Qanlex Refines its Latin America Strategy

The beginning of 2025 has already been a busy few months for Heirloom Fair Legal, with the funder expanding to the UK through its acquisition of Hayes Connor Solicitors last month, and the legal finance company is continuing to build on that momentum through two new appointments.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the appointment of two senior executives at Heirloom Fair Legal (HFL), with Steve Din and Phil Hales joining the funder. Din has taken up the role of senior vice-president at HFL and Hales has been appointed to the position of vice-president of funding relationships, with both sitting on HFL’s investment committee alongside the company’s co-founders.

Both Din and Hales join HFL from Doorway Capital, with Din founding Doorway in 2015 and Hales having spent the last three years at the company as business development director. Commenting on his move to HFL, Din said that the funder’s “larger infrastructure and bespoke approach” would allow them to “provide more flexible structures and be more creative in designing funding packages that meet the legal ecosystem’s needs.”

These new hires form part of HFL’s ambitious growth strategy, with the funder planning to exceed $250 million in funding to law firms and claimants by the end of 2026.

Geoff Dover, co-founder of HFL, highlighted the experience that Din and Hales would bring to the company, pointing out that “at Doorway, they led the way in putting law firms large and small onto solid financial foundations.” Dover went on to add: “We look forward to their contributions toward partnering with law firms and service providers that share our goal of resolving disputes more quickly and cost effectively by combining technology, legal advice and finance solutions.”

Whilst there is much discussion about what level of disclosure should be required around litigation funding, it is rare that outsiders to a claim can gain insight into the structure of these funding agreements. However, the certification of opt-out collective proceedings by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has offered a rare view of one such funding arrangement.

A judgment handed down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday granted the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the case of Bulk Mail Claim Limited v International Distribution Services Plc (formerly Royal Mail Plc). The Tribunal certified the opt-out collective proceedings, finding that the Proposed Class Representative’s (PCR) methodology “is sufficiently credible and plausible”, and further stated that it was “satisfied that there is at least a good arguable case that there has been an overcharge.”

The Bulk Mail Claim focuses on allegations that International Distribution Services abused its market dominance to overcharge customers for its bulk mail services. The proposed class is provisionally estimated to consist of 290,477 customers who purchased bulk mail retail services, with the value of the claim estimated to reach £1 billion. Mr Robin Aaronson, an economist specialising in competition policy, is acting as the director of the PCR and Asertis is providing litigation funding for the claim.

As part of its assessment of the CPO application, the CAT evaluated the terms of the litigation funding agreement between the PCR and Asertis, and found “that they do not appear to be unreasonable.” The judgment also offered some detail on the funder’s return as specified in the agreement, which is laid out below:

“In the event of success, the drawn funds will be repaid, plus a multiplier comprising two elements: a priority multiplier of 1.5x of the drawn funds and a balancing multiplier of 0.5x for the first 12 months. There is also an increase in the balancing multiplier of 0.1875 per every quarter. There is a cap of 5.75 overall, which applies to the aggregate of the priority multiplier and the balancing multiplier.”

The Tribunal also noted that the funding agreement had been amended to address its prior concerns that the agreement “did not expressly specify that prior to any settlement there should be a written legal opinion or memorandum on the proposed settlement.” Similarly, the Tribunal responded to concerns raised by the defendant that “Asertis would not be able to meet an adverse costs order”, finding that the PCR’s legal team had provided confirmation of Asertis’ financial position, bolstered by an ATE insurance policy with “a limit of indemnity of £15 million post-CPO”.

The CAT’s judgment can be read in full here.

More information about the Bulk Mail Claim can be found on its website.