Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

By Tom Webster |
August 18, 2025

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October. 

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It

A new research brief from litigation finance and insurance provider Certum Group finds that corporate legal departments are broadly aware of litigation risk transfer products but almost never use them, a gap the firm describes as "the next frontier in corporate litigation strategy."

According to the brief published by Certum Group, which surveyed 44 General Counsel and in-house litigation attorneys, roughly 70% of respondents are familiar with litigation funding but have never used it, while only about 6% have. The brief was authored by Kevin Skrzysowski, a Director at Certum Group, whose litigation funding team also includes Director William Marra, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk.

The survey characterises in-house litigation risk as operational rather than existential. Employment and intellectual property disputes drew the highest concern levels, while roughly two-thirds of respondents reported no concern at all about antitrust or mass tort exposure. Decision-making was consistent across defensive and affirmative matters, with likelihood of success (~84%) and cost to pursue (~74%) the most frequently cited factors.

On affirmative claims, respondents said they would be more likely to proceed if cost and risk could be shifted to an insurer (~62%), a contingent-fee firm (~49%) or through claim monetisation (~46%). A litigation funder ranked lowest at ~28%. Looking forward, however, roughly 51% said they would consider litigation funding, ahead of capital protection insurance (~43%) and claim monetisation (~41%), with about 30% ruling out all such products.

Cost certainty (~51%) and budget constraints (~46%) were the leading drivers of interest. Among the small group that has used litigation funding, two-thirds reported satisfaction with the decision.

Commercial

UPC Orders €200,000 Security After Finding Patent Claimant Had Pledged Its Assets to a Funder

The Unified Patent Court has ordered a newly formed patent claimant to post €200,000 in security for costs after concluding that the entity was economically assetless because its patents, licences and future income had all been pledged to its litigation funder.

As reported by Mishcon de Reya, the Hamburg Local Division reached that finding in *Nixu v Infoblox* (UPC_CFI_360/2026). Nixu, a US-domiciled claimant, was incorporated in March 2025 and acquired the patent in suit weeks later. The court declined to treat US domicile as a ground for security in itself, holding that "a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs" and noting that US courts recognise European judgments.

What did justify security was the claimant's financial structure. Under a Patent Security Agreement, all patents, licences and future income were pledged to the funder, and part of the purchase price remained unpaid. The court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on discretionary support from its funder.

The same update reports a second security decision. In *La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques* (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal upheld a €75,000 order against an SME claimant, confirming that "a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs." The court distinguished fee reductions and cost ceilings available to SMEs from the security regime under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, which contains no SME carve-out. Security was set at roughly 60% of the applicable €112,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

Together the decisions suggest the UPC will look through corporate form to the funding arrangement itself when assessing whether a claimant can meet an adverse costs award.

Commercial

Demotech Urges Insurers to Break Out Litigated Claims, Citing Funded Claim Generation

Insurance rating agency Demotech has called for a structural change to the way property and casualty insurers report loss costs, arguing that the current composite format masks the effect of technology-driven claim generation that is sometimes financed by third-party litigation funders.

As reported by PR Newswire, Joseph L. Petrelli, president and co-founder of Demotech, said the firm's 2022 review of failed carriers pointed to litigation as the decisive factor. "In 2022, our postmortem of failed carriers identified new, annual litigation as the proximate cause of what destroyed them," Petrelli said.

The argument turns on an assumption built into loss cost reporting decades ago. Petrelli noted that until the mid-1980s advisory organisations published rates and premiums for insurers to adopt or deviate from, and that "an implicit assumption underlying the original loss cost format was that an equilibrium existed in the relative claim frequency between claims reported and settled with policyholders, and claims litigated and negotiated with plaintiff firms."

Demotech's position is that the equilibrium no longer holds. Its research concluded that industrial-scale increases in litigated claims were achieved through technology, online marketing and advertising, "sometimes financed through third-party litigation funding." Petrelli also pointed to alternative business structures, managed services organisations and what he described as other mutations in the legal profession that "may circumvent the disclosure of third-party litigation funding."

The proposed remedy is to trifurcate loss cost data, disaggregating a single composite figure into claims closed without payment, litigated claims and non-litigated claims, each weighted by its own frequency. Demotech contends that the added granularity would allow insurers and regulators to price the litigated portion of a book directly rather than absorbing it into a blended average.