Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner of Ignitis
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum

By Harry Moran |

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.