Trending Now
Community Spotlights

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

By Harry Moran |

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.