Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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 Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.