Trending Now
Commercial

SHIELDPAY LAUNCHES GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE LITIGATION SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR LEGAL SECTOR

April 22, 2024

SHIELDPAY LAUNCHES GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE LITIGATION SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR LEGAL SECTOR

In the face of increasing demand for better strategies for litigation compensation payments, Shieldpay, the payments partner for the legal sector, has created the ‘Blueprint to Distribution’; a step-by-step guide that shares best practice on how to scale efficiently and distribute best-in-class payments for claimants. 

The huge growth in litigation in recent years (total value of UK class actions alone rose from £76.6 billion in 2021 to £102.7 billion in 2022) means the legal sector must adopt strategies that will enable it to scale efficiently with the growing demand. In 2019, the average litigation revenue for a firm in the UK Litigation 50 was £82.4m. That figure had reached £110m by 2023 and is widely predicted to follow this upward trajectory.

Settlement payouts can be a complex and lengthy process without the right support and guidance. The process of distributing funds can often be overlooked until the settlement is finalised, leading to sudden complications, risk concerns and a huge administrative burden on a tight deadline.

Litigation cases are by no means finished once a settlement has been agreed. Depending on the size and complexity of the case, the distribution process can take many months, if not years. Most claimants will want the compensation due to them as quickly as possible, so firms need to plan for a successful and seamless distribution of funds well ahead of time to avoid frustration and uncertainty for their clients.

To help lawyers navigate litigation payments and adopt strategies that will reassure and build trust amongst claimants, Shieldpay’s ‘Blueprint to Distribution’ guide goes through the critical steps teams need to take throughout the case to ensure claimants receive their funds quickly and efficiently. The key to success is planning the distribution process as early as the budget-setting phase, where the payout is considered as part of the case management process to optimise for success. This process also includes developing a robust communications strategy, collecting and cleansing claimant data, and choosing the right payments partner to handle the settlement distribution.

In its guidance for legal practitioners on delivering a successful payout, ‘Blueprint to Distribution’ highlights the need for payment considerations to be aligned and collaborative throughout the lifecycle of a case, not left to be worked out at the end. Working with the right partner enables firms to understand how to design and deliver an optimal payout, taking into account the potential long lead times involved from the initial scoping of a case to the actual payout, with refinements and changes likely to occur to the requirements as a case unfolds. 

Claire Van der Zant, Shieldpay’s Director of Strategic Partnerships, and author of the guide, said: “Last year, the conversation amongst the litigation community was understandably focused on how to get cases to trial. Delays to proceedings arising from evolving case management requirements, including the PACCAR decision, caused delays and frustration amongst those actively litigating cases and striving for final judgements. 

“Fundamentally, legal professionals want to deliver justice and good outcomes for claimants. To do that, we need to think bigger than just a blueprint to trial, and consider a ‘Blueprint to Distribution’, because once a final judgement has been delivered, it doesn’t end there. Delivering a successful distribution requires advance planning and consideration to be effective and efficient. This step-by-step guide aims to help law firms, administrators and litigation funders deliver the best payment experience and outcome for claimants.” 

For the full ‘Blueprint to Distribution’ guide visit www.shieldpay.com/blueprint-to-distribution. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Academics Fact-Check German Business Lobby’s Case for Restricting Litigation Funding

Two competition law academics have published a point-by-point examination of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry's position on collective redress and litigation funding, concluding that several of the central claims advanced in support of tighter restrictions are false, misleading or unsupported.

As set out in a Kluwer Competition Law Blog analysis by Eduardo Silva de Freitas of the Asser Institute and Lena Hornkohl of the University of Vienna, the DIHK statement calls for litigation funders to be brought under supervision comparable to financial market regulation and for funding agreements to be disclosed in full. The authors test five of its underlying assertions.

The DIHK's claim that transparency requirements are lacking is assessed as false: Article 10 of the Representative Actions Directive already establishes disclosure obligations for litigation funding arrangements. The assertion that funders operate in a "nearly unregulated space" is described as misleading, the authors pointing to a European Commission study finding that third-party funding legislation exists in the vast majority of EU member states.

The claim of a widespread consensus that the Directive requires significant improvement is treated as unsupported, with the authors finding no sufficient body of independent studies behind it. The criticism that no minimum registration period applies to qualified entities is called misleading, since Article 4(3)(a) requires 12 months of actual public activity before designation.

The analysis reserves particular attention for the DIHK's figure that funders typically take 20% to 50% of damages. The authors describe this as misleading, noting that German law caps funder remuneration at 10% and that differentiated models operate below that level.

Commercial

Law Firms Turn to MSO Structures to Access Outside Capital and Partner Liquidity

Management services organisations have become a leading route for outside investors to participate in the economics of US law firms without breaching the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership, and the structure is drawing sustained interest from private capital.

As explained in a Nixon Peabody analysis by Allan H. Cohen and Samantha R. Barbere, an MSO is a non-professional entity that provides administrative and support services to a professional practice. The arrangement separates professional ownership from administrative infrastructure: non-licensed investors may own the MSO, while licensed attorneys retain exclusive control of the law firm and all legal work.

The authors identify two principal motivations driving adoption. The first is access to capital, giving firms resources to invest in technology such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at a time of escalating client demands for efficiency. The second is partner liquidity — the bifurcated structure allows partners to monetise the value of their ownership through a sale to non-professional investors, expanding options beyond traditional buyouts and transactions between lawyers.

Execution requires care. Firms must transfer non-professional assets to the MSO and enter into an administrative services agreement governing the relationship. Critically, fees paid to the MSO must reflect fair market value for the services provided, rather than a percentage of revenue, in order to comply with the fee-splitting prohibition in ABA Model Rule 5.4(a).

For the litigation finance market, the structure matters because it represents a parallel channel for outside capital to reach the legal services sector — one that competes with, and in some cases complements, case-level and portfolio funding as a means of financing law firm growth.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Class Action Collapses After Funding and Insurance Fall Through

A long-running opt-out collective action against Govia Thameslink Railway has come to an end after the claim failed to secure a replacement class representative backed by adequate funding and insurance, marking one of the more consequential funding-driven failures in the Competition Appeal Tribunal's collective proceedings regime.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the claim has collapsed as a result of funding problems. The proceedings, certified in October 2022, alleged pricing discrimination in the operator's fare structure on behalf of rail passengers.

The claim was left without a class representative following the death of David Boyle, who had brought the action. Walter Merricks, best known for leading the Mastercard collective action, applied to take over the role but withdrew in January 2026 after being unable to obtain after-the-event insurance for the proceedings.

That withdrawal carried its own consequences. As reported by the Law Society Gazette, the Tribunal ordered interim payments totalling £70,000 — £45,000 to the defendants and £25,000 to the estate — finding it "beyond argument" that reasonable costs incurred should be borne by Merricks and his funder, Litigation Capital Management. The Tribunal considered the £337,695 originally claimed to be excessive.

With the proceedings stayed, the Tribunal set a deadline of 4pm on 24 July for an application to approve a suitable replacement class representative, failing which the collective proceedings order would be revoked and the claim decertified.

The outcome underscores how tightly the viability of UK collective proceedings is bound to the availability of funding and ATE cover, and how quickly a certified claim can unravel when either becomes unobtainable.