Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

By Harry Moran |
January 17, 2025

Community Spotlight: Noah Wortman, Founder and CEO, NRW Consulting

As Founder and CEO of NRW Consulting, Noah brings his extensive experience in assessing and analyzing corporate misconduct in the financial markets, as well as his commitment to finding global litigation and shareholder engagement solutions to investors across the world. He has extensive experience advocating for global investors, promoting corporate governance and investor stewardship, and implementing strategies to achieve collective redress.

Noah splits his time between Philadelphia and London with a global remit where he strives to provide access to justice for global institutional investors (including financial institutions, superannuation schemes, asset managers and owners, and sovereign wealth and pension funds) and others via engagement and litigation strategies including global shareholder litigation (class/group, opt-out/direct, and opt-in), antitrust/competition/cartel litigation, complex financial litigation, global privacy/data breach litigation, and global patent litigation.

Most recently, Noah was Director of Global Collective Redress at Pogust Goodhead and immediately prior was Senior Manager, Collective Redress at Omni Bridgeway where he worked with global institutional investors to implement litigation funding strategies to aid in exercising their shareholder rights in seeking legal redress from publicly listed companies where an alleged wrongdoing had occurred.

Noah is a frequent speaker around the globe on the topic of shareholder legal redress, recovery, rights and responsibilities. He has also been a member of several leading global institutional investor organizations and currently serves on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law’s Global Class Action and Mass Torts Conference. He has also served on the International Corporate Governance Network’s (ICGN) Global Stewardship Committee and its former Shareholder Responsibilities Committee, the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute’s Event Advisory Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors’ Markets Advisory Council.

Company Name and Description:  NRW Consulting supports, recommends, and creates pathways to recovery for global investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct, including securities fraud, market manipulation, and violations of global regulatory requirements.  

Company Website: https://www.nrwconsultingllc.com 

Year Founded:  2018

Headquarters:  Consulting globally. Operating out of Philadelphia and London.

Area of Focus: When value erosion has been caused by corporate misconduct or fraud within an investee company, there are established and effective remedies for restitution. One of the most successful recourses is collective redress through group or class actions. Institutional investors have successfully used this option around the world to recover significant sums on behalf of beneficiaries.

With diverse global investor portfolios, institutional investors may need to consider class actions in multiple countries. Therefore, pursuing claims through class actions, direct actions, shareholder derivative actions, and/or funded group actions offers the opportunity to, on a de-risked basis: hold wrongdoers to account, influence corporate conduct and governance, or potentially institute corporate governance reform.

Noah also sits on the Advisory Board of Perfect Law. Perfect Law presents the annual Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference that takes place in London (https://www.perfectlaw.co.uk). The conference brings together a vertiable who’s who of the global collective redress community including judges, academics, practitioners, funders, industry providers and experts from all over the world to discuss, debate and learn from each other regarding the cases and issues of the day with the common goal of furthering access to justice.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding is a cornerstone of access to justice, allowing investors, consumers, individuals, organizations, and communities to seek legal recourse and exercise their right to pursue legitimate claims regardless of their financial circumstances. By enabling cases to proceed on their merits, it upholds fairness and accountability within the legal system, offering a powerful means to hold corporate wrongdoers to account.” 

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

France Issues Decree Regulating Third-Party Funded Collective Actions

By John Freund |

France has taken a significant step in codifying oversight of third-party financed collective actions with the issuance of Decree No. 2025-1191 on December 10, 2025.

An article in Legifrance outlines the new rules, which establish the procedure for approving entities and associations authorized to lead both domestic and cross-border collective actions—referred to in French as “actions de groupe.” The decree brings long-anticipated regulatory clarity following the April 2025 passage of the DDADUE 5 law, which modernized France’s collective redress framework in line with EU Directive 2020/1828.

The decree grants authority to the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) to process applications for approval. Final approval is issued by ministerial order and is valid for five years, subject to renewal.

Approved organizations must meet specific governance and financial transparency criteria. A central provision of the new rules is a requirement for qualifying entities to publicly disclose any third-party funding arrangements on their websites. This includes naming the financiers and specifying the amounts received, with the goal of safeguarding the independence of collective actions and protecting the rights of represented parties.

Paul de Servigny, Head of litigation funding at French headquartered IVO Capital said: “As part of the transposition of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, the French government announced a decree that sets out the disclosure requirements for the litigation funding industry, paving the way for greater access to justice for consumers in France by providing much welcomed clarity to litigation funders, claimants and law firms.

"This is good news for French consumers seeking justice and we look forward to working with government, the courts, claimants and their representatives and putting this decree into practice by supporting meritorious cases whilst ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected.”

By codifying these requirements, the French government aims to bolster public trust in group litigation and ensure funders do not exert improper influence on the course or outcome of legal actions.

Case Developments Commercial

Privy Council to Hear High-Profile Appeal on Third-Party Funding

By John Freund |

The United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is set to hear a closely watched appeal that could have wide-ranging implications for third-party litigation funding in international arbitration. The case stems from a dispute between OGD Services Holdings, part of the Essar Group, and Norscot Rig Management over the enforcement of a Mauritius-based arbitral award. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had previously upheld the award in favor of Norscot, prompting OGD to seek review from the Privy Council.

An article in Bar & Bench reports that the appeal is scheduled for next year and will feature two prominent Indian senior advocates: Harish Salve KC, representing Norscot, and Nakul Dewan KC, representing OGD. At issue is whether the use of third-party funding in the underlying arbitration renders the enforcement of the award improper under Mauritius law, where third-party litigation funding remains a legally sensitive area.

The case is drawing significant attention because of its potential to shape the international enforceability of funding agreements, particularly in light of the UK Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision. That ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape by classifying many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, thereby subjecting them to stricter statutory controls. The PACCAR decision has already triggered calls for legislative reform in the UK to preserve the viability of litigation funding, especially in the class action and arbitration contexts.

The Privy Council appeal will test the legal boundaries of funder involvement in arbitration and may help clarify whether such arrangements compromise enforceability when judgments cross borders. The outcome could influence how funders structure deals in jurisdictions with differing attitudes toward third-party involvement in legal claims.

Case Developments Commercial

Banks Win UK Supreme Court Victory in $3.6B Forex Lawsuit

By John Freund |

Several major global banks, including JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup, Barclays, MUFG, and NatWest, have successfully blocked a £2.7 billion ($3.6 billion) opt-out collective action in the UK’s Supreme Court. The proposed lawsuit, led by Phillip Evans, aimed to represent thousands of investors, pension funds, and institutions impacted by alleged foreign exchange (forex) market manipulation.

An article in Yahoo Finance reports that the case stemmed from earlier European Commission findings that fined multiple banks over €1 billion for operating cartels in forex trading. Evans’ action, filed under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, sought to recover damages on behalf of a wide investor class. However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower tribunal’s decision that the claim could not proceed on an opt-out basis, requiring instead that individual claimants opt in.

The judgment emphasized the insufficient participation rate among potential class members and found that an opt-out mechanism was not appropriate given the specifics of the case. Justice Vivien Rose, delivering the court’s opinion, noted that while individual claims might have merit, the representative structure lacked the cohesion and commitment necessary to justify a mass claim. As a result, the banks have succeeded in halting what would have been one of the largest collective actions in the UK to date.