Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from IMN’s 2nd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum

October 20, 2023

Highlights from IMN’s 2nd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum

On October 19th, IMN hosted its second Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, bringing together thought leaders from across the litigation finance industry and showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content. Following on from the successful inaugural edition in 2022, this year’s event once again demonstrated the growing strength of the litigation funding market, both in the UK and across the globe. The agenda also managed to capture the broad diversity of perspectives within the industry, with lively discussion and debate across the panels and breakout sessions. The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, which immediately demonstrated the changes in the regional market over the last 12 months. Whereas last year’s panel on this topic was dominated by discussion around the Voss Report and the looming prospect of further regulation, yesterday’s conversation was firmly focused on the increasing innovation in the market and an evolving landscape that has seen competing models of third-party financing develop. Litica’s Ed Yell emphatically stated that “the growth in Europe over the last year has been spectacular”, and Iain McKenny from Profile Investment described the current state of play as a “hot bed for evolution.” A core element of the panel’s conversation revolved around the growing formation of a secondary market for litigation finance transactions, with JBSL’s co-founder Sarah Lieber summarising it aptly: “Secondary trading is the hallmark of a maturing asset class, it’s necessary to think about from the beginning of every funding deal.” The second panel of the morning ventured into the economics of the market, looking at the different types of funder capitalization and the challenges faced by funders looking to raise capital in the turbulent market. The panellists explored the differences between the UK and US market, with Ted Farrell from Litigation Funding Advisers, highlighting the lack of portfolio funding deals in the UK and pointing out that “single case is always going to be super expensive.” Neil Purslow explained that from Therium’s perspective, portfolio deals in the UK “usually don’t work well and fail”, resulting in a pivot back towards single case funding. The first of two panels focusing on the role of litigation insurance saw a wide-ranging discussion that covered everything from the type of cover available, to the increasingly varied ways that funders, law firms and insurers are collaborating on deals. On this topic, Robin Ganguly from Aon, stressed the need for funders and insurers “to work together to make the industry sustainable,” emphasising that “deals have to be attractive to everyone or deals won’t get done.” All the panelists agreed that those seeking insurers needed to be more proactive and prepared, with Tom Davey of Factor Risk Management putting it in clear terms: “Get insurance when it’s available, not three weeks before trial.” Unsurprisingly, the following panel discussion on class actions and group litigation immediately turned to the subject of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Echoing similar sentiments from speakers earlier in the day, most of the panelists agreed that funders and law firms were taking a pragmatic approach and exploring a variety of alternative structures for funding agreements and working closely with clients to find an optimal solution. Brown Rudnick’s Elena Ray provided the clearest overview of the situation, saying that firms “are not seeing a negative impact on the litigation funding space, so the parties have adjusted well to the PACCAR judgement.” Lara Melrose from Orchard Global described the UK’s group action market as “a very buoyant one” and noted that funders are benefitting from the courts’ flexible approach as demonstrated in recent decisions including the first amalgamation of claims in the CAT and the first application for a collective settlement. Alex Garnier of NorthWall Capital also pointed out that part of funders’ interest in class actions stems from the fact that “they’re not just fought in the courtroom they’re also fought in the court of public opinion”, thereby creating added pressure on large corporates to settle rather than “having their dirty laundry aired in court for months.” After a break for lunch and networking, the agenda once again returned to the topic of insurance, but with this panel putting an added emphasis on the lawyers’ perspective. Prompted by the panel’s moderator, Rocco Pirozzolo, the lawyers on the panel discussed some of the difficulties and frustrations they’ve faced when looking to secure insurance for a case. HFW’s Nicola Gare turned the question on its head, instead pointing out some best practices, with a particular emphasis on those funders who are able to give a prompt decision and explain their reasoning.  Meanwhile, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Insurance, and James Gowen-Smith from Miller, both said that it was important for all parties to remember it was a collaborative relationship and that it always worked best where there was adequate transparency, and where insurers were involved in the strategy discussions as early as possible. The agenda turned from the present to the future in the next panel, with an insightful discussion around new models of delivering legal finance and how new technology, such as emerging AI tools, can be incorporated to fuel future growth. Nick Rolwes-Davis from Lexolent led the calls for more innovation and change in the funding process, arguing that the industry was “probably overdue a change” and that increased efficiency could be achieved by “using technology as a triage tool.” Ben Knowles of Clyde & Co. offered similar support for evolution within litigation funding, pointing out that from a law firm’s perspective, “if technology could improve that due diligence process, then hopefully more cases could be funded.” In the penultimate session of the day, Louise Trayhurn from Legis Finance, and Carlos Ara Triadu from Cuatrecasas, led the room in an engaging and entertaining interactive session. Trayhurn turned the tables on the audience, seeking out the varying perspectives of lawyers and funders on the evolving relationship between funders and law firms. Whilst some attendees were more hesitant than others, the live Q&A format provided an excellent change of pace and allowed for a free-flowing discussion about the unique challenges and opportunities around the lawyer-funder dynamic. For the final panel of the event, the focus shifted to developments in continental Europe and the ongoing implementation of the EU’s Directive on Representative Actions. The discussion, moderated by Joanna Curtis from Brown Rudnick, looked at the differing approaches to implementation across Europe, focusing on the panelist’s local jurisdictions of Germany, Ireland, and Spain. Whilst all the speakers agreed that the directive was a positive development overall, they also pointed out that in terms of enhancing access to litigation funding in Europe, it may not produce significant changes. Elaine Whiteford from Wilkie Farr & Gallagher highlighted that there are still “a number of critical issues that the initiative doesn’t address for funders” in Europe, with the use of funding still primarily limited by each country’s national laws on its permissibility. Overall, IMN’s second UK event managed to provide an insightful exploration of the litigation funding industry and provided attendees with a comprehensive view of the market, bolstered by insights from stellar thought leaders. Across a busy day of content, the forum offered a platform for a variety of perspectives, generating debates and discussions that will no doubt continue long after the event. LFJ looks forward to seeing how IMN continues to build on the success of the 2023 forum in the future.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.