Trending Now
Commercial

Key Takeaways From LFJ’s Podcast With Erik Bomans, CEO and Executive Board Member of Deminor

On the latest episode of the LFJ Podcast, we spoke with Erik Bomans, CEO and Executive Board Member of Deminor. Mr. Bomans discussed recent developments and trends in litigation funding in continental Europe, including what the total addressable market looks like and how that is expected to grow over time, how country-specific jurisdictions are differentiated, some of the main barriers to investing in litigation funding in Europe, and how the regulatory environment across the continent can actually be a benefit to funders.

Below are some key takeaways from the conversation, which can be found in full here.

LFJ: How big is the European market for funding? How do you assess the total addressable market? 

EB: We have conducted our own research and have estimated the total addressable market in Europe at $1.8B, and that includes the UK. It is a small market, we estimate that it is 16% of the total addressable market of litigation funding.  By comparison, we estimate that the total addressable market in the US is $9B. That is nearly 5x bigger than the entire European market.  

When we say the total addressable market, we mean the potential for litigation funding. We get to these numbers by looking at the value of the litigation market, and we apply a percentage which is the penetration rate in that specific market. 

LFJ: In terms of a country specific breakdown, I imagine most of the activity happening in Germany and France. Your company Deminor has offices in Belgium, Luxembourg and Milan, so there must be a lot of action in these other jurisdictions as well. Is that the case, is there a lot of activity across Europe? 

EB: We are active in most European countries. The top countries without a doubt are the UK and Germany.  We estimate the total addressable market in the UK at $800M. The other $1B is spread out over continental Europe. With Germany definitely taking the biggest part, nearly ⅓. . The Netherlands is the third most active country in Europe. 

LFJ: What are some of the barriers to investing in the litigation funding market? Can you share some challenges funders find in this market? 

EB: There are pitfalls, Europe is a highly regulated market in general. Litigation funding contracts come with mandatory rules with highly regulated rules such as consumer protection. In Germany and France, legal advice can only be provided by practicing lawyers. 

One of the areas in Europe where litigation funding has been scrutinized most in Europe is antitrust cases, where some funders have used the assignment level to structure their litigation funding agreements.  

LFJ: How does the EU’s regulatory environment provide opportunities for litigation service providers? I want to ask you specifically about Deminor. How does the regulatory environment provide your business with growth opportunities?

EB: Antitrust is the next big area of growth, with the UK and Germany taking the lead. With Italy and Spain becoming active in this area as well. Litigation finance is a risky business, but there are new areas of growth in new emerging areas of litigation funding. Definitely, there are new  opportunities there for litigation funders. But it will be important for litigation funders to pick the right cases. 

LFJ: What are your predictions for how the EU litigation funding market develops over the next few years?

EB: Litigation funding is strongly growing here in Europe. The business is volatile, and no matter how much you diversify, returns may always be volatile.    

Commercial

View All
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

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

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Commercial People Moves

Harshiv Thakerar Joins Gallagher as Head of Disputes Risk

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, Gallagher announced the appointment of Harshiv Thakerar as Head of Disputes Risk based in the firm’s Middle East office. 

Thakerar’s new position will see him lead the insurance and risk management company’s dispute resolution practice in the Middle East and Africa, engaging with law firms and litigation funders in the region. Gallagher offers a range of dispute resolution and investment insurance solutions, including after the event (ATE) and contingent legal risk insurance.

Thakerar joins Gallagher having most recently served as Chief Investment Officer at litigation funder Asertis, where he also sat as board director. Thakerar brings a wealth of experience in the legal sector, having also spent time as a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya before moving into the world of litigation funding. Prior to his time at Asertis, Thakerar also held positions as Head of Litigation Funding at Global Growth Capital and Head of Commercial Litigation at Augusta Ventures.

Case Developments Commercial

High Court Rules in Favour of Henderson & Jones in Hearing on £2.15 Million Award

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder £2.15 million in damages

Reporting by ICLG highlights a development in the matter, as a hearing before the High Court last week was set to decide on eight issues arising out of the previous award of damages. The issues which the parties had agreed to resolve before the court included the appropriate level of interest on the judgment sum, the entitlement to indemnity costs and the validity of a Part 36 settlement offer.

On the issue of the interest rate on the judgment sum, the defendants had argued for 1% above the Bank of England’s base rate, whilst Henderson & Jones had argued for 6% above the base rate. The High Court’s determination favoured the claimant, with a rate set at 5% above the base rate, with the court taking into consideration the funder’s position as a small business and the Bank of England’s own data.

As for the validity of Henderson & Jones’ settlement offer that had been made in October 2023, the defendants had argued that it was invalid due to the lack of a defined ‘relevant period’ for the offer to be accepted. The claimant argued that, in line with previous Part 36 offers made in the case, the period was understood to be 21 days. Once again, the court found in favour of the defendant and in acknowledging that the offer was both valid and had been surpassed, the claimant was entitled to additional benefits.

The court denied the defendants’ request to appeal the decision.