Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Craig Allsopp, Joint Head of Class Actions, Shine Lawyers

By John Freund |

Based in Sydney, Australia, Craig Allsopp is the Joint Head of Class Actions at Shine Lawyers. Craig has over two decades of experience in class actions and large-scale litigation in both the private and public sectors. His unwavering commitment to justice has left an indelible mark on Australia’s legal landscape, positioning him as a trailblazer in shareholder dispute resolutions. Craig’s distinguished career is studded with triumphs that have shaped legal precedent. In every case he sees through, Craig strives to obtain justice for thousands of people impacted by the misconduct of corporations, the big banks and other major financial service institutions, and Australian governments. In particular, Craig has worked on some of Australia’s highest profile shareholder and social justice class actions.

Craig’s dedication to legal excellence and social justice is demonstrated by the profound impact he has on the legal landscape. He has set a standard for advocacy and achieving substantive change in the pursuit of fairness and accountability, particularly in corporate and government sectors.

Company Name and Description: Shine Lawyers is an Australian law firm specialising in personal injury compensation and class actions. As one of Australia’s leading class actions firms, Shine Lawyers passionately fights to obtain justice for those who have been wronged and suffered loss at the hands of institutions or corporations.  

Company Website: https://www.shine.com.au/ 

Year Founded: 1976

Headquarters: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Area of Focus: Class Actions

Member Quote: Third-party litigation funding has significantly improved access to justice in Australian class actions allowing individuals to pursue representative claims against corporations and governments for various alleged misconducts.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

LFJ Podcast: Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet

By John Freund |

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1ef7ZhgVw
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Insurers Intensify Offensive Against Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Shields Haptic’s Litigation-Funding Files From Apple

By John Freund |

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.