Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

The 5 Most Popular Episodes of the Litigation Finance Podcast

The Litigation Finance Podcast features guests from across the global commercial and consumer litigation funding landscapes. With over 60 podcasts spanning five years of archives, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at the five top podcasts in terms of viewer traffic.

It should be noted that the Litigation Finance industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and as new entrants emerge into the space, many come to our site and listen to recent episodes of the LFJ Podcast, hence there is a recency bias in the traffic numbers (the earliest episode on our list comes from March of 2020).

That said, below are some key takeaways from our five most popular episodes:

#5) Dan Bush, CIO and Director of Innovation, Law Finance Group

As CIO and Director of Innovation, Dan Bush wears many hats. He has been with Law Finance for more than a decade, and helped develop one of its most popular products: AR Now.

AR Now was created to solve a specific and widespread problem for law firms—clients who won’t, or can’t, pay their bills. Increasingly, clients are approaching law firms demanding steep discounts on legal bills they can’t make good on. Law Finance Group (LFG) offers firms the ability to establish payment plans with clients without impacting the firm’s bottom line. Law firm invoices can be monetized, avoiding sending clients to collections. After all, non-paying clients can impact more than operating budgets. Lines of credit, bonuses, recruitment, even firm salaries may be affected.

Perhaps best of all, LFG’s involvement in the creation of payment plans remains clandestine. While this plan was developed due to COVID-related circumstances, Bush sees it outliving the impending return to normalcy. “Everybody was presented with kind of a dire situation, right? With the pandemic, the shutdown, all the economic fallout from that really provided the impetus to get this going. We really see how the product works beyond the COVID pandemic to help law firms help their clients while still bringing money into the firm.”

LFG works with firms of all sizes from boutique to leading law firms. It will look at cases in any stage of the litigation process, to see how funding can help. LFG has the equity needed to invest in a wide array of cases and portfolios. It may even offer terms with partial recourse to keep fees down and percentages low. As Bush explains, flexibility is key. “A lot of firms are taking more risks than they would in the past–taking some contingent upside risk, if not a full contingency. They’re coming up with hybrid arrangements, taking some percentages of the hourly fees, which has some contingent upside.”

Firms can apply to the AR Now program with a short application that is followed by due diligence and the signing of an NDA. AR Now agreements may cover a single client, small groups, or other arrangements as needed. The bottom line is that firms can take more risks when facilitating payments. It’s a ‘better late than never’ philosophy that works for firms and their clients alike.

#4) Elena Rey, Partner, Brown Rudnick

In addition to being a Partner at Brown Rudnick, Elena Rey is a member of the Litigation Funding Working Group—which, at the time of this interview, was in the process of creating standardized documentation for funding contracts.

Why focus on standardized documentation? Rey explains: “We’ve been seeing a number of trends in the Litigation Finance market in Europe recently. This includes the diversification for funders. So, besides the core of traditional litigation funders, more and more lenders are coming into the space.”

Standardizing funding documentation promises many benefits, including shortening the onboarding process and allowing firms to services a wider range of case types. It increases the level of protection for all parties, and speeds the development of secondary markets. Standardized documentation can also be used as part of the negotiation process, as a viable starting point when hammering out details.

The current working group has grown into 80 members, including major funders, family offices, insurers, leading law firms and barristers, and private funders. Essentially, professionals from all over the industry are making their voices heard—with the unexpected advantage of encouraging cross-disciplinary discussion on major industry issues.

And there is certainly a need for flexibility. As Rey details, all funding is bespoke at its core. Client needs are unique to each case. Commercial funders may be most impacted by standardized documentation, which promises to improve transparency and the quality of terms overall.

The first set of documentation from the Working Group is set to be released as early as June of this year. It will focus on insurance, and will serve to demonstrate how impactful this advancement can be on the overall industry. 

#3) Christopher DeLise, Chief Executive Officer, Delta Capital Partners 

Having been founded in 2011, Delta was an early entrant into the funding industry. Delta sets itself apart by getting term sheets to potential clients with blazing speed after a very short vetting process. Many cases at Delta are vetted and have funding deployed within 48-hours—an extremely fast turnaround in the Commercial Litigation Finance space. The use of standardized documentation also leads to greater clarity and speed—helping clients make more informed decisions about their options. DeLise explains that when it comes to funding, the speed of the process can have a huge impact on origination and client satisfaction.

Because Delta has been in the funding game for so long, the company has been at the forefront of the industry’s development since its inception. DeLise explains, “Part of the excitement of this industry, for me personally, is having been an early pioneer and seeing all the changes that have occurred.” In the beginning, much time was spent educating law firms and investors about the benefits of funding—now, that’s less necessary, as funding has grown increasingly popular.

Some of the more sweeping changes in the funding industry include an increased number of products available, as well as the trend of personalizing funding terms to better meet client needs. Because more recent graduates and old-school industry pros are becoming more aware of the benefits of working in Litigation Finance, sourcing new talent is easier than it’s ever been.

COVID has impacted all aspects of Litigation Finance. As DeLise says, “liquidity is tightening up globally.” This increases the need for funding—particularly commercial funding. This, in turn, leads to commercial entities eschewing traditional lines of credit in favor of non-recourse funding. DeLise expects that trend to continue into the future.

#2) Ben Moss, Asset Manager and Portfolio Advisor, Orchard Global Asset Management

Orchard Global is, as the name implies, a global finance entity with operating centers in the US, UK, and Singapore. Currently, Orchard Global has about 6.5 billion in assets under management.

In this interview, Moss explained Orchard Global’s basic investing philosophy and ideal investment size. Expounding on this, Moss detailed Orchard’s commitment to diverse portfolios, and a commitment to making room for non-traditional funding offerings.

In Europe, increased demand for litigation funding, particularly in the EU, Germany, and the Netherlands, as well as US markets, has flourished through the rise of collective actions and insolvency matters. As Moss explains, “In Europe, we see an increased awareness, appetite, and adoption of Litigation Finance.”

As the legal stage is set for a post-COVID return to normalcy (hopefully), backlogs are slowly being resolved. Class actions in particular were stymied by delays and closures—though some of this was mitigated through remote working and advancements in legal and financial tech. Moss opines that COVID has actually been helpful in terms of advancing Litigation Finance, particularly commercial funding. “In terms of opportunity going forward, we see a high demand for Litigation Finance for two reasons: There will be more claims generally, and also the increased use of Litigation Finance as a tool to fund claims.”

Orchard Global sets itself apart from competitors with a small team and clearly defined roles. Team members often take cases from origination through to completion—rather than handing off clients to different departments at different stages of the case. This, in turn, promotes client confidence and improves the experience of investors and clients alike.

The industry is buzzing with news of upcoming attempts at standardized documentation, which promises to increase transparency and worker efficiency. Arriving as quickly as Q2, these standardized documents will outline terms for a number of types of funding. This brings about concerns regarding bespoke agreements, and the overall need for flexibility.

Ultimately, Moss is expecting great things for the future of Litigation Finance, as it flourishes and develops in exciting new ways.

#1) Cesar Bello, Partner in charge of alternative asset and portfolio management, Corbin Capital Partners

Corbin Capital specializes in commercial multi-strategy and bespoke global portfolio investing. Currently, Corbin has nearly nine billion in assets under management.

In this interview, Bello summarizes the appeal of Litigation Finance as an investment, saying, “It’s particularly attractive in times of market volatility, where you expect more fat tails. We think there’s a good change that type of environment will persist in the near term.” The potential for outside returns and the sought-after nature of uncorrelated assets only enhances its appeal.

Describing what fund managers look at in terms of vital metrics, he explains that methodology, track record, and valuation are at the forefront. Knowing one’s place in the industry is an essential part of finding your market and sourcing cases. Risk assessment is also important, especially how risk is structured and whether or not it’s seen as completely binary, or more nuanced.

On the subject of ESG investing, Bello is clear that tackling environmental, social, and governmental issues through funding is an important factor in increasing access to justice. This can include mass torts, though the Volkswagen emission case was a very public miss. Still, the thoughtful application of funds toward ESG issues is vital for clients—and for investors looking toward lucrative investments that also support the public good.

Looking ahead, the industry can expect growth and price compression in the near future. Bello predicts that secondary markets will become increasingly important going forward.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.