Trending Now
Commercial Deals

Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

By Harry Moran |
January 28, 2025

Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

Turnmill Limited, a leading global operator of large-scale events for the financial services sector, is pleased to announce the acquisition of a majority stake in Dealmakers Forums LLC, a premier organizer of high-level events in the legal, finance, and technology industries, based in Brooklyn, New York. This strategic acquisition marks the third company to join Turnmill’s expanding portfolio, which also includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets and Completely Events, reinforcing Turnmill’s commitment to facilitating deal flow and connectivity across complex markets.

Dealmakers Forums is renowned for curating high-impact events that bring together senior executives and thought leaders to foster connections, share insights, and drive deal flow. Their flagship events — LF Dealmakers, the premier conference for litigation finance, and IP Dealmakers, the leading forum for intellectual property transactions — are indispensable to industry insiders and recognized for exceptional content, top-tier speakers, and highly effective one-to-one meetings.

Alex Johnson, Group CEO of Turnmill Limited, commented: “We are thrilled to welcome Dealmakers Forums into the Turnmill family. Their deep sector knowledge and expertise in creating impactful events complements our mission to support deal flow progression by bringing entire market ecosystems together. This acquisition enables us to broaden our reach within financial services to the legal and technology sectors, enhancing the value we provide to our clients and stakeholders.”

“Partnering with Turnmill is a transformative opportunity to amplify our impact and expand our global reach,” said Wendy Chou, founder and CEO of Dealmakers Forums LLC. “By uniting our expertise and shared dedication to excellence, we can elevate our event offerings, enhance the value we deliver to our participants, and create even stronger, more meaningful connections across industries globally.”

Adam Lewis, Partner at Horizon Capital, stated: “We are excited to continue to support Turnmill with this strategic acquisition. We believe this partnership will accelerate Turnmill’s growth trajectory and further establish its position as a leading operator of large-scale marketplace events.”

This acquisition underscores Turnmill’s dedication to expanding its global footprint and diversifying its portfolio to serve a broader range of sectors and geographies within the financial services industry. By integrating Dealmakers Forums’ expertise and established events, Turnmill aims to enhance its ability to facilitate high-level meetings and support deal flow progression across greater sub-sectors within global finance.

About Turnmill Limited: Turnmill Limited is a leading operator of large-scale events and services that support deal flow progression by curating entire market ecosystems and facilitating high-level meetings tailored to the financial services sector. Backed by Horizon Capital, Turnmill is established as a leading player, experiencing strong growth across its events portfolio in London, Dubai, Cape Town, Miami, Istanbul, and Riyadh. Turnmill’s portfolio includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets, which produces finance and investment conferences bringing together corporates, finance professionals, and investors, and Completely Events, known for organizing the UK’s leading retail property events.

About Dealmakers Forums LLC: Dealmakers Forums curates impactful event experiences for senior executives in the legal, finance, and technology industries. Renowned for its unwavering commitment to quality, Dealmakers Forums stand out with a results-driven approach that prioritizes one-to-one meetings and meaningful networking. By combining expertly crafted content, top-tier speakers, and a focus on building valuable connections, Dealmakers Forums delivers actionable insights and drives real business outcomes. Its flagship events include LF Dealmakers and IP Dealmakers.

About Horizon Capital: Horizon Capital is a private equity investor specialising in technology and business services. The firm was established by senior investment professionals who identified a significant market opportunity to invest in businesses in these sectors valued up to £100m. The partnership prides itself on its approach to helping business owners and managers realise their ambitions. Buy and build is at the heart of every Horizon Capital investment and the firm is a market leader in supporting companies pursuing this strategy. Horizon Capital has a proven track record in generating premium returns on investments. The unprecedented growth it delivers in its portfolio companies has been underpinned by deep and long-term investor relationships that span across two decades.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.