I guess it's my job to be the negative Nelly :) " and secondly...

I guess it's my job to be the negative Nelly

" and secondly the payout will not have the large percentage fee taken by a litigation funder, which of course is great for shareholders in the case of a large settlement."

Actually....No, or at least I don't think so. Unfortunately we aren't party to the various contracts that have been signed so will have to make some educated guesses on how/if/when fees will be billed...

If no litigation funder is being used then the implications to SHJ would depend on if this is being run as no-win-no-fee. I didn't think that this was how CAs usually are billed with other lawyers, however the recent announcement for the water contamination case implies (but doesn't state) that this might be how Shine is running things. If no funder has been used and the case is no-win-no-fee than the risk is being born by Shine in the case of a loss. However in the case of a win and payout there is no reason to think that Shine & shareholders would be better off.
I would assume that Shine does NOT take a percentage of the payout (like a litigation funder would) but instead bills fees for hours worked. This means that if there is no litigation funder then in the case of a win the size of the payout does not impact the amount earned by the lawyers.
If my logic is correct then the presence or absence of a funder impacts the payout received by the customer, but not the lawyer. Therefore it would always be better from the lawyers point of view to either use a funder or avoid running the case as no-win-no-fee.