Trending Now
Commercial Deals

A Snapshot of ESG in Litigation Funding

August 18, 2022

A Snapshot of ESG in Litigation Funding

As the litigation funding market continues to grow and evolve, funders are placing a higher value on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. This development raises questions about the connection between ESG and litigation funding, how litigation funders are currently addressing ESG, and what the future of ESG in litigation funding will look like. The following article will offer answers to those questions and act as a general overview of the state of ESG in litigation funding.

What is ESG and Why Does it Matter?

ESG encompasses environmental issues like air or water pollution, social issues such as customer privacy and data security, and governance issues like transparency. ESG pursuits have come to the forefront of many corporate agendas over the last decade. In some cases, this focus may be self-imposed, but it’s often a legal requirement as well. Even as companies champion ESG to satisfy customers and shareholders, they don’t always stay in compliance with those values and/or laws. As the number of ESG-related laws and regulations increases, compliance will become a greater focus for companies and investors alike. Litigation exists as both a deterrent to, and a regulator of, ESG non-compliance. ESG cases in response to corporate non-compliance create the connection between ESG and litigation funding. As Tets Ishikawa, Managing Director at LionFish Litigation Finance stated, litigation funding of ESG cases has a key role to play in helping businesses meet their ESG goals. Corporate executives aren’t the only ones concerned about ESG issues, however; savvy investors also recognize the importance of ESG. Responsible investing in ESG causes is often an obligation for pension fund managers and other asset allocators. Even when that is not the case, investors increasingly see ESG as a priority, with 85 percent of investors interested in sustainable investing.

Litigation Funders Pursuing ESG Cases

Major players in the litigation funding arena are already talking about or pursuing ESG investments. Funders like Therium, Woodsfood, North Wall Capital, and Litigation Lending Services have prioritized ESG cases, and more funders will likely join them in the coming years. One leading litigation funder, Therium, emphasizes the importance of ESG as part of broader responsible investing efforts. Funding ESG legal action, the funder states, makes justice more accessible for those harmed in ESG breaches. Litigation funding helps those claims be brought, even when the claimants don’t have the resources to fund extensive legal battles. Woodsford is another litigation funder touting the value of ESG litigation. Bob Koneck, Director of LitFin and legal counsel at Woodsford, emphasized the potential of ESG litigation as a reputation-enhancing tool for companies. He claims that companies can position themselves as ESG leaders through litigation, while also recovering money to use toward additional ESG initiatives. This is a unique view on the value of ESG litigation that speaks to the potential these cases have for corporations. This past week’s news cycle illustrates how cemented the concept of ESG litigation has become within the litigation funding ecosystem, as both new entrants and entrenched players are making waves on the topic. North Wall Capital recently announced a $100 million investment into law firm Pogust Goodhead, with the aim of funding ESG cases specifically. Fabian Chrobog, Chief Investment Officer of North Wall, argues that ESG investment makes practical sense, as these cases maintain a higher probability of settlement than most other claim types. And Paul Rand, Chief Investment Officer of Omni Bridgeway, recently revealed that the longtime funder is planning the launch of an ESG Finance fund. According to Rand, Omni is currently testing bespoke techniques for valuing and assessing ESG risk management.

ESG Cases Funded by Litigation Funders

Airbus Case Funded by Woodsford One prominent ESG case organized and funded by a litigation funder, is the Airbus case financed by Woodsford. Investigations by international authorities including the US Department of Justice revealed that Airbus SE, a manufacturer of military and civilian aerospace products headquartered in Europe, had participated in a widescale bribery and corruption scheme. In 2020, the company was forced to pay billions of dollars of fines to resolve these bribery charges, causing a major dip in its share price. Airbus investors incurred serious losses due to these violations of ESG principles and Airbus’ failure to inform the public in a timely manner about its conduct. That’s where litigation funder Woodsford got involved. Woodsford organized the affected investors into a special purpose entity, Airbus Investors Recovery Limited (AIRL), which is currently pursuing legal action against Airbus in Amsterdam to recover losses. The ESG team at Woodsford is funding and organizing this action. Without such involvement, the claimants may not have been able to pursue action against a large company with such deep pockets. Being able to hold major corporations like Airbus accountable for their egregious ESG breaches is one of the most significant benefits of litigation funding. Litigation Lending Services’ “Stolen Wages” Claim Litigation Lending Services, an Australian litigation funder, funded another notable ESG case related to stolen wages. This class action began in September of 2016, and was a lawsuit on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in Australia. The workers had been subject to ‘protection’ legislation from the late 1800s up to the 1970s. This wage control legislation led to tens of thousands of indigenous workers across a variety of industries never receiving their full wages, estimated to be millions of Australian dollars in total. Wage violations like these fall under the governance portion of ESG. Litigation Lending Services offered its support to the case, which reached a settlement of $190 million in December, 2019. To date, the case is the largest human rights case in Australian history. The settlement brought resolution to more than ten thousand First Nations people. Both of these cases illustrate the potential of ESG, and the possibilities for more ESG cases and litigation funder involvement in the future. In Conclusion Global legal actions related to ESG issues like climate change are increasing, and the targets of these lawsuits are shifting to include more corporations over time, rather than just governments. It’s worth noting that environmental issues often get the most attention, but ESG litigation goes beyond just environmental claims. Lawsuits involving fraud, disclosure rule breaches, diversity and equity, misrepresentation, and health and safety issues all fall under the category of ESG litigation. Environmental claims have seen the largest growth in the last few years, but we can expect other types of ESG lawsuits to increase as well. Another factor driving additional ESG litigation is the lack of clarity surrounding what exactly constitutes ESG. The intense focus on ESG is fairly new, meaning parties are not in complete agreement on the definition of ESG and how it should be measured and reported. As the number of ESG group claims increases, there’s room for growth in the litigation funding market. This industry is constantly evolving to keep up with broader trends in litigation, including the evolution of ESG claims. For now, it’s clear ESG will have a key role to play in the future of litigation funding.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Padronus Finances Collective Action Against Meta Over Illegal Surveillance

By John Freund |

Austrian litigation funder Padronus is financing the largest collective action ever filed in the German-speaking world. The case targets Meta’s illegal surveillance practices.

Together with the Austrian Consumer Protection Association (VSV) as claimant, the German law firm Baumeister & Kollegen, and the Austrian law firm Salburg Rechtsanwälte, Padronus has filed collective actions in both Germany and Austria against Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. The lawsuits challenge Meta’s extensive surveillance of the public, which, according to Padronus and VSV, violates European data protection law.

“Meta knows far more about us than we imagine – from our shopping habits and searches for medication to personal struggles. This is made possible by so-called business tools that are deployed across the internet. The U.S. corporation is present on third-party sites even when we are logged out of its platforms or when our browser settings promise privacy. This breaches the GDPR,” explains Richard Eibl, Managing Director of Padronus.

Meta generates revenue by allowing companies to place paid advertisements on Instagram and Facebook. Which ad is shown to which user depends on the user’s interests, identified by Meta’s algorithm based on platform activity and social connections. In addition, Meta has developed tools such as the “Meta Pixel,” embedded on countless third-party websites, including those dealing with sensitive personal matters. The “Conversions API” is integrated directly on web servers, meaning data collection no longer occurs on the user’s device and cannot be detected or disabled, even by technically savvy users. It bypasses cookie restrictions, incognito mode, or VPN usage.

Millions of businesses worldwide use these tools to target consumers and analyze ad effectiveness. “Use of these technologies is now omnipresent and an integral part of daily internet usage. Every user becomes uniquely identifiable to Meta at all times as soon as they browse third-party sites, even if not logged into Facebook or Instagram. Meta learns which pages and subpages are visited, what is clicked, searched, and purchased,” says Eibl. He adds: “This surveillance has gone further than George Orwell anticipated in 1984 – at least his protagonist was aware of the extent of his surveillance.”

While Meta users can configure settings on Instagram and Facebook to prevent the collected data from being used for the delivery of personalized advertising, the data itself is nevertheless already transmitted to Meta from third-party websites prior to obtaining consent to cookies. Meta then, without exception, transfers the data worldwide to third countries, in particular to the United States, where it evaluates the data to an unknown extent and passes it on to third parties such as service providers, external researchers, and authorities.

Numerous German district courts (including Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, Leipzig) and more than 70 other courts have already confirmed Meta’s illegal surveillance in over 700 ongoing individual lawsuits. These first-instance rulings, achieved by lawyers Baumeister & Kollegen, are not yet final. Eibl notes: “The courts have awarded plaintiffs immaterial damages of up to €5,000. If only one in ten of the up to 50 million affected individuals in Germany joins the collective action, the dispute value rises to €25 billion. This is the largest lawsuit ever filed in the German-speaking world.”

Meta’s lack of seriousness about user privacy is well-documented. In 2023, Ireland’s data protection authority fined Meta €1.2 billion for illegal U.S. data transfers. In 2021, Luxembourg imposed a €746 million fine for misuse of user data for advertising. In 2024, Ireland again fined Meta €251 million for a major security breach. In July 2025, a U.S. lawsuit was launched against several Meta executives, demanding $8 billion in damages for systematic violations of an FTC privacy order. Richard Eibl notes: “This case goes to the heart of Meta’s business model. If we succeed, Meta will have to stop this unlawful spying in our countries.”

The new collective action mechanism for qualified entities such as VSV is a novel legal instrument. If successful, the unlawful practice must be ceased, and compensation paid to consumers who have joined the case.

The lawsuit is expected to trigger political tensions with the current protectionist U.S. administration. Only last week, the U.S. President again threatened the EU with new tariffs after the Commission imposed a €2.95 billion fine on Google. “We expect the U.S. government will also try to exert pressure in our case to shield Meta. But European data protection law is not negotiable, and we are certain we will not bow to such pressure,” says Julius Richter, also Managing Director of Padronus.

Consumers in Austria and Germany can now register at meta-klage.de and meta-klage.at to join the collective action without any cost risk. Padronus covers all litigation expenses; only in the event of success will a commission be deducted from the recovered amount.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Seven Stars, PayTech Launch Crypto-to-Litigation Bond with 14% Fixed Return

By John Freund |

In a move that could reshape both crypto and legal funding markets, Seven Stars Structured Solutions (UK) and PayTech (Dubai) have announced the launch of the world’s first “Real World Staking” bond—an investment vehicle that allows cryptocurrency holders to fund UK litigation assets and earn a fixed 14% annual return.

A press release from Seven Stars Legal details how the offering bridges the $2.3 trillion crypto market and the traditionally conservative litigation finance sector. Issued under a Dubai VARA-regulated framework and processed through licensed VASP GCEX, the bond enables high-net-worth and institutional crypto investors to earn yield from UK legal claims—specifically, the massive discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) claims market following a recent UK Supreme Court ruling.

Unlike conventional DeFi staking models that depend on volatile smart contracts, this new “Real World Staking” concept ties digital assets to real-world legal outcomes. Proceeds fund Seven Stars’ litigation strategies, which have seen over £40 million deployed across 56,000 cases with a reported 90%+ success rate. Investors can receive returns in USDC or GBP and benefit from a three-jurisdiction compliance structure involving Dubai, the UK, and the EU.

This initiative is being billed as a milestone in the institutional adoption of digital assets, offering crypto holders both fixed income potential and exposure to a highly regulated, historically insulated asset class. It also underscores a broader trend of convergence between blockchain technology and traditional finance.

If successful, this model could set a template for future tokenized legal finance products, raising key questions about the role of crypto infrastructure in expanding access to alternative legal assets. Legal funders and institutional investors alike will be watching closely.

Commercial

Gramercy Turmoil Threatens Pogust’s £36bn BHP Claim

By John Freund |

The law firm leading one of the UK’s largest-ever class actions is facing a destabilizing internal revolt that could ripple through a landmark case. Pogust Goodhead—fronting a £36 billion claim against BHP tied to the 2015 Mariana dam disaster—has seen senior lawyers depart and staff raise concerns over governance and independence as tensions mount with its principal backer, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in Financial Times reports that the flashpoint follows the abrupt replacement of co-founder Tom Goodhead as CEO and a subsequent $65 million credit top-up from Gramercy, on top of an earlier substantial funding package. According to the FT, at least two senior partners—previously central to marquee matters, including BHP and Dieselgate—have stepped down, while a staff group has challenged transparency around funder involvement. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is said to be monitoring events as BHP’s counsel queries whether the firm can stay the course. Pogust’s chair rejects any suggestion of external control, insisting the firm remains independently managed and committed to clients.

For litigation finance observers, the story lands at the intersection of capital intensity, governance, and case continuity. Large, multi-year collective actions carry heavy, lumpy spend profiles and complex funder covenants; when leadership flux and fresh capital coincide mid-stream, questions naturally arise about strategic autonomy, settlement posture, and reputational risk.

If the rift deepens, the implications extend beyond a single case: market confidence in high-leverage portfolio strategies could be tested, and counterparties may push harder on disclosure or consent terms. The episode will likely fuel ongoing debates over funder influence and the safeguards needed when billions—and access to justice—are on the line.