Content for the Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the International Legal Finance Association 

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

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

About West U Capital 

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

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

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

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

Year Founded: 2019 / 2021

Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

Area of Focus: Asset recovery, blockchain, unorthodox cases

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

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

The BEUC paper acknowledges several key points:

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

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

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

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

The full paper from BEUC can be found here. 

About ILFA

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

About BEUC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information: www.ramcolf.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case against Google

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

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

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

Other proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further information

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

Who is eligible to be part of the claim?

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

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

About the class representative

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

Additional notes

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

Ms Stopford is represented by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Website: www.aurigon-lrc.ch

Year Founded: 2011, since 2024 offering litigation risk consulting  

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

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

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

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

Steven Cooklin, Chief Executive Officer, commented: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial highlights: 

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

Operational highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Year Founded: 1917

Headquarters: Barcelona and Madrid (Spain).

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Restructuring

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) today announced the recruitment of Rupert Cunningham as Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement. In this role, Rupert will work to drive ILFA’s membership growth and retention, provide leadership and management to serve ILFA members, and promote global education and awareness of litigation finance.

Prior to joining ILFA, Rupert served as a Special Adviser to UK Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk KC. He advised the Lord Chancellor on courts, sentencing, and legal services policy and shepherded legislation to support the legal finance industry in England and Wales. Before his work in government, Rupert worked as a public affairs and policy consultant, helping build coalitions of clients and trade associations to achieve positive political outcomes.

“We are thrilled to announce the addition of Rupert Cunningham,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “Rupert’s experience working with membership and trade associations to build coalitions across industries and in the UK’s Ministry of Justice makes him uniquely suited for leading ILFA’s global growth and engagement.”

“I am delighted to be joining ILFA, the leading global organization advocating for the legal finance sector,” Rupert Cunningham said. “When I was in the Ministry of Justice, I saw firsthand how important third-party funding is for promoting access to justice, so I am glad to be supporting the industry by expanding ILFA’s membership and helping members amplify their voice with industry stakeholders and policymakers worldwide.” 

Rupert’s appointment demonstrates ILFA’s commitment to expanding legal finance industry representation across continents and extending the industry’s reach with legislative, regulatory, and judicial policymakers worldwide.

About the International Legal Finance Association   

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

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

Legal-Bay, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that a New Hampshire court has just tossed out an initial $38 million award in favor of a paltry $475k payout even the presiding judge is calling “an unconscionable miscarriage of justice.”

Plaintiff David Meehan originally filed suit for the 100+ sexual abuse violations he suffered as a minor at a youth detention center in the 1990s. It turns out, he wasn’t the only victim. The case has garnered tremendous headlines for the egregious abuses inflicted upon underage boys and girls at that facility for years. As the whistleblower, Meehan was in a unique position to help subsequent victims who came forward with their own claims of abuse, the first of many to testify. One can only imagine the bravery it must have taken to recount in graphic detail the sexual misconduct he endured as a minor. While the case played out online and through the media, the opinion that mattered most was the jury’s; they found Meehan credible enough to award him $38 million, citing personal injury and punitive damages.

However, the jury instructions were not clear, and a technicality has now ensued: According to the verdict sheet, the jurors only listed “1 incident” on the jury form returned to the court after deliberations. Meehan’s lawyers, Rus Rilee and David Vicinanzo, had argued off the record that there needed to be more clarity to jurors, but to no avail. State law dictates that $475K is the cap per incident.

After hearing of the state’s assertion that the verdict was going to be revised down to $475k, several jurors reached out to Rilee to explain themselves regarding the misunderstanding and their intentions. They felt horrible about the lowered settlement amount and expressed how misinformed they were about the jury instructions in the case. Even the judge in a post-trial order felt the weight of the evidence reflected more than purely a lone incident. (Jurors have clarified post-trial that they meant one ongoing incident of PTSD from the abuse, and not one instance of the abuse itself, because clearly, they all believed his account of how he’d been raped multiple times on numerous occasions.)  

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, commented, “Legal-Bay has been one of the only companies who has been funding YDC cases since the start. So, with full disclosure, it is without question that we have a vested interest in seeing the plaintiffs prevail. However, aside from our personal belief in the veracity of the claims made, this new verdict is one of the gravest civil injustices our company has witnessed in almost twenty years of doing business. David Meehan was the first to report the abuse and win his case at trial, and now others stand to reap more from his courageous efforts than he will. We understand the state’s motivation to protect its taxpayers to some extent, but something just seems amiss here. We are optimistic that the civil justice system and politicians who support their local constituents will work out a more reasonable resolution whether through the courts or otherwise. And we hope that not only Meehan, but all the victims will get justice for the atrocities that occurred in the youth detention centers of New Hampshire and across the nation. That seems to be lost on the defense team and state’s position throughout all this, which is disappointing.”

If you’re a lawyer or plaintiff involved in an active sexual abuse lawsuit of any kind and need an immediate cash advance against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Legal Bay reports that the New Hampshire YDC litigation has over 1400 cases filed to date. When Legal Bay began funding early on—when no other company would—there were just eight plaintiffs. The company says the other victims have David Meehan and Rus Rilee to thank for their courage to take on the state in what has become one of the most egregious criminal and civil violations of children’s rights in U.S. History. 

Whatever the ultimate resolution, YDC cases in N.H. look to be winding down. But that is not the situation in many other litigations nationwide. There are tens of thousands of plaintiffs awaiting justice in many youth detention center cases across the country, as well as other similar litigations that will take time to resolve. Some of them include Mac Hall and foster home sex abuse cases in Los Angeles, CA, southern California clergy cases, New York and New Jersey Catholic Diocese church lawsuits, Boy Scouts of America sexual abuse cases, sex abuse at youth correctional facilities, at sports facilities, and by coaches, camp counselors, teachers, and sadly, many more.

YDC is not an isolated problem. Childhood sexual abuse litigations all over the country are emerging, and the psychological damage caused by so many is beyond what everyday society can even comprehend. Legal Bay is at the forefront of each and every one of these litigations, doing their best to support the victims to get their lives back in order and help them receive justice.

If you’re a lawyer or plaintiff involved in an active sexual abuse lawsuit of any kind and need an immediate cash advance against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Settlement amounts for sex abuse survivors vary widely, and appeals are almost immediately filed, holding up payouts indefinitely. Commercial litigation funding is available while plaintiffs wait out a verdict on appeal, and large pre-settlement funding can be obtained while the verdicts go through the appellate process. 

In larger cases involving organizations like the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America, settlements could be in the $100K settlement amount range for even the worst abuses. In cases with smaller class actions or mass torts (less than 50 people), settlement ranges for the highest level of sex abuses can be between $500K and $5MM. 

Legal Bay’s loan for settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff’s anticipated monetary award. While it’s common to refer to these legal funding requests as settlement loans, loans for settlements, lawsuit loans, loans for lawsuits, etc., the “lawsuit loan” funds are, in fact, non-recourse. That means there’s no risk when it comes to loans in lawsuit settlements because there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case. Therefore, terms like settlement loan, loans for lawsuit, loans on settlement, or lawsuit loan funds don’t necessarily apply, as the “loan on lawsuit” isn’t really a loan at all, but rather a stress-free cash advance.

Legal-Bay is known to many as the best legal funding company in the industry for their helpful and knowledgeable staff, and one of the best lawsuit loan companies overall for their low rates and quick turnaround, sometimes within 24-48 hours once all documents have been received.

Amber Cardillo, Legal-Bay’s Head of Sex Abuse Funding commented, “We understand the different sex abuse litigations throughout the country better than any other funding company in the industry. Unfortunately, each one is different, and settlement values are based on many factors. We try to work with each victim compassionately and get them the help they need. We welcome all to call and try even if their church is in bankruptcy or if they have been denied additional funding by other companies.” 

To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company’s website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Today, Trellis launched Trellis AI, a powerful new legal productivity platform designed for the complex needs of trial court litigation. Built on Trellis’ industry-leading trial court data foundation—which is the most comprehensive database of its kind in the US—Trellis AI offers tools that empower legal teams to harness data and insights in transformative ways. By automating litigation tasks like motion drafting and case evaluations, Trellis AI transforms the way litigators approach case work with greater accuracy, efficiency, and strategic insight.

Trellis is an AI-driven legal research and insights platform offering access to the largest and most comprehensive US trial court database. This extensive database includes dockets, documents, rulings, judge, law firm, and company analytics, with unmatched coverage across states, counties, and courts.

Trellis AI leverages this extensive data foundation along with advanced language models to deliver precise insights that enhance decision-making, case preparation, and litigation strategy. Designed for legal professionals, it streamlines strategic work like case assessments and motion argument development while automating time-consuming tasks such as motion drafting, client updates, and discovery preparation. These efficiencies free up attorneys to focus on strategic decision-making and client advocacy.

“Trellis is uniquely positioned to support attorneys within the very court system where their cases are filed,” said Nicole Clark, CEO and cofounder of Trellis and a former litigator. “Trellis provides access to hundreds of millions of motions and briefs, representing millions of hours of attorney blood, sweat, and tears in research and drafting. It’s why Trellis AI stands as the only tool to offer one-click solutions to create work product backed by the entire court system and learnings from every trial court litigator who came before them.”

Unlocking New Litigation Strategies

Trellis AI is designed to support every stage of the case lifecycle, delivering impactful work product powered by Trellis’ extensive data. Its feature suite tackles common litigation challenges by automating routine tasks and providing strategic insights grounded in the nation’s most trusted court data.

For example, “Draft Arguments” is a powerful motion drafting tool that can save hours of work, allowing attorneys to focus on their strongest arguments. Trellis AI uses the details and facts of the case to create tailored draft motions, drawing from its extensive database of similar cases to suggest strategic, fact-supported arguments. Each draft incorporates insights from hundreds of thousands of successful trial court motions, offering attorneys an innovative solution that transforms how they approach motion drafting.

Another tool is “Case Assessment” which evaluates key case elements to guide strategic decision-making. Trellis AI examines case facts, legal claims, and defenses to provide detailed insights into potential outcomes, recommended actions, and risk factors. Each assessment delivers actionable intelligence and recommended next steps to inform decisions on case management, settlement strategies, and trial preparation. This empowers attorneys to keep their clients informed, offer strategic recommendations, and leverage an internal knowledge base of strategies and insights for each case.

The remainder of Trellis AI’s tools streamline important tasks like complaint analysis, defense strategy development, argument evaluation, timeline creation, citation extraction, and more. All tools were created and meticulously tested by Trellis’ teams of product attorneys and experienced litigators.

Precision and Security at the Core

Trellis AI is designed for ease-of-use without sacrificing security or accuracy. All uploaded documents are encrypted at rest, aligning with SOC 2 standards to protect sensitive information. Additionally, Trellis AI reduces the risk of errors or bias in its outputs, enabling legal teams to concentrate on insights rather than processes. It also provides options for easy verification and source checking, ensuring greater confidence and peace of mind.

“The potential for AI to transform the legal field depends on the quality and depth of data behind it,” said Alon Shwartz, CPO and cofounder of Trellis. “Our data foundation is the cornerstone of Trellis AI, providing a wealth of high-quality information that drives actionable recommendations and meaningful insights. By prioritizing data integrity and implementing rigorous security measures, we’ve built a platform attorneys can trust to streamline workflows and make strategic decisions confidently.”

For more information, click here to book a demo or to get started with Trellis AI.

About Trellis

About Trellis

Trellis is the leading provider of state trial court data and insights, serving tens of thousands of law firms and litigators daily with insights and coverage across 3,000+ courts in over 2,500 counties, spanning 45 states. Trellis offers an extensive suite of state trial court intelligence and productivity tools for litigators, including detailed judge bios and analytics, thorough case assessments, argument drafting and generation, litigation insights across both law firms and corporations, daily reports on new filings, customizable alerts, and much more. Explore more or book a demo at trellis.law.

Philippa Wilkinson is an Associate Director on S-RM’s Disputes & Investigations team, which is dedicated to providing investigative support to parties to contentious situations. She has experience managing asset tracing investigations, as well as litigation and arbitration support engagements, associated with complex corporate disputes. While her practice is global, Philippa specialises in matters involving Middle Eastern parties, having spent several years in the Middle East, living and working in Tunisia and the UAE. She previously worked as a journalist covering finance and infrastructure in the GCC and wider Middle East, and subsequently covering European infrastructure funds. Philippa has an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of African and Oriental Studies, and a BA in Modern Languages from Durham University. She is a fluent Arabic, Spanish and French speaker.

Company Name and Description: S-RM is a global risk and intelligence consultancy. Founded in 2005, our staff comprises 350+ practitioners across eight international offices, serving clients across all regions and major sectors. Headquartered in London with offices in Cape Town, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, New York, Utrecht and Washington, D.C., we support our clients by providing intelligence that informs critical decision-making and strategies.

Our dedicated Disputes & Investigations practice was established to provide specialist support to clients engaged in contentious situations. Our intelligence is deployed in a number of scenarios including litigation, international arbitration, internal investigations and investigations related to sanctions or fraud. We provide a full spectrum of dispute-focused services including asset tracing and enforcement strategy; litigation support; eDiscovery and digital forensics; and strategic intelligence. S-RM’s investigators sit alongside cyber security experts and seasoned crisis managers. Our investigations involve their collaboration on a regular basis, be it for physical surveillance, expert witness support, or digital forensics. Since 2021, our practice has received international recognition by leading legal directories, including Chambers & Partners and Who Who’s Legal (Lexology Index).

S-RM’s research and analysis is provided by six regional teams, which provide expert coverage of a range of jurisdictions globally, from the most prominent to some of the smallest and most obscure. Collectively, S-RM’s analysts and managers speak over 45 languages and have come to the business from a broad range of sectors including intelligence, government, finance, journalism, the military and academia. Each team is adept at locating hard-to-find public records and has built an extensive network of human sources on the ground in their region. On every project, we bring together the most relevant and experienced practitioners from across our business, creating teams designed to address unique problems and complex challenges.

Company Website: https://www.s-rminform.com/

Year Founded: 2005 

Headquarters: 4^th Floor Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London, Greater London, EC3A 7DT 

Area of Focus: Corporate intelligence  

Member Quote: “Through our asset tracing work and enforcement advisory, we make sure a judgment or an award is not just a very expensive piece of paper, but a pathway to recovery.”

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

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

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

Company Website: https://winjustice.com/

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

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

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

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

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

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

Year Founded: 1917

Headquarters: Barcelona and Madrid (Spain).

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key findings from the study include:

Disputes relating to the energy transition are rising

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

Disputes relating to the energy transition are expected to be costly

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

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

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

Expected disputes span all types of business conflict

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

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

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

New tools are needed to manage the rising dispute costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Website: www.claimsfunding.com.au

Year Founded: 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Website: https://apertureinvestors.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary 

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

Key metrics and developments for the Quarter 

Income and completions 

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

New Commitments

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

Portfolio review

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

Corporate 

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

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

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

Cash reporting and financial position

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

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

Footnotes

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

Further information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Website: courthousecapital.com.au

Year Founded: 2019

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

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

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

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

Litigation Funding Agreement

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

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

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

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

Plans for Arbitration

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

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

Background to Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It’s about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business’s strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It’s all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it’s all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm’s potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company’s potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

A long-time litigation funding professional and former trial lawyer, Ronit Cohen is considered among the most experienced legal finance underwriting counsel in the U.S. After working as a litigator at Simpson Thacher and O’Melveny and Myers, she joined the burgeoning funding industry in 2012, first at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway, where she helped launch their first office, and then at Validity Finance, where in addition to serving as a member of the Risk Monitoring Team, she headed up a pro bono effort to provide capital to wrongfully accused individuals during the pendency of their civil actions. She co-founded Arcadia Finance in June of 2024, and serves as Managing Director along with co-founders David Kerstein and Joshua Libling.

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital – fast. Led by industry veterans with over $400 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

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

Member Quote: “I believe litigation funding is essential for a balanced legal system. It empowers clients with valid claims to seek justice, even when facing well-resourced opponents.”