Trending Now
Commercial Deals

A Recap of the Opening Panel at LF Dealmakers

September 28, 2022

A Recap of the Opening Panel at LF Dealmakers

Day 1 of the LF Dealmakers conference has begun. The opening panel saw Ted Farrell, founder of Litigation Funding Advisors, moderate a wide-ranging discussion on the state of legal finance. Panelists included James Bedell, Associate Director of Legal Finance at Yieldstreet, Cindy Chen Delano, Partner at Invictus Global Management, Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director of Aon, and Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Longford Capital. The discussion began with the evolution of the sector as a maturing asset class, away from discussions between ‘smart lawyers’ and into the mainstream. The panel underscored the range of players in the space now—3M, J&J, and others—which illustrates how far the industry has come. Additionally, the size and scope of claims—large-scale, nine-figure claims—which highlights the impact the asset class has had on the broader Legal Services sector. Additionally, the embrace of litigation funding by Big Insurance is a signal of the industry’s ongoing growth prospects. Michael Nicolas of Longford noted how his firm can now protect principal investment, and even some of the profit they’d like to return to investors, which is ‘a game changer,’ as now credit investors can consider becoming LPs because they can grow more comfortable with the risk profile of the sector. Cindy Chen Delano echoed the ‘game-changer’ remark, noting the different types of debt structures that can be originated now that insurance is on board, all the way up to high-yield bonds, which she sees coming down the pike. Stephen Kyriacou of Aon also pointed out how he was one of two insurance providers at last year’s conference, and there was no discussion of the subject. This year, there are more insurers in attendance, and the subject has already come up in the first discussion, and will continue to as the event progresses. Perhaps something unique about this conference is the encouragement of questions from the audience. The first panel took a question from an inventor who stressed the importance of funding in the inventor space, and lamented that in his experience it’s been so difficult to obtain the financing needed. The panel acknowledged his concern, and noted the industry’s emphasis on IP investment, while also pointing out that selectivity is paramount if a funder is going to survive long-term.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

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.