Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with T.J. Wolf, General Counsel & Senior Expert, DisputeSoft
Commercial Consumer

Mayfair Legal Launches Wildfire Support Program for Plaintiffs

By John Freund |
June 12, 2025

Mayfair Legal Launches Wildfire Support Program for Plaintiffs

Mayfair Legal Funding has unveiled a new initiative aimed at aiding wildfire victims in Los Angeles and Maui by providing pre-settlement advances tailored to individuals pursuing legal claims related to recent wildfire disasters. The program seeks to ease the financial burden on plaintiffs during the lengthy litigation process, allowing them to cover essential living expenses and medical costs without being forced into early or inadequate settlements.

An article in OpenPR reports that Mayfair’s program will provide wildfire-impacted claimants with cash advances while their cases proceed through court or settlement negotiations. The funding is non-recourse, meaning recipients are only obligated to repay the advance if their case is successful. This offering is particularly timely in light of the mounting legal battles related to utility-sparked wildfires in California and the catastrophic 2023 fires in Maui, both of which have left thousands seeking legal recourse and financial recovery.

Mayfair emphasized that this initiative aligns with its mission to ensure access to justice regardless of a claimant’s financial status. “We believe that no one should have to choose between basic survival and pursuing a rightful claim,” said a spokesperson for the funder, noting that the company’s underwriting process is designed for speed and minimal paperwork.

With natural disasters on the rise and litigation timelines stretching longer than ever, targeted pre-settlement funding like this may become an increasingly vital tool for plaintiffs. The wildfire-specific program from Mayfair underscores a growing trend of funders developing specialized products for mass torts and disaster-related litigation—an area likely to see heightened investor and regulatory attention in the years ahead.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Queensland Court Halts Blue Sky Insider Trading Class Action Over $630,000 Security for Costs

The Supreme Court of Queensland has stayed an insider trading class action after ordering the plaintiff to post $630,000 in security for costs across seven defendants, finding there was reason to believe the company could not meet an adverse costs award.

As reported by Insurance Business Australia, the plaintiff, Blue Dog Group, never produced financial statements or management accounts despite repeated requests from the defendants about who was funding the case. The plaintiff's solicitor offered only general assurances that security would be provided "where it ought to do so."

Notably, no litigation funder is involved in the proceeding. That absence is central to the outcome: with no funder standing behind the claim, the defendants' costs exposure ran to the plaintiff company's own balance sheet, which was never disclosed. The court found there was reason to believe Blue Dog could not pay the defendants' costs — a proposition the plaintiff did not seriously contest.

The proceedings have been stayed and disclosure paused until security is posted.

The decision is a reminder that funding transparency cuts both ways. Defendants increasingly press for disclosure of funding arrangements as a route to security applications, and an unfunded corporate plaintiff that declines to open its books may find that silence treated as evidence of impecuniosity. For claimants without institutional backing, the practical effect is that a security order can stop a class action before the merits are reached.

Commercial

KP Law’s £250 Million Binance Group Action Reaches 2,700 Claimants

More than 1,000 additional claimants in England and Wales have joined a group action against cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao, bringing the total to roughly 2,700 consumers globally. KP Law, which is running the claim, describes it as the first of its kind in the United Kingdom.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the announcement coincided with the Financial Conduct Authority opening its authorisation gateway for the UK's new crypto asset regulatory regime, which comes into force on 25 October 2027. Binance is expected to apply under that regime.

The claim was filed in the High Court in June, and claims issued now exceed £250 million. Claimants allege that Binance sold high-risk leveraged and derivative products — including leverage, futures and options — to UK users without FCA authorisation between late 2019 and early 2020. They contend those products are specified investments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which may only be sold by authorised persons.

Binance has more than 300 million customers worldwide. Individual claimants are reported to have lost sums ranging from tens of thousands to millions of pounds.

KP Law partner Hannah Sharp noted that Binance Markets Limited was barred from carrying on regulated activity in the UK in 2021.

No litigation funder is identified in connection with the claim. Opt-in group actions of this scale nonetheless depend heavily on book-building and costs cover, making the financing arrangements behind the claim a point of interest as the case progresses.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Rail Fares Class Action Decertified After Search for Replacement Class Representative Fails

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has revoked the collective proceedings order in Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway, ending a claim first filed in 2021. The proceedings had been stayed since June of last year, when original class representative David Courtney Boyle died from Parkinson's disease, and no replacement representative was ever secured.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, a CAT judgment published this month confirms that no new class representative came forward and that the CPO has been revoked. The GTR Collective Proceedings website states the claim was decertified on the basis of a CAT order made in April, and that the site will close shortly.

The failed search for a successor illustrates how dependent opt-out competition claims are on funding and insurance. Walter Merricks CBE announced plans to step into the role in November of last year, but withdrew his application in January after failing to secure after-the-event insurance. In May, he was ordered to make an interim payment of £70,000 towards the defendants' costs.

A costs hearing in the underlying proceedings has been adjourned to the next available date after 6 November.

A GTR spokesperson said: "GTR welcomes the end of the proceedings. We have always been clear that we acted lawfully and fairly towards our passengers."

The outcome underscores the structural fragility of CAT collective actions in which the class representative's position rests on securing adverse costs cover, and the practical difficulty of substituting a representative once a claim has already been stayed.