Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial

Recent Developments in Litigation Finance (Part 2 of 2)

December 11, 2017

Recent Developments in Litigation Finance (Part 2 of 2)

By Mauritius Nagelmueller This article aims to provide an overview of the most significant recent developments in the litigation finance industry. Part 2 of this 2-part series discusses the rapid growth of litigation finance across the globe, as well as its multi-dimensional expansion into diverse markets. If you’d like to reference Part 1 of this series, you can find it here. Growth The most significant overall trend in litigation finance is simply put: growth – a vibrant and ongoing increase in the use and acceptance of the industry. Litigation finance has emerged from a promising niche into a mainstream alternative asset class. The use has multiplied in the recent years, and among many other characteristic features, investors are attracted by the chance to diversify their portfolios with uncorrelated assets. The demand in the legal world is still much higher than the supply of litigation finance – an indicator that normally only the best cases are receiving financing. By now, the business spans the financing of both plaintiffs and defendants, single cases and portfolios, at practically every stage of the dispute, for example also at the enforcement phase. As litigation finance has become a multi-billion-dollar business, surveys and reports by universities and journals, as well as financing providers point to its continued growth, with no signs of stopping any time soon. While detailed data grows increasingly available, it is hard for reporters or councils to keep pace with the industry, which continues to evolve before initial research can proffer valid conclusions. While this powerful forward movement promotes access to justice in the eyes of many, the impact on the civil justice system concerns others. Calls for more rules and regulation regarding inter alia, disclosure and conflicts of interest remain loud. Whichever side one chooses, the market for this service is growing, the demand enormous, and high-quality cases tend to find high-quality finance providers. Expansion For all the reasons stated above, as well as in the Part 1 of this series, 2017 has been the year of expansion for litigation finance firms. New offices in multiple jurisdictions, new funds that are larger or have innovative structures, and broader services providing the full spectrum of finance and risk management related to legal disputes. A wave of new office launches took place in multiple directions internationally. Litigation finance firms from the U.K. entered the U.S. market, and are eager to establish their business in New York City, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, California, and a number of other locales across the U.S. Strategic recruiting, e.g. of former U.S. judges and biglaw partners, builds strong teams in a constantly growing environment, and makes a career in litigation finance a more and more attractive option. Following the developments in Asia described previously, litigation finance firms have opened their first offices in Singapore. The market is also growing in Canada, where local courts have increasingly embraced litigation finance for the past 15 years. International litigation finance and insurance firms seem attracted, and have ventured into Canada this year. And funds are growing bigger accordingly. The largest players have billions of dollars committed to the legal market, able to invest hundreds of millions in a short period of time. The biggest single litigation investment fund in North America has been raised this year, at $500 million. An increase in size is not the only development, however, since crowdfunding and innovative online platforms play a progressively important role, opening the market to an even broader range of participants. Litigation finance has never been one-dimensional, but has included tailored financing concepts and related services like asset tracing for some time. The progress of portfolio financing shapes the market thoroughly. More recently, the range of available insurance options has developed in the U.S., bringing a new variety of sophisticated services, such as contingency fee insurance and attorney fee insurance solutions which can offer a cheaper hedge compared to financing. All in all, it will be fascinating to watch how things play out in the years ahead. Whatever the outcome, 2017 will certainly be remembered as a transformative year for the nascent industry of litigation finance.   Mauritius Nagelmueller has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. This 2-part article is for general information purposes only and does not purport to represent legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of his employer. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information related to this 2-part article without seeking the appropriate advice from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s jurisdiction.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.