Trending Now
Commercial

Cormac Leech on Litigation Funding as an Investment

July 21, 2021

Cormac Leech on Litigation Funding as an Investment

AxiaFunder is a new and innovative investment platform that focuses on litigation funding as an asset class. Founded by Cormac Leech, the UK startup caters to sophisticated investors. UK Investor Magazine explains that as an asset class, the main strength of litigation funding is its lack of correlation to the larger market. For the most part, the need for litigation is not dependent on any specific economic conditions. The following are some key takeaways from the podcast episode with Leech:   Q: Are there [investment] solutions for people who are looking into funding? CL: Absolutely, there are. Litigation funding is a relatively new asset class. As an industry it’s really only been active in the UK for around 15 years or so. It’s certainly grown strongly over the last five or ten years. Most of the providers of litigation funding are operating on a traditional model where they have a permanent pool of capital…they’re really only catering to private equity firms, which means lots of sophisticated investors cannot get access to the asset class. Q: How are cases vetted?  CL: So far, we’ve funded 12 cases based on having looked at over 300 cases. We have a very high rejection rate in terms of the number of cases we accept.  We talk through the process of how we vet cases. The first thing we look at are the legal merits of the case. The way we think about legal merits—there are two parts: we want to make sure that the claimants have the high moral ground. It has to be a case where you look at the story of the case, the claimants and the defendants, and there’s a clear indication that the defendants treated the claimants badly. You know it when you see it. The second question is to make sure the legal technical merits stack up. Other aspects include whether the defendant has money, and the ability and willingness to pay if there’s a settlement or judgement. There’s no sense winning the case if the defendant doesn’t have any money. We also look at the case economics to make sure that the value of the claim is big enough compared to what it’s going to cost to litigate. There needs to be a solution for adverse costs risk.  Q: Litigation funding is classed as an alternative asset class. One of the attractions typically is the low correlation with traditional assets such as stocks and bonds. How is that seen in the real world? CL: It’s interesting in terms of investor’s perceptions. It’s a very unusual period right now because equities have had a very strong run recently, and residential properties have had a strong run. Virtually every asset class has been increasing in value. Forward looking investors will probably realize that there’s limited upside for equities, and arguably limited upsides for property, at least on a real, inflation-adjusted basis. These asset classes have already had a tremendous run. I think smarter investors will be looking around for alternatives. It does make sense for investors to make some allocation into litigation funding—2% up to 5% of their portfolio. It is non-correlated, and the returns are very substantial.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.