Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

By Harry Moran |

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

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Harshiv Thakerar Joins Gallagher as Head of Disputes Risk

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, Gallagher announced the appointment of Harshiv Thakerar as Head of Disputes Risk based in the firm’s Middle East office. 

Thakerar’s new position will see him lead the insurance and risk management company’s dispute resolution practice in the Middle East and Africa, engaging with law firms and litigation funders in the region. Gallagher offers a range of dispute resolution and investment insurance solutions, including after the event (ATE) and contingent legal risk insurance.

Thakerar joins Gallagher having most recently served as Chief Investment Officer at litigation funder Asertis, where he also sat as board director. Thakerar brings a wealth of experience in the legal sector, having also spent time as a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya before moving into the world of litigation funding. Prior to his time at Asertis, Thakerar also held positions as Head of Litigation Funding at Global Growth Capital and Head of Commercial Litigation at Augusta Ventures.

High Court Rules in Favour of Henderson & Jones in Hearing on £2.15 Million Award

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder £2.15 million in damages

Reporting by ICLG highlights a development in the matter, as a hearing before the High Court last week was set to decide on eight issues arising out of the previous award of damages. The issues which the parties had agreed to resolve before the court included the appropriate level of interest on the judgment sum, the entitlement to indemnity costs and the validity of a Part 36 settlement offer.

On the issue of the interest rate on the judgment sum, the defendants had argued for 1% above the Bank of England’s base rate, whilst Henderson & Jones had argued for 6% above the base rate. The High Court’s determination favoured the claimant, with a rate set at 5% above the base rate, with the court taking into consideration the funder’s position as a small business and the Bank of England’s own data.

As for the validity of Henderson & Jones’ settlement offer that had been made in October 2023, the defendants had argued that it was invalid due to the lack of a defined ‘relevant period’ for the offer to be accepted. The claimant argued that, in line with previous Part 36 offers made in the case, the period was understood to be 21 days. Once again, the court found in favour of the defendant and in acknowledging that the offer was both valid and had been surpassed, the claimant was entitled to additional benefits.

The court denied the defendants’ request to appeal the decision.