Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Louise Trayhurn of Legis Finance

March 2, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Louise Trayhurn of Legis Finance

Louise Trayhurn, Executive Director of Legis Finance, sat down with LFJ to discuss a broad range of industry topics, including Legis’ bespoke approach to managing client relationships, the various funding and insurance products her company offers, the growing trend of GCs and CFOs extracting more value out of their legal assets, and what trends she predicts for the future of the industry. Below are key takeaways from the conversation, which can be found in its entirety here. Q: How does Legis approach the issue of pricing transparency and consistency? A: At Legis, we share with the client, the law firm, and the funder all of the returns listed. It’s very transparent. Every party can see what’s going on. If they don’t like model scenarios…then we can adjust it. ‘Pivot’ is a word that’s used frequently in our office. We’ll constantly amend, adapt, and make changes here and there to try and get everybody comfortable. Q: In the US, contingency fees have long been used by lawyers to share risk with their clients. Can you explain the benefits of DBAs as opposed to conditional fee arrangements and the billable hour model? What has Legis specifically been doing to press for this transition to DBAs? A: We formed a working group for those interested in DBAs. The idea behind it was to…discuss the possibility of a standard damages-based agreement. I, having a background as a litigator, thought this was fairly ambitious. We got a whole group of litigators together, and as well as looking at the broader picture of a standard form document, we had a more urgent task, which was to work together to provide feedback to the team looking at amending the DBA regulations. Q: In the wake of COVID, we’re seeing a mindset shift that’s been talked about for years. What have you been noticing in terms of how GCs and CFOs are considering litigation finance? What do you see happening out there? A: GCs are sitting in their board rooms and they’re acting as cost centers. They take their seat and the first thing they’re asked is ‘okay, how much is legal spend going to be this month?’. There are numerous companies out there committed to spending a certain amount each month on their litigation. It’s just money going out the door, and it’s hard for those GCs to show their value other than reducing the amount of legal spend this month for the same results. Now, you can use litigation finance to generate revenue. Instead of being a drain on the company’s cash, you can in fact add; you can be a profit center, if you use your litigation assets to make money for the company instead of costing them money. You have funders willing to do the due diligence in an independent manner—I mean, we don’t get paid for picking bad cases—and GCs have in their hands a very powerful independent check on their cases, and that can help in all kinds of ways. Q: Broadly speaking, what predictions do you have in terms of the maturation of the Litigation Finance market. What can we expect this year and down the road? A: Certainly I’m going to say increased use of funding. And apart from that, there may well be a consolidation of existing funders, or funders standing behind funding. Increased use of different financial products to back funding—insurance or other entrants to the market. Or a secondary market of products available to funders to manage their own risk, and possibly a secondary market available to investors to package these litigation assets, standardize the documentation, and buy and sell risk. That should help open the marketplace for these institutions that want to create secondary markets.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.