Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Deals

A Snapshot of ESG in Litigation Funding

August 18, 2022

A Snapshot of ESG in Litigation Funding

As the litigation funding market continues to grow and evolve, funders are placing a higher value on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. This development raises questions about the connection between ESG and litigation funding, how litigation funders are currently addressing ESG, and what the future of ESG in litigation funding will look like. The following article will offer answers to those questions and act as a general overview of the state of ESG in litigation funding.

What is ESG and Why Does it Matter?

ESG encompasses environmental issues like air or water pollution, social issues such as customer privacy and data security, and governance issues like transparency. ESG pursuits have come to the forefront of many corporate agendas over the last decade. In some cases, this focus may be self-imposed, but it’s often a legal requirement as well. Even as companies champion ESG to satisfy customers and shareholders, they don’t always stay in compliance with those values and/or laws. As the number of ESG-related laws and regulations increases, compliance will become a greater focus for companies and investors alike. Litigation exists as both a deterrent to, and a regulator of, ESG non-compliance. ESG cases in response to corporate non-compliance create the connection between ESG and litigation funding. As Tets Ishikawa, Managing Director at LionFish Litigation Finance stated, litigation funding of ESG cases has a key role to play in helping businesses meet their ESG goals. Corporate executives aren’t the only ones concerned about ESG issues, however; savvy investors also recognize the importance of ESG. Responsible investing in ESG causes is often an obligation for pension fund managers and other asset allocators. Even when that is not the case, investors increasingly see ESG as a priority, with 85 percent of investors interested in sustainable investing.

Litigation Funders Pursuing ESG Cases

Major players in the litigation funding arena are already talking about or pursuing ESG investments. Funders like Therium, Woodsfood, North Wall Capital, and Litigation Lending Services have prioritized ESG cases, and more funders will likely join them in the coming years. One leading litigation funder, Therium, emphasizes the importance of ESG as part of broader responsible investing efforts. Funding ESG legal action, the funder states, makes justice more accessible for those harmed in ESG breaches. Litigation funding helps those claims be brought, even when the claimants don’t have the resources to fund extensive legal battles. Woodsford is another litigation funder touting the value of ESG litigation. Bob Koneck, Director of LitFin and legal counsel at Woodsford, emphasized the potential of ESG litigation as a reputation-enhancing tool for companies. He claims that companies can position themselves as ESG leaders through litigation, while also recovering money to use toward additional ESG initiatives. This is a unique view on the value of ESG litigation that speaks to the potential these cases have for corporations. This past week’s news cycle illustrates how cemented the concept of ESG litigation has become within the litigation funding ecosystem, as both new entrants and entrenched players are making waves on the topic. North Wall Capital recently announced a $100 million investment into law firm Pogust Goodhead, with the aim of funding ESG cases specifically. Fabian Chrobog, Chief Investment Officer of North Wall, argues that ESG investment makes practical sense, as these cases maintain a higher probability of settlement than most other claim types. And Paul Rand, Chief Investment Officer of Omni Bridgeway, recently revealed that the longtime funder is planning the launch of an ESG Finance fund. According to Rand, Omni is currently testing bespoke techniques for valuing and assessing ESG risk management.

ESG Cases Funded by Litigation Funders

Airbus Case Funded by Woodsford One prominent ESG case organized and funded by a litigation funder, is the Airbus case financed by Woodsford. Investigations by international authorities including the US Department of Justice revealed that Airbus SE, a manufacturer of military and civilian aerospace products headquartered in Europe, had participated in a widescale bribery and corruption scheme. In 2020, the company was forced to pay billions of dollars of fines to resolve these bribery charges, causing a major dip in its share price. Airbus investors incurred serious losses due to these violations of ESG principles and Airbus’ failure to inform the public in a timely manner about its conduct. That’s where litigation funder Woodsford got involved. Woodsford organized the affected investors into a special purpose entity, Airbus Investors Recovery Limited (AIRL), which is currently pursuing legal action against Airbus in Amsterdam to recover losses. The ESG team at Woodsford is funding and organizing this action. Without such involvement, the claimants may not have been able to pursue action against a large company with such deep pockets. Being able to hold major corporations like Airbus accountable for their egregious ESG breaches is one of the most significant benefits of litigation funding. Litigation Lending Services’ “Stolen Wages” Claim Litigation Lending Services, an Australian litigation funder, funded another notable ESG case related to stolen wages. This class action began in September of 2016, and was a lawsuit on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in Australia. The workers had been subject to ‘protection’ legislation from the late 1800s up to the 1970s. This wage control legislation led to tens of thousands of indigenous workers across a variety of industries never receiving their full wages, estimated to be millions of Australian dollars in total. Wage violations like these fall under the governance portion of ESG. Litigation Lending Services offered its support to the case, which reached a settlement of $190 million in December, 2019. To date, the case is the largest human rights case in Australian history. The settlement brought resolution to more than ten thousand First Nations people. Both of these cases illustrate the potential of ESG, and the possibilities for more ESG cases and litigation funder involvement in the future. In Conclusion Global legal actions related to ESG issues like climate change are increasing, and the targets of these lawsuits are shifting to include more corporations over time, rather than just governments. It’s worth noting that environmental issues often get the most attention, but ESG litigation goes beyond just environmental claims. Lawsuits involving fraud, disclosure rule breaches, diversity and equity, misrepresentation, and health and safety issues all fall under the category of ESG litigation. Environmental claims have seen the largest growth in the last few years, but we can expect other types of ESG lawsuits to increase as well. Another factor driving additional ESG litigation is the lack of clarity surrounding what exactly constitutes ESG. The intense focus on ESG is fairly new, meaning parties are not in complete agreement on the definition of ESG and how it should be measured and reported. As the number of ESG group claims increases, there’s room for growth in the litigation funding market. This industry is constantly evolving to keep up with broader trends in litigation, including the evolution of ESG claims. For now, it’s clear ESG will have a key role to play in the future of litigation funding.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

Commercial

UK Government Signals Funding Crackdown in Claims Sector Reform

By John Freund |

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.