Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Car Finance Mis-Selling: What the UK Supreme Court Verdict Really Means

By Kevin Prior |
August 18, 2025

Car Finance Mis-Selling: What the UK Supreme Court Verdict Really Means

The following article was contributed by Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal Funding.

On Friday 1st August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on car finance commission complaints. While banks avoided the massive £44 billion liability some predicted, one customer called Johnson won his case – and that victory has opened the door for thousands of similar claims totalling somewhere between £9bn and £18bn – still a huge market.

The Bottom Line: Johnson proved his finance deal was “unfair” because:

  • The dealer received a massive undisclosed commission (55% of all the interest he paid)
  • He was misled about getting independent advice when the dealer was actually tied to one lender
  • Important information was hidden in small print

What This Means

The Supreme Court has given us a clear roadmap. Claims will succeed where customers can show:

  • Excessive hidden commissions (Johnson’s was 55% of his interest payments)
  • Poor disclosure – burying commission details in terms & conditions isn’t enough
  • Misleading sales practices – claiming to offer “best deals” while being tied to one lender
  • Pre-2021 agreements often have the strongest cases

Why This Is Good News

  • No government bailout risk – the ruling removes fears of political intervention to protect banks
  • Clear success criteria – we now know exactly what makes a winning case
  • Settlement pressure – lenders know more claims are coming and want to avoid court
  • Immediate opportunity – claims can start now without waiting for regulators

Our Position

Our cautious approach to date has been vindicated. While others rushed in with untested legal theories, we waited for clarity. Now we have it.

The car finance opportunity is very much alive – it just requires smarter case selection. We’re actively evaluating opportunities and expect to be funding cases that meet the Johnson criteria in the coming weeks.

The FCA will announce their compensation scheme plans in October, but the legal pathway is already clear. Well-selected cases with Johnson-style facts have strong prospects of success.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Kevin Prior

Kevin Prior

Commercial

View All
Commercial Deals

Loopa Finance Backs $1.4B Climate Case in Chile Over Ventanas Pollution

By John Freund |

In a high-stakes move that could redefine climate litigation in Latin America, Loopa Finance has announced it will fund a series of civil claims tied to environmental and human health damages stemming from the Ventanas thermoelectric complex in Chile. The lawsuits seek multimillion-dollar compensation for over 1,000 individuals in the so-called “sacrifice zones” of Quintero and Puchuncaví, alleging direct harm from toxic emissions over a seven-year period.

In a press release, Loopa Finance announced the litigation is built on a landmark study from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which uses advanced atmospheric modeling to directly link emissions from the Ventanas facility to 563 deaths, hundreds of adverse birth outcomes, and an estimated USD 1.4 billion in economic losses between 2013 and 2020. The findings provide the first scientifically verified causal link between the plant’s pollution and measurable human and environmental harm—spanning as far as Santiago, 300 kilometers away.

The legal action, Arellano v. Empresa Eléctrica Ventanas SpA (Case No. C-8595-2025), was filed in the 18th Civil Court of Santiago in September 2025 and is led by attorney Miguel Fredes of the Climate Defense Program. Backed by precedent from Chile’s Supreme Court and UN findings on regional human rights risks, the plaintiffs seek environmental remediation, full compensation, and permanent closure of the Ventanas facility.

Loopa Finance—formerly known as Qanlex—brings its cross-border litigation funding model to bear, combining legal and engineering expertise across Latin America and Europe. “This is a landmark case,” said Loopa investment manager Federico Muradas. “We’re backing it because we believe in effective and restorative environmental justice.”

Announcements Commercial

Burford Issues YPF Litigation Update Ahead of Pivotal Appeal Hearing

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has released a detailed investor update ahead of a key appellate hearing in its high-profile litigation against Argentina over the renationalization of YPF.

According to Burford’s press release, oral arguments in the consolidated appeal—referred to as the “Main Appeal”—are scheduled for October 29, 2025, before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The hearing will address Argentina’s challenge to a $16 billion judgment issued in 2023, as well as cross-appeals concerning the dismissal of YPF as a defendant. The release outlines the appellate process and timelines in granular detail, noting that a ruling could come months—or even a year—after the hearing, with additional delays possible if rehearing or Supreme Court review is pursued.

Burford also clarified the distinction between the Main Appeal and a separate appeal involving a turnover order directing Argentina to deliver YPF shares to satisfy the judgment. That order has been stayed pending resolution, with briefing set to conclude by December 12, 2025. Meanwhile, discovery enforcement is proceeding in the District Court, where Argentina has been ordered to produce documents—including internal and “off-channel” communications—amid accusations of delay tactics.

International enforcement efforts continue in at least eight jurisdictions, including the UK, France, and Brazil, where Argentina is contesting recognition of the US judgment.

The update serves both as a procedural roadmap and a cautionary note: Burford stresses the unpredictable nature of sovereign litigation and acknowledges the possibility of substantial delays, setbacks, or settlements at reduced values.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

FCA to Take Over AML Oversight of Legal Sector, Drawing Industry Backlash

By John Freund |

The UK legal profession is bracing for sweeping regulatory changes after the government announced plans to transfer anti-money laundering (AML) supervision of lawyers and accountants to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

An article in Legal Futures details the surprise decision, which has sparked widespread criticism from legal regulators including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), and the Law Society. SRA Chief Executive Paul Philip, speaking at the regulator’s compliance conference, described the change as “very different” from existing oversight, warning that the FCA’s rules-based approach could upend how legal firms manage AML compliance. SRA Chair Anna Bradley echoed this sentiment, highlighting the potential for friction in adapting to the FCA's framework.

Currently employing 30 AML specialists, the SRA may redirect those resources elsewhere, but clarity remains lacking on how the FCA will structure and fund its expanded mandate. Law Society President Mark Evans cautioned that the move could raise compliance costs and create a burdensome dual-regulation environment, sentiments echoed by the CLC and the Law Society of Scotland.

The FCA, for its part, says the consolidation will streamline AML oversight and bolster enforcement capabilities. However, several experts—including former SRA AML director Colette Best and compliance professionals across the sector—warn that the FCA’s unfamiliarity with legal practice, possible under-resourcing, and the need for new legislation may delay implementation and sow confusion.

While anti-corruption advocates like Spotlight on Corruption welcomed the move, calling it a long-overdue shakeup, industry voices argue the transition must be carefully managed to avoid disrupting one of the UK’s most respected professions.

For litigation funders, the development underscores a trend toward stronger centralized oversight in areas intersecting with financial crime enforcement. Questions remain over how the FCA’s broader enforcement style might influence law firms—and by extension, the funders who work with them.