Trending Now

SPONSORED POST: Segue Cloud Services Multi-Funding Case Study

The Following sponsored post was contributed by Segue Cloud Services.

The Challenge

Multi Funding USA is a pre-settlement finance provider that serves attorneys and their plaintiffs. The company has been serving clients for nearly a decade, providing millions of dollars in financial support in jurisdictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, California, Florida, and Washington. Through its pre-settlement funding services, plaintiffs can access much needed funds during the often lengthy settlement process as they wait for their cases to be resolved. When a case concludes in favor of the plaintiff, Multi Funding recoups its investment at a preferred rate of return.

Managing the pre-settlement finance process can be labor-intensive, complex, and expensive. It involves an array of ongoing administrative tasks, from initial case intake, to underwriting and approvals, to managing contracts and case documents, to the regular tracking of case developments. And all key stakeholders need to be apprised of each occurrence as it unfolds.

Like most providers, Multi Funding had relied on staff members to manage all the workflows and processes associated with pre-settlement funding. This meant manually inputting all case data into spreadsheets, completing forms, generating documents and reports, and notifying the parties involved whenever a milestone or change in dispensation occurred. And when a change occurs—as is usually the case—much of the entire process has to be repeated. As a result, Multi Funding’s team devoted countless hours to updating records and changing data, causing added expense and creating the potential for unnecessary errors in the process.

“The amount of time and work required to usher a pre-settlement funding case from intake to settlement can be overwhelming. It can often take four days just to manually underwrite a funding application,” said Alex Reyes, customer service specialist, of Multi Funding. “Every time we have to manually change or update information, it can result in delays and increases the potential for human error, which can quickly steamroll into problems for our clients.”

As Multi-Funding handled more funding requests, it recognized that it required a more efficient way to track, manage, and organize the painstaking pre-settlement process.

The Solution

After doing some research on potential technology providers, Multi Funding contacted Segue Cloud Solutions, an innovative software company that developed a technology platform specifically for the pre-settlement process. The solution to enables legal finance providers to enhance productivity, streamline daily workflows, reduce costs, and speed time-to-market. Multi Funding consulted with Jack Closs, project supervisor at Segue.

“When we spoke with Multi Funding’s administrators, it was clear that our solution could deliver a range of efficiencies to expedite their existing processes, diminish their labor requirements, and drastically reduce the potential for human error,” said Closs. “Their spreadsheets were cumbersome and prohibitive, making it difficult for staff members to retrieve the case information they needed at any given moment. Our automation software would allow them to easily track and access everything from settlement milestones, to interim pay-off amounts, to correspondence with funding sources and changes in case dispensation, all from a single, intuitive interface.”

Segue’s secure, robust platform automatically retrieves data to populate online forms and other documentation, generating material specific to each individual client according to established rules and permissions. The software automatically notifies staff, attorneys, paralegals, and clients of changes in status at various stages of a case. It organizes and centralizes all contact information, pay-off details, and case data, and generates documents such as contracts, letters, and reports with a click of a mouse.

The solution is built on the industry-leading Salesforce CRM platform, making it easy to deploy in Multi Funding’s existing environment. In addition, the platform’s document generation capabilities are powered by Conga, a major provider of digital document management.

The Outcome

Multi Funding USA has processed thousands of loans through the platform. Through this solution, they’ve been able to increase productivity by some 15 percent, while mitigating costly mistakes.

In addition, the solution has reduced the firm’s cost of operations, decreasing labor requirements and helping to speed more cases through their paces—without having to add personnel or extraneous infrastructure. And since Multi Funding accesses Segue’s technology through a cost-effective subscription with no per-transaction fees, return on investment is swift and considerable.

“In a complicated environment like ours, Segue provides a much more efficient solution compared to manual administration. Underwriting processes that once took hours or days can now be turned over in about eight minutes,” confirmed Reyes. “Before we used Segue, we’d frequently tell clients we’d have a contract to them by the next week. Now we can produce all the documentation in less than an hour.”

When asked about the value of the Segue pre-settlement funding solution, Multi Funding says it transcends traditional cost and organizational savings. “The ability to have an extensive range of automatically updated case information readily accessible throughout the pre-settlement process is a huge advantage,” concluded Reyes. “It creates an instant competitive edge for our firm by enabling us to provide fast and efficient service to our clients.”

Commercial

View All

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.