Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding May Be a Lifeline for Businesses and Law Firms Distressed by Coronavirus Shutdown

April 8, 2020

Litigation Funding May Be a Lifeline for Businesses and Law Firms Distressed by Coronavirus Shutdown

The following piece was contributed by Joshua Libling, Portfolio Counsel at Validity Finance, LLC. Litigation finance has always billed itself as a way of helping meritorious claims regardless of the economic strength of the litigant. The coronavirus pandemic is now exerting enormous and growing stress on law firms and clients. If ever there was a moment for litigation finance to live up to its own hype, this is it. We think it can. Keeping Plaintiff Cases Running at Reduced Cost.  Paying hourly fees to a law firm may be low on the priority list when weighed against retaining key employees or preserving cash for an economic re-start. But having the right priorities doesn’t change the fact that clients with pending claims deserve to see an appropriate return.  Funders can assist in at least two ways. First, by converting hourly rate cases into hybrid contingency fee cases, clients can continue litigating claims without outlaying funds. Funders will pay law firms 50% or more of their hourly fees and potentially all costs, as needed, in return for about 20% of any recovery.  The law firm would also be entitled to a similar contingency, leaving clients with the bulk of the case proceeds. This can be good for both the client and the law firm. The client gets to reduce its expenditures. The law firm takes or continues a case that may have become a de facto contingency case anyway because of the client’s resources constraints, or may have disappeared altogether, and gets 50% of its billables paid now with participation in the upside later. Second, economic pressures unrelated to the merits of the litigation can cause clients to accept unreasonably low settlement offers.  Sometimes settling is the right thing to do.  But settling for too little is no different than any other asset fire-sale. A funder can help by ensuring that the resources exist to continue the litigation, if that is the best course. Again, this should help all parties. The client doesn’t sell an asset on the cheap, and the law firm protects a meritorious ongoing case. Monetizing New Plaintiff Cases.  This is a time when many clients need to be taking a hard look at their balance sheets and maximizing their assets. A meritorious claim is an asset, but it is an unproductive asset unless you litigate it. Funding can help monetize a company’s litigation assets. Even in the pre-litigation, investigation stage, funders can assist in identifying claims, independently confirming case merits, connecting clients without lawyers to a small group of suitable and efficient counsel to choose from, and making the necessary investments to effectively pursue the case. In fair funding transactions, clients will still retain the lion’s share of the upside. Because a funder’s capital is non-recourse to any other collateral, this kind of arrangement offers  upside opportunity without downside risk to a client, and a contingency recovery to the law firm. Clients can take a litigation asset they would otherwise get nothing from, turn it into something productive, and minimize risk while doing so. Helping Defendants With Trouble Paying.  The lack of capital and decreased ability to tolerate outflows is not limited to the plaintiff side of the v. Law firms are seeing clients unable or unwilling to properly fund their defense, and clients are being faced with difficult trade offs between continuing to defend their legal rights and directing that capital to their core business needs. Funding can help these clients and law firms also. Defense-side cases can be turned into partial contingency matters through the negotiation of success fees or similar arrangements that define and monetize what victory means on the defense side. Funding can draw its return from that success fee and pay a portion of defense costs to the law firm in the interim, reducing the burden on the client (perhaps to nothing during the pendency of litigation) and providing the law firm with a reliable stream of paid work. Bundling Plaintiff and Defense Cases to Reduce Fee Exposure.  Law firms and clients look forward to inflows of proceeds from strong plaintiff cases.  Clients must defend claims against them.  By bundling plaintiff and defense-side litigation together, funding provides capital for both affirmative claims and defensive needs. In effect, the client uses the value of the plaintiff-side litigations to reduce their costs on the defense side, thereby reducing outlays and smoothing their risk profile.  Most obviously, the risk of continuing fee exposure can be greatly mitigated. This can work at the law firm level as well as the client level. Enhancing Law Firm Growth. Law firms will need to pitch to companies facing just the kind of liquidity or capital issues that funders can help solve. Law firms with pre-existing relationships and in-place portfolios with funders will have a competitive edge because they can offer contingency fee arrangements at the outset of the competitive process. Funding can thus speed up client matter acquisition. Funding is not limited to plaintiff-side litigations. A firm that has a stable of plaintiff-side contingency cases can use those litigations, and funding, to create bundled portfolios of mixed defense-plaintiff matters. Moreover, funding can provide a mechanism for investing in firm growth, allowing firms to share the risk of large portfolios of cases, or even to hire new partners to bring business to the firm. Difficult times call for creative solutions and new ways of doing business. But being creative doesn’t have to mean doing something untested. In the United States, litigation funding has been providing increased liquidity and decreased risk to companies and firms for over a decade. In Australia and the United Kingdom, funding has been used effectively for even longer. Litigation assets should not be squandered, nor sold for bargain basement prices, nor made to sit idle for months or years when clients urgently need capital. The time for funding to make a significant contribution to clients and firms is now.  If you have litigation assets and need to extract value from them, or need to reduce your litigation costs or risks, this is the moment to be creative.  Funding can help.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.