Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Lawyer Directed Litigation Funding Agreements And Professional Conduct Rule 5.4

The following article was contributed by John Hanley, Partner at Rimon Law, and Ryan Schultz, Vice President of Business Development for Woodsford Litigation Funding.

Third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) involves financing of expenses incurred in a lawsuit (for example, expert fees and usually some portion of legal fees incurred) in exchange for a share of the final judgment or settlement. The funding is typically non-recourse (i.e., the amounts funded need not be repaid if the lawsuit is unsuccessful) and is often repaid through a financial interest in the attorneys’ fees realized by the law firm if the case is successful. These arrangements have become common in the marketplace: in 2022, $3.2 billion in capital was committed for new TPLF; 61% of that capital was deployed to law firms as opposed to clients and claimants; and 28% of the funding recipients were members of the Am Law 200.1

The question of the permissibility of such arrangements in light of Rule 5.4(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits fee sharing with a non-lawyer, and TPLF arrangements arises. This Insight focuses on New York practice. As stated below, substantial precedent suggests that Rule 5.4(a) was not intended to preclude TPLF arrangements, and the New York City Bar Association has made two proposals intended to clarify Rule 5.4(a) in that regard.

Rule 5.4(a) And TPLF Arrangements

Rule 5.4(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in relevant part, that a “lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer.”2 In July 2018, the New York City Bar Association issued a non-binding opinion which concluded that future payments to a litigation funder contingent on the lawyer’s receipt of legal fees could violate Rule 5.4’s prohibition on fee sharing with non-lawyers.[1] The main thrust of the non-binding opinion was to protect the lawyer’s professional independence and judgment. The opinion was widely criticized and met with strong disagreement from the litigation finance community and some legal ethicists, who declared it is simply “wrong” or, at a minimum, overly broad and misguided.[2]

In October 2018, the City Bar’s President formed the Litigation Funding Working Group (the “Working Group”) to study TPLF and provide a report. In 2020, the Working Group released a 90-page report finding that the prior opinion was neither binding nor a required rule of practice, and that Rule 5.4 should be revised to make clear that litigation funding should not be prohibited.[3] The report stated that Rule 5.4 “should be revised to reflect contemporary commercial and professional needs and realities” and “lawyers and the clients they serve would benefit if lawyers have less restricted access to funding.” The report made two proposals, both of which focused on lawyer independence and disclosure of the arrangement to clients.  The proposals are substantially similar. Proposal A would require TPLF be used for a specific legal representation, prohibit participation in the litigation by the funder and require the client’s informed consent.  Proposal B would permit funding to be used for the lawyer’s or law firm’s practice generally, allow the funder to participate in the litigation for the benefit of the client and not require the client’s informed consent although the client must be informed of the arrangement in writing.

As of today, neither proposal has been implemented, and the Working Group noted that “a number of lawyers and funders believe that such a statement is unnecessary under the current Rules of Professional Conduct,” given that Rule 5.4 was not designed to prohibit such arrangements, as discussed in the following section.

Court Rulings Regarding Rule 5.4 And TPLF Arrangements

The courts that have addressed litigation funding in light of Rule 5.4 have concluded that the ethics rules do not preclude a financing interest in future attorneys’ fees or law firm revenue.

In 2013, in Lawsuit Funding, LLC v. Lessoff, a New York trial court held that the litigation funding arrangement at issue did not violate Rule 5.4.[4] In that case, the law firm received an advance secured by future contingency fees through a litigation funding agreement styled as a Sale of Contingent Proceeds. “The [agreement] called for [the funder] to receive a portion of the contingent legal fee that [attorneys] were expected to receive if five specifically named lawsuits were adjudicated in favor of [the] clients.”[5] The court noted that “several other jurisdictions have addressed the interplay of alternative litigation financing and Rule 5.4(a),” and did not find an ethical violation.[6] Judge Bransten adopted the PNC Bank Court’s reasoning and held that the litigation funding arrangement did not violate Rule 5.4, and went on to state that:

There is a proliferation of alternative litigation financing in the United States, partly due to the recognition that litigation funding allows lawsuits to be decided on their merits, and not based on which party has deeper pockets or stronger appetite for protracted litigation. See A.B.A. Comm. on Ethics 20/20, Informational Report to the House of Delegates 2 n.6 February 2012 . . . Sandra Stern, Borrowing from Peter to Sue Paul: Legal & Ethical Issues in Financing a Commercial Lawsuit ¶ 27.02[3] (2013). Therefore, this Court adopts the PNC Bank court’s reasoning and finds that the Stipulation does not violate Rule 5.4(a) and is not unenforceable as against public policy.

In 2015, in Hamilton Cap. VII, LLC, I v. Khorrami, LLP, another New York trial court stated that “other courts have analyzed the legality of [litigation] financing arrangements between factors and law firms and held them not to run afoul of the applicable ethical rules.”[7] In that case, the lender was entitled “to a percentage of the Law Firm’s gross revenue as part of the consideration for the money loaned to the Law Firm.”[8] There, the plaintiff was in the business of lending money to law firms and the loans were secured by the law firm’s accounts receivable. The law firm asserted, among other things, that the contract was unenforceable because the additional compensation to be paid to the lender in the amount of 10% of the law firm’s gross revenues collected between dates certain was an illegal fee-sharing arrangement. The court pointed to Judge Bransten’s decision in Lessoff and described it as “on point and persuasive.” Judge Kornreich ruled in favor of the lender, found the agreement was enforceable and did not violate Rule 5.4:

While it is well settled that actual fee-sharing agreements are illegal and unenforceable . . . the case law cited by defendants does not support the proposition that a credit facility secured by a law firm’s accounts receivable constitutes impermissible fee sharing with a non-lawyer. To the contrary, as Justice Bransten [in Lawsuit Funding, LLC v. Lessoff] explained, courts have expressly permitted law firms to fund themselves in this manner. Providing law firms access to investment capital where the investors are effectively betting on the success of the firm promotes the sound public policy of making justice accessible to all, regardless of wealth. Modern litigation is expensive, and deep pocketed wrongdoers can deter lawsuits from being filed if a plaintiff has no means of financing her or his case. Permitting investors to fund firms by lending money secured by the firm’s accounts receivable helps provide victims their day in court. This laudable goal would be undermined if the Credit Agreement were held to be unenforceable. The court will not do so.11

Both the Lessof and Hamilton cases relied significantly on PNC Bank, Delaware v. Berg, 12 in which the Delaware Superior Court noted that it is common practice for a lender to have a security interest in an attorney’s accounts receivable and there is no real “ethical” difference in a security interest in contract rights (fees not yet earned) and accounts receivable (fees earned). In finding that the financing arrangement at issue did not violate Rule 5.4, the court stated:[9]

[D]efendants suggest that it is “inappropriate” for a lender to have a security interest in an attorney’s contract rights. Yet it is routine practice for lenders to take security interests in the contract rights of other business enterprises. A law firm is a business, albeit one infused with some measure of the public trust, and there is no valid reason why a law firm should be treated differently than an accounting firm or a construction firm. The Rules of Professional Conduct ensure that attorneys will zealously represent the interests of their clients, regardless of whether the fees the attorney generates from the contract through representation remain with the firm or must be used to satisfy a security interest. Parenthetically, the Court will note that there is no suggestion that it is inappropriate for a lender to have a security interest in an attorney’s accounts receivable. It is, in fact, a common practice. Yet there is no real “ethical” difference whether the security interest is in contract rights (fees not yet earned) or accounts receivable (fees earned) in so far as Rule of Professional Conduct 5 .4, the rule prohibiting the sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer, is concerned. It does not seem to this Court that we can claim for our profession, under the guise of ethics, an insulation from creditors to which others are not entitled.

Washington D.C., Utah and Arizona and other States 

Washington D.C. adopted a modified rule 5.4(b) in 1991 and, until the developments beginning with Utah and Arizona in 2020, was the only jurisdiction in the United States to permit partial, limited non-lawyer ownership of law firms which removes ethical constraints that may arise regarding lawyer directed TPLF and rule 5.4(a).

The Utah Supreme Court issued Standing Order No. 15 effective August 14, 2020 (the “Order”).[10] The Order establishes a pilot legal regulatory sandbox and an Office of Legal Services Innovation to oversee the operation of non-traditional legal providers and services, including entities with non-lawyer investment or ownership with the goal of improving meaningful access solutions to justice problems.  The Order has been amended twice (most recently September 21, 2022) and the program will continue until 2027.  At that time the Supreme Court will determine if and in what form the Office of Legal Services Innovation will continue.

The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous order that eliminated its rule 5.4 entirely, creating a new licensing requirement for alternate business structures that are partially owned by non-lawyers but that provide legal services.[11]

These reforms remove ethical obstacles presented by rule 5.4(a) regarding lawyer directed TPLF but that is just incidental to their purpose – increased access to the justice system and lower costs.

Other states that have considered or are considering similar regulatory reform to close the access to justice gap in the U.S. include California, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Indiana, Connecticut and New York, according to the ABA Center for Innovation’s Legal Innovation Regulatory Survey.[12]

Qualified Conclusion

This Insight is limited to our review of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and, in particular, Rule 5.4(a), and the limited related precedent. We note that there is no appellate decision in New York to address these issues but the two trial court decisions are persuasive authority. Practitioners should take these limitations into account in analyzing the risks associated with transactions similar to those described in this Insight. Based on the foregoing it would not be unreasonable to conclude that  a court of competent jurisdiction acting reasonably, applying the legal principles developed under the case law discussed above, after full and fair consideration of all relevant factors, and in a properly presented and argued case, would not find a TPLF arrangement which provided a lender a contingent interest in law firm revenue on a case or group of cases, similar to the arrangements discussed above, to violate Rule 5.4(a).

John Hanley is a Partner at Rimon Law and drafts and negotiates litigation funding agreements on behalf of lawyers, law firms, claimants and litigation funders. Read more here

Ryan Schultz is a Vice President of Business Development for Woodsford and works with claimants and leading lawyers around the world to identify meritorious claims in need of funding.  Prior to joining Woodsford, Ryan was a Partner in the Intellectual Property & Technology Group at Robins Kaplan, LLP.  Ryan helped clients monetize their IP assets in the US and around the world to provide maximum value for their innovations.  Read more here

If you are interesting learning more about Litigation Funding, please reach out to John Hanley or Ryan Schultz.

—

[1] The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2018-5: Litigation Funders’ Contingent Interest in Legal Fees.

[2] See, e.g., Paul B. Haskel & James Q. Walker, New York City Bar Opinion Stuns the Litigation Finance Markets, Lexology (Aug. 31, 2018), available here.

[3] Report to the President by the New York City Bar Association Working Group on Litigation Funding, available here

[4] Lawsuit Funding, LLC v. Lessoff, No. 650757/2012, 2013 WL 6409971, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 04, 2013).

[5] Id. at *1.

[6] Id. at *5 (citing PNC Bank, Delaware v. Berg, No. 94C-09-208-WTQ, 1997 WL 529978, at *10 (Del. Super. Ct.

January 21, 1997); Cadle Co. v. Schlichtmann, 267 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2001); Core Funding Grp., L.L.C. v. McDonald, No. L-05-1291, 2006 WL 832833, at *11 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2006); ACF 2006 Corp. v. Merritt, No. CIV-12-161,

2013 WL 466603, at *3 n.1 (W.D. Ok. Feb. 7, 2013); U.S. Claims, Inc. v. Yehuda Smolar, PC, 602 F.Supp.2d 590, 597 (E.D. Pa. March 9, 2009); U.S. Claims, Inc. v. Flomenhaft & Cannata, LLC, 519 F.Supp.2d 515, 521 (E.D. Pa Nov. 13, 2006)).

[7] Hamilton Cap. VII, LLC, I v. Khorrami, LLP, 48 Misc. 3d 1223(A), 22 N.Y.S.3d 137 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Utah Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 (Amended September 21, 2022) (utcourts.gov)

[11] Order re R-20-0034 (azcourts.gov)

[12] Legal Innovaon Regulatory Survey – An overview of the legal regulatory landscape related to legal innovaon and access to jusce.

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

The following piece was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.