Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Recap of IMN’s Inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum

October 19, 2022

Recap of IMN’s Inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum

IMN’s inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum brought together a crowd of international thought-leaders from across the industry, showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content.

Following IMN’s successful New York conference, the London event demonstrated the growing reach and maturity of litigation funding, as topics covered everything from recent industry developments to the nuances of international arbitration and dispute resolution. At the core of the day’s discussion, the central themes of regulation, ESG and insurance were present throughout each session, with unique insights being shared by panelists.

The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, where the topic of regulation took center-stage. Whilst most speakers agreed that the proposed reforms in the recently approved Voss Report were a step in the wrong direction for the industry, Deminor’s Erik Bomans offered a contrarian take on regulation, and highlighted that the very existence of this debate around regulation is a positive sign of the industry being taken seriously.

During the second panel on jurisdictional differences in Europe, this view was echoed by Clémence Lemétais of UGGC Avocats, who stated that it was promising that the EU parliament is raising the visibility of the industry, but that the draft resolution ‘shows a lack of knowledge’ about the industry itself. This was further reinforced in terms of individual country requirements by Koen Rutten of Finch Dispute Resolution, who argued that regulation has to be based on facts, and has to address a problem, which he does not see in the Nethlerlands.

A fireside chat with Rocco Pirozzolo of Harbour Underwriting gave the audience a detailed overview of the impact and evolving nature of ATE insurance on litigation funding. During this interview, Mr Pirozzolo highlighted the difference in approaches between insurers and funders when assessing cases, but further highlighted the need for collaboration between the two to deliver wider access to justice.

Two panels completed a busy morning of discussion, with the first providing insight into the evolving nature of funders’ approach to capitalization, and the second analyzing the best practice for those seeking funding. LCM’s Patrick Moloney honed in on the evolution of the industry having come from a place of being perceived as ‘the dark arts and then loan sharks’ to now being in a position where funders like LCM garner investment from public listing. Later, Ben Moss of Orchard Group, offered a detailed overview of how requests for funding should be best structured and highlighted the ‘holy trinity’ of ‘merits, budget and quantum’.

The afternoon saw a broadening of the range of discussions, kicking off with Tom Goodhead of Pogust Goodhead providing an insightful presentation on group litigation in the UK and the need for future reforms to enable growth. Another two panels brought a wealth of insights, with the topics of co-investing, diversification and the secondary market in the first, being followed by a wide-ranging discussion of the different types and applications of litigation insurance.

After a breakout meeting explored the best practices in talent development and growth for women in litigation finance, a trio of panels capped off the day’s agenda. In a wide-ranging discussion of innovative deal terms and structures, panelists from the likes of Brown Rudnick, Litigation Funding Advisers and Stifel, provided insight into everything from the effect of insurance on pricing to the increasingly technical and data-drive process of due-diligence.

Taking a more global approach for the penultimate panel, Alaco’s Nikos Asimakopoulos, skillfully guided the audience through a global look at enforcements and international arbitration. The panel of legal experts discussed an extensive range of topics, with Tatiana Sainati of Wiley Rein, spotlighting ESG as a primary driver in the increase in transnational disputes and particularly in the EU where ESG initiatives have taken hold.

In the final panel of the day, the topic focused in on the use of litigation funding by corporates and institutional investors. In an illuminating exchange, Woodsford’s Steven Friel played down claims by other funders that CFOs and other corporate executives primarily look to litigation funding for its ability to shift legal costs off the balance book. Instead, Friel and other panelists highlighted the need for funders to bring more than just capital to the table, and that true value could be brought through a funder’s insight, as well as its ability to manage the litigation process and reduce the non-financial resource burden on corporates.

Overall, IMN’s inaugural UK event displayed the incredible depth of the litigation funding industry and gave attendees a wealth of insights that will no doubt generate further discussion and debate among leaders. In a day of packed content, IMN’s roster of speakers and panelists provided both high-level overviews and detailed looks at the nuances of certain industry sub-sectors.

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article erroneously attributed the detailed overview of how funding requests should be structured to Rosemary Ioannou of Fortress Investment Group. The remark was made by Ben Moss of Orchard Group.  We regret the error. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

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.