Trending Now
  • Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It
  • Invenio Partner Warns Automation Bias Is the Real AI Risk in Funding Underwriting
Commercial Deals

Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP Achieves First Successful Investment Conclusion, Delivering Access to Justice in Landmark DIFC Case

August 12, 2025

Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP Achieves First Successful Investment Conclusion, Delivering Access to Justice in Landmark DIFC Case

Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP, the inaugural fund from litigation funding disruptor Lexolent, and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, has achieved its first successful investment in a case litigated before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts. The matter—Claim No. CFI 081/2023, concerned an unpaid commission claim by Dubai based businessman, Michael Forbes.

Absent Lexolent’s funding, Mr Forbes would have been unable to pursue the case and secure the payment to which he was rightfully entitled. The investment, which was concluded over just 21 months, will generate a very high internal rate of return (IRR) for Lexolent’s Limited Partner (LP) investors, showcasing the fund’s ability to deliver both strong financial performance and tangible social impact.

The result was a resounding success for both parties. Lexolent secured a strong return on its investment, while Mr Forbes obtained a substantial and life-changing judgment in his favour.

“Without Lexolent’s help, I would not have been able to right the wrong that was done to me,” said Mr Forbes. “Lexolent gave me access to justice, and I am delighted to have been introduced to them. I have learned through this experience that not all litigation funders are the same. Nick Rowles-Davies is very much one of the original founders of this industry and is exceptionally easy to work with. His expertise and experience made this transaction straightforward and highly professional.”

Lexolent CEO, Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, commented: “This is a perfect example of litigation funding in action. Without our investment, Mr Forbes would not have been able to secure such a substantial and transformative judgment. It was our pleasure to assist him—and, from our perspective, it was also a very strong investment, particularly given the high IRR that will be achieved for our LPs over a short 21-month period.”

This first win for Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP marks a significant milestone for the company as it continues to reshape the litigation finance landscape both in the Middle East and globally. The case underscores the vital role litigation funding plays in levelling the playing field between claimants and well-resourced defendants, ensuring that justice is not a privilege but a right accessible to all.

Syed Mujtaba Hussain, founding partner of UAE based boutique law firm Emirates Legal, acted for Mr Forbes and instructed David Parratt KC and William Frain-Bell KC.

Mr Hussain commented: “This was the first time I have used litigation funding but I will certainly do so again. Lexolent were easy to work with and allowed the lawyers to do their job without concern over fees being met. Litigation funding is a valuable tool and it assisted in producing a great result for Mr Forbes. We are all delighted with the outcome.”

About Lexolent:

Lexolent is a globally coordinated network for legal finance professionals and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, offering innovative funding solutions and unmatched expertise in litigation finance. Led by industry pioneer Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, Lexolent connects capital providers with high-value legal claims, delivering results for claimants and investors alike.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Commentary Casts State Funding Disclosure Laws as a Coalition Effort Rather Than an Industry Fight

A commentary piece argues that the momentum behind third-party litigation funding disclosure laws has come from broad business coalitions rather than any single industry, pointing to Ohio as the template other states are now following.

As reported by AMAC, the article traces a run of state legislation beginning with Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, which requires outside financiers to register with state regulators, bars them from influencing litigation strategy and prohibits foreign funding. Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma each enacted their own versions, with Ohio and North Carolina subsequently added to the list.

Ohio State Representative Meredith Craig, a co-sponsor of House Bill 105, told the author that the coalition behind the measure mattered more than anything else. "We ultimately had every major business group supporting the legislation, from the Ohio Farm Bureau to the Ohio State Medical Association," she said. "That broad coalition showed this wasn't about helping one particular industry; it was about protecting Ohioans and the integrity of our courts." On the bill's bipartisan path, she added that members on both sides "agreed that it was time to defend our constituents and our businesses."

The piece frames the federal picture as moving in parallel, citing the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsors, which would require disclosure of funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside a joint filing by the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice seeking amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to create a uniform national disclosure standard.

Writing from the perspective of the Washington Health Innovation Council, the author focuses on medical device and biopharmaceutical companies, arguing that plaintiff recruitment advertising invoking the FDA name and logo can imply regulatory action that has not occurred, and that resources diverted to funded litigation lengthen development timelines.

Commercial

Comments on USPTO Disclosure Rule Split Over Who Is Really Behind Anonymous Patent Challenges

A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination to name all real parties in interest has drawn a sharply divided response, with the dispute turning on the same transparency questions that animate the broader litigation funding disclosure debate.

As reported by IPWatchdog, 26 comments were filed before the period closed on 21 August, submitted by 17 organisations and eight individuals. The July rulemaking notice proposed that requests identify the requester and any other real parties in interest, with statements kept confidential on request, so the Office can assess whether statutory estoppel provisions bar a filing. The USPTO said it has received a significant number of reexamination requests aimed at patents already challenged in inter partes or post-grant review.

Eight of the 17 organisational comments opposed the rule outright. Supporters included Adeia, Nokia, Dolby Laboratories and the Council for Innovation Promotion. Adeia said it received ten anonymous requests between October 2025 and April 2026 after more than a decade without any, and had to defend its patents without knowing whether the requester was a licensee, competitor, affiliate of an estopped party or a foreign-backed organisation.

Dolby went further, arguing that a requester's own identification may be insufficient and proposing that requesters answer factual questions about their business model, member or subscriber funding, and the source of funds used for the challenge. Nokia recommended additional guidance covering indemnification obligations, industry consortia and third-party funding.

Opponents including the Business Software Alliance, Unified Patents and the PTAB Bar Association argued the Office has produced little evidence that estopped parties are exploiting anonymous reexamination, and warned that importing a fact-intensive real party in interest inquiry into an examiner-driven proceeding without discovery would generate satellite disputes and deter legitimate filings.

Commercial

Ireland’s 1634 Champerty Statute Is Blocking EU Class Actions Against Big Tech, Report Finds

Ireland's centuries-old prohibition on third-party funding has become the practical barrier to collective redress claims against the technology companies that base their European operations there, with only one class action filed in the country in the five years since the EU opened the door to them.

As reported by POLITICO, Ireland is the only EU member state that bars a funder from financing litigation unless it has a direct or legitimate interest in the case. The restriction stems from the medieval doctrines of maintenance and champerty, written into Irish law in 1634 and still in force. England abolished both offences in 1967; Ireland's courts have continued to uphold the ban, with narrow exceptions such as charitable donations made without expectation of a share of any award.

The prohibition collides directly with the EU's 2020 Representative Actions Directive, which permits only non-profit qualified entities to bring class actions. Those organisations typically depend on outside capital to fund proceedings against well-resourced defendants. Five non-profits are registered in Ireland to bring such claims, but only one case has been lodged — the Irish Council for Civil Liberties' challenge to Microsoft's online advertising system, financed from the organisation's general budget.

Johnny Ryan, who directs the ICCL's enforcement unit, said complex litigation in Ireland costs at least €1 million at first instance and that the organisation "cannot take multiple cases unless the State allows us to raise the necessary funds." He described the combination of the EU's non-profit requirement and Ireland's funding ban as a "fatal contradiction" for consumers seeking compensation.

Ireland's Law Reform Commission is due to publish a report later this year on whether the rules should change, though Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan has said he is "very hesitant" about permitting third-party funding. The European Commission said it is assessing implementation of the directive and that member states banning funding must ensure costs do not obstruct qualified entities.