Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Commercial Regulatory Issues

High Court Ruling Suggests Funder Liability Is Broader Than Expected

July 13, 2022

High Court Ruling Suggests Funder Liability Is Broader Than Expected

The extent and scope of litigation funding liability is being questioned, after a High Court ruled the funder was liable for costs predating the litigation funding agreement (LFA).  In analysis for Lexology, Jodie Gittins and Chris Ross of RPC noted that this is a signal to funders to not assume their liability in unsuccessful claims will be measured against their portion of funding contributed, nor will it be limited by the start date of their funding agreement.  In the case of The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors, the claimant had entered into an LFA with Therium in September 2019, to fund the action and partially cover costs that The ECU Group had accrued since November 2018. After the Commercial Court had dismissed all claims and ruled that ECU must pay the defendant’s costs, HSBC asked the court to order Therium to be jointly liable for all costs dating back to the start of proceedings. Mrs Justice Moulder ruled that Therium was indeed liable for these costs as they had (in part) covered these costs for ECU. As the courts have a breadth of options when deciding costs orders, funders should be mindful that in cases where they have the potential to reap a large reward if successful, they may face an equally significant loss when the outcome is reversed.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Fundraising

IVO Capital Partners Launches Fund IV for Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Paris‑based litigation funder IVO Capital Partners has launched its fourth vehicle, named IVO Legal Strategies Fund IV, targeting €150 million (approx. US$173 million) to back contested commercial disputes and arbitration claims across continental Europe and beyond.

According to an article in WealthBriefing, the fund will deploy capital primarily within France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and is focused on claim types such as competition law, data protection infringements and collective redress mechanisms. With over 11 years’ experience investing in cases across Europe, the UK and the U.S., IVO says its team is “uniquely positioned to capitalise on the growing need for capital to fund meritorious cases.”

The vehicle is structured as a closed‑ended fund with an 8‑year life, a 3‑year investment period and a target internal rate of return of 14 percent. Typical individual lawsuits range between €500k and €5m; IVO expects to invest in 50‑60 diversified matters for Fund IV, thereby reinforcing the argument that legal finance can serve as an uncorrelated asset class — largely decoupled from macroeconomic trends. The firm emphasises that the European litigation‑funding market remains nascent compared with the U.S., but regulatory changes such as the EU Damages Directive and the Representative Actions Directive are enhancing access to collective actions and follow‑on claims.

Investors in the preceding fund mix included family offices and wealth managers (wealth advisors now form over a third of the investor base), and the minimum entry into Fund IV is €100k for professional and qualified investors. Key risks remain case‑selection, outcome uncertainty and length of duration; IVO says capital‑protection insurance helps mitigate downside.

Commercial

Third‑Party Litigation Funding Gains Ground in Environmental Cases

By John Freund |

Environmental suits, increasingly seen as tools to hold governments and corporations accountable for ecosystem destruction and climate risk, often stall or never get filed because of steep costs and limited budgets.

An article in Nature highlights the U.S. commercial TPLF market as managing over US $12.4 billion in assets, showcasing the potential scale of the model for environmental justice. The core argument is that by providing funding to plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford the fight, TPLF can enable lawsuits that address pollution, habitat loss and climate change liability — aligning with broader calls to broaden access to justice in sustainability law. At the same time, the author cautions that TPLF carries risks: it may bring conflicts of interest, shift control of litigation away from claimants, or impose commercial pressures that are misaligned with public-interest goals.

For the legal funding industry this correspondence underscores important dimensions. It signals an expanding frontier: environmental litigation is becoming a viable sector for funders, not just mass-torts or commercial disputes. But it also raises governance questions: funders will need to establish best practices to ensure alignment with public interest, preserve claimant autonomy and guard against criticisms of “outsourcing” justice to commercial actors.

The article suggests that regulators, funders and civil-society actors should collaborate to craft transparent frameworks and guardrails if TPLF is to fulfill its promise in environmental realms.

Commercial

How Litigation Funding Evens the IP Playing Field

By John Freund |

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is becoming increasingly important for small firms, inventors and universities seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights against major corporations.

According to an article in Bloomberg, funding arrangements enable plaintiffs with viable claims—but limited resources—to access litigation and expert fees that would otherwise be prohibitive. In the complex IP space, cost and risk often preclude smaller rights holders from doing anything meaningful when a financially strong infringer acts. In effect, the commentary argues, litigation finance helps tilt the playing field back toward fairness and innovation rather than letting size alone determine outcomes.

The piece also observes that public debate has at times mis-characterised litigation funding—especially after efforts to tax funder returns—which it says “shined a spotlight on the solution” rather than creating the problem. The authors stress that the proper policy response is not punitive taxation or sweeping disclosure mandates that risk chilling investment. Instead, they advocate for targeted transparency under court supervision, combined with a recognition that accessible funding is a core part of ensuring just enforcement of IP rights.

For the legal-funding industry, the commentary underlines several take-aways: funders who back IP-rights holders serve a social as well as economic role, helping inventors and smaller entities access justice they could not otherwise afford. The industry should engage proactively in outreach: educating IP counsel and claim-holders about funding, telling success stories of smaller plaintiffs, and working with policymakers and legislators to shape rational regulation. The challenge remains to balance the benefits of funding with ethical, transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards—as discussion in the broader TPLF context shows.