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
Case Developments Commercial

Apple Denied Access to Litigation Funding Records in Patent Dispute

By John Freund |

In a closely watched decision, a federal judge has denied Apple’s attempt to compel Haptic Inc. to turn over litigation funding records in an ongoing patent infringement case.

According to Bloomberg Law, the dispute centers on Haptic’s claims that Apple’s iPhone “Back Tap” feature infringes on its patented technology. As part of its defense, Apple sought disclosure of communications between Haptic and its third-party funders, arguing the materials could reveal improper influence or strategic coordination.

The court, however, ruled in favor of Haptic, holding that the requested documents are protected under the work-product doctrine. This legal principle shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure, unless the opposing party demonstrates a substantial need. The judge emphasized that Apple had not met that burden, noting that the funder’s role did not compromise the independence of Haptic’s legal counsel or litigation strategy.

This decision is the latest in a series of rulings that underscore courts’ growing acceptance of litigation funding as a legitimate component of the civil litigation system. It also highlights the increasing legal clarity around funder-client relationships, especially regarding privilege and disclosure.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Triple-I Ties Litigation Funding and Legal Ads to Soaring Insurance Costs

By John Freund |

A new report from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) is drawing attention to the growing intersection between third-party litigation funding, mass tort advertising, and rising insurance costs. The report argues that these trends are correlated and may also be fueling a cycle of litigation abuse that places upward pressure on insurance premiums across the country.

According to Insurance Journal, the Triple-I report signals growing concern among insurers about the litigation finance industry’s systemic impact on claim costs and rate-setting. The report claims that attorney advertising—often funded or indirectly supported by litigation financiers—has surged in recent years, particularly in areas like product liability, pharmaceuticals, and toxic exposure. The influx of cases, many involving large aggregations of claims, has increased both the frequency and severity of insurance payouts. Triple-I warns that this dynamic contributes to a “social inflation” effect, where legal costs outpace economic fundamentals.

The report calls for regulatory action and transparency, suggesting that clearer disclosure rules around third-party funding and advertising could help insurers, courts, and the public better assess the risks and incentives involved.

While the litigation finance industry has long argued that its capital helps level the playing field for under-resourced claimants, critics say the unchecked expansion of funding models and advertising tactics may tilt the balance toward profit over merit.

Case Developments Commercial

Steward Health Wins Court Approval for $127 Million Loan to Fund Insider Litigation

By John Freund |

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Steward Health Care System’s request to obtain a $127 million loan to fund litigation against its former executives and insiders. The embattled hospital operator, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, is targeting up to $2 billion in potential recoveries through legal action.

The financing arrangement—approved despite objections from several creditors—marks a critical step in Steward’s restructuring strategy, enabling the hospital network to pursue claims of mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and possible fraudulent conveyances by former leadership. The proposed defendants in the litigation include members of Steward’s former executive team and affiliated entities involved in its rapid expansion and subsequent financial unraveling.

The loan is being provided by a group of new money lenders who will receive top-tier repayment priority from any litigation proceeds, a provision that stirred concern among some creditor groups during court proceedings. Critics argued the structure could reduce recovery prospects for unsecured creditors. However, the judge determined that the funding was both necessary and appropriately structured to pursue high-value claims that could ultimately benefit the estate.

Legal analysts note that this type of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing for litigation expenses is becoming more common in large corporate bankruptcies, especially when internal mismanagement or fraud is suspected. For litigation funders and investors in legal finance, the Steward case underscores the growing intersection of bankruptcy proceedings and asset recovery litigation.