledges those characteristics preserves transparency and accountability without stripping consumers of choice or forcing them into riskier financial alternatives. When rules are tailored to economic reality rather than broad assumptions, consumers are better protected, markets remain stable, and the civil justice system functions as intended.

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants – represented by Pogust Goodhead – argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  “This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility.” 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis – funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) announced today that Sigma Funding has recently closed a $35 million senior credit facility with a bank lender. Sigma Funding is a rapidly growing litigation finance company focused on providing capital solutions across the legal ecosystem.

Sigma’s experienced executive team oversees a portfolio of businesses spanning insurance-linked litigation and other sectors, bringing a proven track record of successful growth and meaningful exits.

Bryant Park Capital, a leading middle-market investment bank, served as financial advisor to Sigma Funding in connection with the transaction.

“Bryant Park Capital was an indispensable advisor to Sigma and worked closely with our management team throughout the process,” said Charlit Bonilla, CEO of Sigma Funding. “BPC’s experience in the litigation finance space was critical in identifying potential banking partners and ultimately structuring our credit facility. Their extensive industry knowledge helped bring this deal to a successful close, and we are grateful for their support. We look forward to doing more business with the BPC team.”

About Sigma Funding

Founded in 2021, Sigma Funding is a leading New York–based litigation funding platform that provides pre- and post-settlement advances to plaintiffs involved in contingency lawsuits, as well as financing solutions for healthcare providers and attorneys. The company is the successor to the founders’ prior venture, Anchor Fundings, a pre-settlement litigation funder that was acquired by a competitor. 

For more information about Sigma Funding, please visit www.sigmafunding.com.

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle-market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise across several sectors, including specialty finance and financial services. The firm has raised various forms of credit and growth equity and has advised on mergers and acquisitions for its clients. BPC professionals have completed more than 400 engagements representing an aggregate transaction value exceeding $30 billion.

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) applauds New York Governor Kathy Hochul for signing into law Assembly Bill 804C/Senate Bill 1104, a landmark measure establishing thoughtful regulation for Consumer Legal Funding in the Empire State.

Sponsored by Assemblymember William B. Magnarelli and Senator Jeremy Cooney, this legislation creates a clear framework that protects consumers while preserving access to a vital financial resource that helps individuals cover essential living expenses—such as rent, mortgage, and utilities, while their legal claims are pending.

“I am pleased that the Governor signed this important bill into law today.  It is the culmination of 8-years of hard work on this issue.  This law will provide a sound framework to regulate financing agreements and provide protections to consumers.  I want to thank the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding and its President, Eric K. Schuller for working with me to get this bill over the finish line.  I would also like to thank and acknowledge my late colleague, Assemblyman Michael Simanowitz, who was the original sponsor of this legislation.”  — William B. Magnarelli, 129^th Assembly District 

For many New Yorkers, Consumer Legal Funding provides a critical financial lifeline while a legal claim is pending, often for months or years. Injured consumers frequently face lost income and mounting household expenses at the very moment they are least able to manage financial strain. Consumer Legal Funding allows individuals to cover essential living costs, such as rent, utilities, transportation, and groceries, without being forced into an early or unfair settlement simply to make ends meet.

Senator Jeremy Cooney stated: “Today marks a historic step forward in protecting everyday New Yorkers from opaque and often predatory litigation financing practices. For too long, vulnerable plaintiffs have been left in the dark about the true cost of third-party funding, only to see the majority of their hard-earned legal recovery eroded by fees and unclear terms. I’m proud to sponsor this bill that brings transparency, accountability, and basic consumer protections to this industry, ensuring New Yorkers can pursue justice without sacrificing financial security.”

Because Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse, consumers repay funds only if they recover proceeds from their legal claim, if there is no recovery, they owe nothing. This structure protects consumers from taking on debt, preserves their financial stability, and ensures they retain full control over their legal decisions. By enacting this legislation, New York affirms that Consumer Legal Funding supports financial stability and access to justice.

“This law strikes the right balance between consumer protection and financial empowerment, by establishing clear rules of the road, New York ensures that consumers retain freedom of choice, transparency, and access to funds that help them meet their immediate needs during one of the most difficult times in their lives.” said Eric K. Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). “We thank Governor Hochul for her leadership and Assemblymember Magnarelli and Senator Cooney for their commitment to fairness and consumer choice. This new law affirms that Consumer Legal Funding is about funding lives, not litigation.” 

Under the new law, Consumer Legal Funding is defined as a non-recourse transaction in which a company purchases a contingent right to receive proceeds from a consumer’s legal claim. The law contains several key consumer safeguards, including:

• Clear Contract Disclosures: All terms, charges, and cumulative repayment amounts must be plainly stated and initialed by the consumer.
• Right to Cancel: Consumers have ten business days to cancel a contract without penalty.
• Attorney Oversight: Attorneys must acknowledge reviewing mandatory disclosures and are prohibited from accepting referral fees or having a financial interest in funding companies.
• Prohibited Practices: Funding companies may not influence settlement decisions, mislead consumers through advertising, or refer clients to specific attorneys or medical providers.
• Registration and Reporting: All funding companies must register with the State of New York and file annual reports, and meet bonding and disclosure requirements.

The act takes effect 180 days after becoming law and marks another milestone in advancing consumer protection and responsible business practices across the nation.

About ARC

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is the national trade association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding—non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet everyday living expenses while their legal claims proceed. ARC advocates for policies that protect consumers and ensure access to fair, transparent, and responsible funding options.

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

Law firms are busier than ever. With new systems, dashboards, and automation tools launched in the name of efficiency, you’d think productivity would be soaring. Yet for many, the opposite is true. Complexity creeps in, admin increases, and clients still end up waiting for answers.

At Moneypenny, we’ve learned that true progress doesn’t come from doing more, it comes from doing what matters. Our philosophy is simple: Get work done, don’t just perform, don’t just present. Instead deliver, clearly, quickly, and with care.

Whether it’s a client seeking reassurance, a paralegal managing a mounting caseload, or a partner steering firm strategy through change, the goal should always be the same: solve the problem and move forward.

Efficiency might be driven by data, but in law, trust and momentum are still powered by people.

The Trust Factor

Clients don’t just want results; they want to know their matter is in good hands. The best partnerships, whether between a legal firm and its clients or between colleagues, are built on accountability and trust.

Getting work done isn’t about checking boxes or sending updates for the sake of optics. It’s about ownership. Doing what you say you’ll do, every single time. Following through with integrity. In short: treat people how you’d like to be treated. That’s how client confidence is built and why trust remains a competitive differentiator for firms now and in the future.

Focus on What Only You Can Do

Law firms today face growing operational pressures: administrative backlogs, client onboarding delays, endless meetings. Many assume the answer is to do more in-house, hire more people but the most successful firms know when to outsource to a trusted partner.

That doesn’t mean losing control, however. It means surrounding your firm with trusted partners who amplify your capabilities and free your team to do what only they can do, advise clients and win cases. When done right, it creates focus.

At Moneypenny, we see this daily. We handle client calls, live chats, and digital communications for thousands of businesses in the legal industry. We take care of the admin that slows teams down so they can accelerate the work that matters most: serving clients and growing their firm. It’s partnership in its purest form: freeing their people to deliver their best.

Pragmatism Over Perfection

Grand digital transformation projects often sound impressive, but the real progress comes from consistent, pragmatic improvement. The best firms are selective about innovation. They adopt technology not for the headlines, but for the results.

These are the firms that deliver, time and again, because they know progress isn’t about chasing every new idea, it’s about using the right ones well.

They ask simple, powerful questions:
• What’s the work that needs to be done?
• Who’s best to do it?
• How can we do it well?

It’s a balanced approach, blending smart innovation with everyday pragmatism and one that turns productivity from a KPI into a true competitive advantage.

Tech That Enables, Not Overcomplicates

Technology has enormous potential to streamline legal operations but only when used intentionally. Too often, new systems add friction instead of removing it.

The smartest firms blend automation with human oversight, letting technology enable people rather than replace them. For example, at Moneypenny, our AI Receptionist handles routine client inquiries with speed and accuracy. But when a conversation requires empathy, nuance, or reassurance, one of our experienced receptionists steps in seamlessly. 

The result is humans and AI together, each doing what they do best. Because in the end, emotional intelligence, the ability to listen, reassure, and build trust, remains a uniquely human strength, even as AI continues to evolve at a rapid rate.

Four Rules for Getting Work Done

This philosophy isn’t about going backwards or simplifying for the sake of it. It’s about cutting through the noise, building with intention, and putting resources where they’ll have the most impact.

It’s about following four simple objectives:

1. Focus on what only you can do.
   Concentrate on the work that truly requires your expertise.
2. Outsource with trust.
   Partner with people who treat your clients as their own.
3. Use technology to enable, not to replace.
   Automation is a tool — not a solution in itself.
4. Measure outcomes, not optics.
   Progress is about results, not noise.

Clarity Over Complexity

Getting work done isn’t flashy but it is how great firms grow. One resolved issue, one clear decision, one satisfied client at a time.

Because when brilliant legal teams are supported by smart technology and the distractions fall away, exceptional things happen. Clients feel the difference, teams perform at their best, and the firm builds a reputation for service and sustained excellence. 

For law firms navigating the fast-changing landscape, success will come from what matters most. Clarity over complexity. Trust over busyness. Action over appearance. And that is how law firms will truly move forward and stay ahead of the crowd.

The following article was contributed by Dr. Avv. Gian Marco Solas[1], founder of Sustainab-Law and author of Third Party Funding, New Technologies and the Interdisciplinary Methodology as Global Competition Litigation Driving Forces (Global Competition Litigation Review, 1/25).  Dr. Solas is also the author of Third Party Funding, Law Economics an Policy (Cambridge Press).

There is an inaccurate and counterproductive belief in the litigation funding market, that the asset class would be uncorrelated from the global economy. That was in fact due to a much bigger scientific legal problem, that the law itself was not considered as physical factor of correlation, as instrument to measure and determine cause and effects of economic events in legal systems.

This problem has been solved, in both theoretical and mathematical terms, and in fact – thanks to technology available to date such as AI and blockchain – it looks much better for litig … ehm … legal third-party funders. 

Third Party Funding 3.0© opens three new lines of opportunities:

1. AI allows to detect and file claims that would otherwise not have been viable / brought forward, such as unlocked competition law claims[2], which represent the largest chunk of the market for competition claims. See funding proposal.
2. Human law as factor of correlation allows to calculate the unexpressed value of the global economy. Everything that, in fact, can be unlocked with litigation, allowing then a public-private IPO type of process to optimize legal systems[3].
3. Physical modeling of the law also allows to transform debt / liabilities into new investments, thus allowing to settle litigation earlier and with less legal costs, leaving more room to creativity to optimize the investments[4].

While it may be true that the outcome of one single judgement does not depend on the fluctuations of the financial economy, legal reality certainly determines the ups and downs of the litigation funding (and any other) market. Otherwise, we could not explain the rise of litigation funding in the post-financial crisis for instance, or the shockwaves propagated by judgements like PACCAR.

The flip side is that understanding and measuring legal reality, as well as leveraging on modern technologies and innovative legal instruments, the market for legal claims and legal assets is much bigger and sizeable than with the standard litigation financial model.

In order to test Litigation Funding 3.0, I am presenting the following proposal:

10 MILLION EUR in the form of a series A venture capital type of investment to cover one test case’s litigation costs, tech, book-building and expert costs aimed at targeting three already identified global or multi-jurisdictional mass anticompetitive claims in the scale of multi-billion dollars, whose details will be provided upon request.

Funder(s) get:

• Percentage of claims’ return as per agreement with parties involved;
• Property of the AI / blockchain algorithm;
• License of TPF 3.0.

The funding does not cover: additional legal / litigation / expert / etc. costs.

Below is the full proposal:

Below is the abstract and table of contents from my research:

Abstract

This article aims at fostering competition litigation and market analysis by integrating concepts borrowed from physics science from an historical legal and evolutionary perspective, taking the third party funding (TPF) market as benchmark. To do so, it first combines historical legal data and trends related to the legal and litigation markets, discussing three macro historical trends or “states”: Industrial revolution(s) and globalisation; enlargement of the legal world; digital revolution and liberalisation of the legal profession. It then proposes the multidisciplinary methodology to assess the market for TPF: mainstream economic models, historical “cyclical” data and concepts borrowed from physics, particularly from mechanics of fluids and thermodynamics. On this basis, it discusses the potential implication of such methodology on the global competition litigation practice, for instance in market analysis and damage theory, also by considering the impact of modern technologies. The article concludes that physics models and the interdisciplinary methodology seem to add value to market assessment and considers whether there should be a case for a wider adoption in (competition) litigation and asset management practices.  

Table of Contents

Introduction. I. Evolution of the legal services, litigation and third party funding market(s) 1.1. Industrial revolution(s) and globalisation 1.2. Enlargement of the legal world and privatisation of justice 1.3. Digital revolution and liberalisation of the legal profession II. Modelling the market(s) with economics, historical and physics models. Third Party Funding as benchmark 2.1. Economic models for legal services, legal claims and third party funding markets 2.2. Does history repeat itself? Litigation finance cycles 2.3. Mechanics of fluids and thermodynamics to model legal markets? III. Impact on global competition litigation 3.1. Market analysis and damage theory 3.2. Economics of competition litigation and new technologies. Conclusions. Third Party Funding 3.0© and competitiveness.

—
1. Italian / EU qualified lawyer and legal scientist. Leading Expert at BRICS Competition Law & Policy Centre (Higher School of Economics, Moscow). Ph.D.² (Maastricht Law School, Economic Analysis of Law; University of Cagliari, Comparative Law) – LL.M. (College of Europe, EU competition Law). Visiting Fellow at Fordham Law School (US Antitrust), NYU (US Legal finance and civil procedure).

2. G. M. Solas, ‘Third Party Funding, new technologies and the interdisciplinary methodology as global competition litigation driving forces’ (2025) Global Competition Litigation Review, 1.

3. G. M. Solas, ‘Interrelation of Human Laws and Laws of Nature? Codification of Sustainable Legal Systems’ (2025) Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, 2.

4. ‘Law is Love’, at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5694423, par. 3.3.

Apex Group Ltd (“Apex Group”), one of the world’s largest fund administration and solutions providers, today announced it has been selected to provide fund administration and digital asset infrastructure for the anticipated Seven Stars Legal Group Ltd (“Seven Stars”) Tokenised Litigation Fund, a pioneering investment vehicle that will combine institutional-grade litigation finance with blockchain technology.

The proposed fund, targeting GBP 50-250 million in commitments with an anticipated first close of GBP 50 million by March 31, 2026, represents a significant innovation in alternative investments. Once launched, the tokenised structure is expected to reduce traditional investment minimums from GBP 1 million to GBP 50,000, making institutional-quality litigation finance accessible to a broader range of qualified investors.

Subject to regulatory approvals and successful fund structuring, Apex Group is positioned to provide comprehensive fund administration services, while its digital asset platform, Apex Digital 3.0 (including Tokeny), would handle the token issuance and management infrastructure. This dual capability positions Apex Group as the sole provider managing both traditional fund administration and digital asset components under one unified platform.

Upon launch, Seven Stars will act as Investment Manager responsible for portfolio selection and management.

“Our selection to support Seven Stars’ innovative fund structure exemplifies our commitment to bridging traditional finance with digital innovation,” said Agnes Mazurek, Global Head of Digital Assets at Apex Group. “By providing both conventional fund administration and tokenisation infrastructure, we’re positioned to help fund managers unlock new distribution channels and operational efficiencies while maintaining institutional-grade governance and compliance standards.”

Offering up to a capped 16% annual return backed by diversified UK litigation portfolios, Seven Stars brings significant experience to the venture, having already deployed over GBP 44 million in UK litigation finance and funded more than 56,000 legal claims with a proven track record of performance, together with a team which includes leading Silk, Louis Doyle KC, who sits on the board and Advisory Committee at Seven Stars.

“Apex Group’s expertise in both traditional fund administration and digital assets makes them the ideal partner for this groundbreaking initiative,” said Leon Clarance, Chief Strategy Officer at Seven Stars. “Their infrastructure will enable us to deliver the operational efficiency gains of tokenisation while maintaining the rigorous compliance and reporting standards our institutional investors expect.”

Mazurek added: “We are pleased to be supporting Seven Stars in this groundbreaking project. Our mission at Apex Group is to help clients bridge the TradFi and DeFi universes and this project perfectly represents this connectivity.”

Planned Partnership Capabilities

The anticipated partnership would leverage several key Apex Group capabilities:

• Fund Administration: NAV calculation, investor services, and regulatory reporting 
• Digital Asset Infrastructure: Token issuance, custody, and lifecycle management via Apex Digital 3.0
• Regulatory Compliance: Full regulatory oversight and compliance monitoring 
• Investor Onboarding: Streamlined KYC/AML processes for both traditional and digital investors

The proposed tokenised structure would enable secondary trading after a 6-month lock-in period, providing liquidity options traditionally unavailable in litigation finance funds. Smart contract automation is projected to reduce administrative costs by up to 90%, with anticipated savings passed through to investors.

This announcement follows Apex Group’s recent expansion of its digital asset capabilities in the DIFC, positioning the firm as a leader in supporting the convergence of traditional finance and blockchain technology in the Middle East’s premier financial hub.

About Apex Group

Apex Group is dedicated to driving positive change in financial services while supporting the growth and ambitions of asset managers, allocators, financial institutions, and family offices. Established in Bermuda in 2003, the Group has continually disrupted the industry through its investment in innovation and talent.

Today, Apex Group sets the pace in fund and asset servicing and stands out for its unique single-source solution and unified cross asset-class platform which supports the entire value chain, harnesses leading innovative technology, and benefits from cross-jurisdictional expertise delivered by a long-standing management team and over 13,000 highly integrated professionals.   

Apex Group leads the industry with a broad and unmatched range of services, including capital raising, business and corporate management, fund and investor administration, portfolio and investment administration, ESG, capital markets and transactions support. These services are tailored to each client and are delivered both at the Group level and via specialist subsidiary brands.

The Apex Foundation, a not-for-profit entity, is the Group’s passionate commitment to empower sustainable change. 

About Seven Stars Legal

Seven Stars Legal is a specialist litigation finance provider focused on high-volume, precedent-based UK consumer claims. Founded by a team with over GBP 380 million in litigation finance experience, the company provides institutional investors with access to uncorrelated, asset-backed returns through secured lending to regulated UK law firms. Seven Stars has funded over 56,000 claims since 2022, maintaining a zero-default track record through its multi-layered security framework and AI-enhanced due diligence processes

This article was contributed by Ankita Mehta, Founder, Lexity.ai – a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

How do litigation funders truly quantify the return on investment from adopting new technologies? It’s the defining question for any CEO, CTO or internal champion. The potential is compelling: for context, according to litigation funders using Lexity’s AI-powered workflows, ROI figures of up to 285% have been reported.

The challenge is that the cost of doing nothing is invisible. Manual processes, analyst burnout, and missed deals rarely appear on a balance sheet — but they quietly erode yield every quarter.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. This article introduces a pragmatic framework for quantifying the true value of adopting technology solutions, replacing ‘low-value’ manual tasks and processes with AI and freeing up human capital to focus on ‘high-value’ activities that drive bottom line results  .

A Pragmatic Framework for Measuring AI ROI

A proper ROI calculation goes beyond simple time savings. It captures two distinct categories:

1. Direct Cost Savings – what you save
   
2. Increased Value Generation – what you gain

The ‘Cost’ Side (What You Save)

This is the most straightforward calculation, focused on eliminating “grunt work” and mitigating errors.

Metric 1: Direct Time Savings — Eliminating Manual Bottlenecks 

Start by auditing a single, high-cost bottleneck. For many funds, this is the Preliminary Case Assessment, a process that often takes two to three days of an expert analyst’s time.

The calculation here is straightforward. By multiplying the hours saved per case by the analyst’s blended cost and the number of cases reviewed, a fund can reveal a significant hard-dollar saving each month.

Consider a fund reviewing 20 cases per month. If a 2-day manual assessment can be cut to 4 hours using an AI-powered workflow, the fund reallocates hundreds of analyst-hours every month. That time is now moved from low-value data entry to high-value judgment and risk analysis.

Metric 2: Cost of Inconsistent Risk — Reducing Subjectivity 

This metric is more complex but just as critical. How much time is spent fixing inconsistent or error-prone reviews? More importantly, what is the financial impact of a bad deal slipping through screening, or a good deal being rejected because of a rushed, subjective review?

Lexity’s workflows standardise evaluation criteria and accelerate document/data extraction, converting subjective evaluations into consistent, auditable outputs. This reduces rework costs and helps mitigate hidden costs of human error in portfolio selection.

The ‘Benefit’ Side (What You Gain)

This is where the true strategic upside lies. It’s not just about saving time—it’s about reinvesting that time into higher-value activities that grow the fund.

Metric 3: Increased Deal Capacity — Scaling Without Headcount Growth

What if your team could analyze more deals with the same staff? Time saved from automation becomes time reallocated to new higher value opportunities, dramatically increasing the value of human contributions.

One of the funds working with Lexity have reported a 2x to 3x increase in deal review capacity without a corresponding increase in overhead. 

Metric 4: Cost of Capital Drag — Reducing Duration Risk 

Every month a case extends beyond its expected closing, that capital is locked up. It is “dead” capital that could have been redeployed into new, IRR-generating opportunities.

By reducing evaluation bottlenecks and creating more accurate baseline timelines from inception, a disciplined workflow accelerates the entire pipeline. 

This figure can be quantified by considering the amount of capital locked up, the fund’s cost of capital, and the length of the delay. This conceptual model turns a vague risk (“duration risk”) into a hard number that a fund can actively manage and reduce.

An ROI Model Is Useless Without Adoption

Even the most elegant ROI model is meaningless if the team won’t use the solution. This is how expensive technology becomes “shelf-ware.”

Successful adoption is not about the technology; it’s about the process. It starts by:

1. Establish Clear Goals and Identify Key Stakeholders: Set measurable goals and a baseline. Identify stakeholders, especially the teams performing the manual tasks- they will be the first to validate efficiency gains.
2. Targeting “Grunt Work,” Not “Judgment”: Ask “What repetitive task steals time from real analysis?” The goal is to augment your experts, not replace them.
3. Starting with One Problem: Don’t try to “implement AI.” Solve one high-value bottleneck, like Preliminary Case Assessment. Prove the value, then expand. 
4. Focusing on Process Fit: The right technology enhances your workflow; it doesn’t complicate it.

Conclusion: From Calculation to Confidence

A high ROI isn’t a vague projection; it’s what happens when a disciplined process meets intelligent automation.

By starting to measure what truly matters—reallocated hours, deal capacity, and capital drag—fund managers can turn ROI from a spreadsheet abstraction into a tangible, strategic advantage.

By Ankita Mehta Founder, Lexity.ai — a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

On 18 November 2025, European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath closed the final meeting of the EU’s High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth with a clear statement that the Commission does not plan new legislation on Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF). 

He added that Forum participants also indicated that there is no need to further regulate third-party litigation funding.

Instead, Commissioner McGrath said the Commission will prioritise monitoring the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) over any new legislative proposals. 

(video from 2.32 here). 

Paul Kong, Executive Director of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), said:  “We’re delighted to see Commissioner McGrath’s clear statement that EU regulation for third-party litigation funding is not planned. This appears to close any talk of the need for new regulation, which was completely without evidence and created considerable uncertainty for the sector.

Over several years, ILFA has consistently made the case that litigation funding plays a critical role in ensuring European businesses and consumers can access justice without financial limitations and are not disadvantaged against larger and financially stronger defendants. New legislation would have choked off the availability of financial support to level the playing field for claimants. 

We will continue to work closely with the Commission to share the experiences of our members on the implementation of the RAD across the EU, ensuring it also works for claimants in consumer group actions facing defendants with deep pockets.”

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 or @ILFA_Official. 

About the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth

European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath launched the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth in March 2025 to bring together legal industry experts to “focus on and discuss together how justice policies can contribute to – and further support – European competitiveness and growth”. The final meeting of the Forum took place on 18 November 2025, in Brussels. 

Pogust Goodhead law firm has appointed Jonathan Edward Wheeler as a partner and Head of Mariana Litigation, adding heavyweight firepower to the team driving one of the largest group claims in English legal history following the firm’s landmark liability win against BHP in the English courts.

Jonathan joins Pogust Goodhead from Morrison Foerster in London, where he was a leading commercial litigation partner, having served for seven years as office co-managing partner and for 15 years as Head of Litigation. A specialist in complex, cross-border disputes, Jonathan has extensive experience acting in high-value commercial litigation, civil fraud and asset tracing, international trust disputes, contentious insolvency and investigations across multiple jurisdictions.

In his new role, Jonathan will assume strategic leadership of the proceedings arising from the Mariana dam disaster against mining giant BHP, overseeing the continued development of the case into the damages phase and working closely with colleagues in Brazil, the UK, the Netherlands and beyond.

Howard Morris, Chairman at Pogust Goodhead said: “Jonathan is a heavyweight addition to Pogust Goodhead and to our Mariana team. His track record in running some of the most complex cross-border disputes in the English courts, together with his leadership experience, make him exactly the kind of senior figure we need after our historic liability victory. Our clients will benefit enormously from his expertise and judgment.”

Jonathan Wheeler said: “It is a privilege to join Pogust Goodhead at such a pivotal moment in the Mariana case. The recent liability judgment is a watershed for access to justice and corporate accountability. I am honoured to help lead the next phase of this extraordinary litigation and to work alongside a team that has shown such determination in seeking justice for hundreds of thousands of victims.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead said: “Bringing in lawyers of Jonathan’s calibre is a strategic choice. As we expand the depth and breadth of our disputes practice globally, we are investing in senior talent who can help us deliver justice at scale for our clients and build an even more resilient firm.”

The Mariana proceedings in England involve over 600,000 of Brazilian individuals, businesses, municipalities, religious institutions and Indigenous communities affected by the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Following the English court’s decision on liability on the 14th of November 2025, the case will now move into the next stage focused on damages and the quantification of losses on an unprecedented scale.

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

A new cross-industry study from Moneypenny suggests that while some sectors are treading carefully with AI-powered voice technology, the legal industry is emerging as a surprisingly enthusiastic adopter. In fact, 74% of legal firms surveyed said they are already embracing AI Voice Agents , the highest adoption rate across all industries polled.

This may seem counterintuitive for a profession built on human judgement, nuance and discretion. But the research highlights a growing shift: law firms are leaning on AI not to replace human contact, but to protect it.

Why Legal Is Leaning In: Efficiency Without Eroding Trust

Legal respondents identified labor savings (50%) as the most compelling benefit of AI Voice Agents.  But behind that topline number sits a deeper story:

• Firms are increasingly flooded with routine enquiries.
• Clients still expect immediate, professional responses.
• Staff time is too valuable to spend triaging logistics.

Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, said:
“Some companies and callers are understandably a little nervous about how AI Voice Agents might change the call experience. That’s why it’s so important to design them carefully so interactions feel personal, relevant, and tailored to the specific industry and situation. By taking on the routine parts of a call, an AI agent frees up real people to handle the conversations that are more complex, sensitive, or high-value.”

For the legal sector, that balance is particularly valuable.

A Look At Other Industries

Hospitality stands out as the most reluctant adopter, with only 22% of companies using AI-powered virtual reception for inbound calls and 43% exploring AI Voice Agents.
By contrast, the legal sector’s 74% engagement suggests a profession increasingly comfortable pairing traditional client care with modern efficiency.

The difference stems from call types: whereas hospitality relies heavily on emotional warmth, legal calls hinge on accuracy, confidentiality, and rapid routing areas where well-calibrated AI excels.

What Legal Firms Want Most From AI Voice Agents

The research reveals where legal sees the greatest potential for AI voice technology:

• Healthcare: faster response times (75%)
• Hospitality: reducing service costs (67%)
• Real estate: enhanced call quality and lead qualification (50%)
• Finance: 24/7 availability (45%), improved caller satisfaction (44%), scalability (43%)

Legal’s top future use case is appointment management (53%).

This aligns neatly with the administrative pain points most firms face,  juggling court dates, consultations and multi-lawyer calendars.

Each industry also had high expectations for AI Voice Agent features, from natural interruption handling to configurable escalation rules.
For legal, data security and compliance topped the list at 63%.

This security-first mindset is unsurprising in a sector where reputation and confidentiality are non-negotiable.

Among legal companies, 42% said that integration with existing IT systems like CRM or helpdesk tools was critical.

This points to a broader shift: law firms increasingly want AI not just as a call handler but as part of the client-intake and workflow ecosystem.

The Bigger Trend: AI to Protect Human Time

Across every industry surveyed, one theme is emerging: companies don’t want AI to replace humans ,they want it to give humans back the time to handle what matters.

For legal teams, this means freeing lawyers and support staff from constant call-handling so they can focus on high-value, sensitive work.

Why This Matters for Law Firms in 2025

The AI adoption race in legal is no longer about novelty; it’s about staying competitive.

Clients expect real-time responses, yet firms are constrained by staffing and increasing administrative load. Well-designed AI Voice Agents offer a way to protect responsiveness without compromising on professionalism or security.

With compliance pressures rising, talent shortages ongoing, and client acquisition becoming more competitive, the research suggests law firms are turning to AI as a strategic solution and not a shortcut.

Moneypenny’s Perspective

Moneypenny, a leader in customer communication solutions, recently launched its new AI Voice Agent following the success of an extensive beta program. The next-generation virtual assistant speaks naturally with callers, giving businesses greater flexibility in how they manage customer conversations.