Following the publication and adoption of the Voss Report by the European Parliament, industry participants and observers have been waiting to see how the European Union would potentially proceed towards a new legislative framework for regulating third-party funding.
An insights article from Deminor, authored by Patrick Rode and Joeri Kline, looks at the mapping study conducted by the European Commission on the state of third-party litigation funding across the EU. The article first provides an overview of the Commission’s study, in terms of the issues the study explored and its aims, before going on to offer some additional insights into Deminor’s contributions to the study and the funder’s view on the future of European funding regulations.
As Rode and Kline explain, the Commission’s study has a broad scope, exploring everything from the volume and types of cases that are being funded, to the nuances of funding arrangements and the returns on investments for funders. They also note that the study is taking into consideration the existing regulations covering funding within each EU member state, analysing the effectiveness of these rules and the parallel impact of funding. On this last point, it is clear the study wishes to explore both the perceived positive benefits of funding, such as widening access to justice, as well as the alleged negative impact of litigation costs.
Rode and Kline share that Deminor “has actively contributed to this debate by submitting its responses to the Commission”, providing information on its own funding engagements whilst also emphasising that its clients “are capable of negotiating and securing transparent and equitable funding agreements.” They go on to say that the funding agreements agreed between Deminor and its clients “ensure fair and market-aligned compensation for Deminor while addressing potential conflicts of interest in a manner that protects the interests of all parties involved.”
Deminor’s article concludes by stressing “the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to regulation – one that preserves the flexibility needed for sophisticated institutional investors while ensuring fairness and transparency for all parties engaged in litigation funding agreements.”
As the debate over disclosure and transparency requirements for litigation funding continue in different jurisdictions across the globe, one US advocacy organization has started a new campaign to act as a focal point for those in favour of introducing a federal disclosure rule.
An announcement from Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) revealed that it has launched a new campaign focused on third-party litigation funding (TPLF) disclosure, called ‘Ask About TPLF’. The initiative calls on courts and parties involved in civil litigation to ask about the presence of any third-party funding in their cases, arguing that it is essential for everyone involved to be aware of potential conflicts of interest and to establish who is controlling the decision-making process in these lawsuits.
LCJ stated that the Ask About TPLF campaign has three objectives:
Advocate for a clear, uniform rule requiring disclosure of TPLF.
Encourage courts and parties to ask about TPLF in their civil cases.
Build the case for a uniform rule by spotlighting the inconsistent – and in some cases inappropriate – responses by courts to motions seeking TPLF disclosure.
According to LCJ, the launch of the Ask About TPLF initiative follows the news that earlier this month, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed to begin a study into litigation finance, to ascertain whether a federal rule governing disclosure of third-party funding was necessary. LCJ also referenced the letter signed by over 100 companies that called for such a disclosure rule to be introduced in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
More information on Ask About TPLF can be found on the campaign’s website, as well as on X/Twitter and LinkedIn.
On the afternoon of September 25, the "International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry" was successfully held in Beijingi. The Conference was hosted by the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center (BIDRC), organized by Houzhu Capital, and co-organized by Dingsong Legal Capital.
The conference received support from the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Other supporting organizations included the Chinese Society of International Law, China-Asia Economic Development Association, China-Africa Business Council, Queen Mary University of London, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Hilco IP Merchant Banking, Nivalion, Dun & Bradstreet, Caijing, and Law Plus. The Conference attracted over 300 guests in person and more than 60,000 participants online.
Huang Jin, Chairman of the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center and President of the Chinese Society of International Law, and Yu Jianlong, Vice President of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and Vice President of the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), delivered opening remarks. The Conference was moderated by Jiang Lili, Commissioner and Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC.
Huang Jin first warmly welcomed and sincerely thanked all participants and supporters on behalf of BIDRC. He stated that this Conference is the first international conference hosted by BIDRC, marking a significant milestone. As the operational entity of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, BIDRC plays a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the international commercial arbitration center and leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China. He emphasized the need to understand the key trends in the development of international commercial arbitration, including humanization, modernization, internationalization, localization, integration, and digitization. He also stressed the importance of improving a robust arbitration system, cultivating world-class international arbitration institutions, and creating a top-tier business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law, and international standards. These efforts will enhance China’s foreign-related legal system and strengthen its capacity.
Yu Jianlong highlighted in his speech that, given the profound changes in the international situation and trade patterns in recent years, enhancing corporate competitiveness and strengthening corporate compliance are crucial for promoting high-level opening-up and facilitating the high-quality international expansion of Chinese enterprises. Third-party funding is an important tool for improving companies' ability to address overseas disputes. With the accelerated pace of Chinese companies expanding abroad and the deepening integration of the domestic legal service market with international standards, third-party funding is gradually being accepted and utilized by more Chinese enterprises and legal professionals. He expressed that this conference provides an excellent platform for the industry to explore third-party funding. He hopes participants will strengthen collaboration between academia and practice, deepen their understanding of corporate needs, and continuously learn from international best practices. He also looks forward to fostering cooperation between third-party funding institutions and enterprises.
As a leading scholar in the field of third-party funding, Professor Mulheron from Queen Mary University of London was invited to deliver a keynote speech on the state of third-party funding in England and Wales. Full speech (recording and transcript) available at Houzhu Capital’s WeChat Official Account
In her address, Professor Mulheron examined the rise and evolution of third-party funding in the region, and talked about issues surrounding self-regulation and government oversight within the industry. She provided clear explanations of typical business models in third-party funding, the fee structures for funders, potential costs borne by funders, after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and protections for funded parties. She also offered in-depth insights into cutting-edge issues and perspectives within the field. Professor Mulheron concluded with five key takeaways about third-party funding in England: First, the market is very established and sophisticated, with many funders, brokers and ATE insurers in the market now; Second, third party funding features in both English litigation and arbitration; Third, because of the criteria which funders apply to cases under their business models, only less than 10% of all cases pitched to the funders are funded; Fourth, third-party funding must comply with industry codes of conduct, which include minimum capital requirements for funders; Finally, while England possesses considerable experience in judicial practices concerning third-party funding, there have been debates and disagreements regarding the structure of funding and the validity of funding agreements, and the legislature is taking steps to address relevant issues to further support third-party funding, as it is indeed becoming a huge global market.
During Panel I, Professor Fu Yulin from Peking University Law School served as the moderator. The panelists included Zhang Haoliang, Head of the Business Development Division (International Cases Division) of the BAC/BIAC; Wei Ziping, Director of the Oversight and Coordination Office of CIETAC; Chen Bo, Deputy Secretary-General of CMAC; Yu Zijin, Consultant of HKIAC; Zhang Cunyuan, Director of the China Region of SIAC and Chief Representative of the Shanghai Representative Office; and Huang Zhijin, Director for North Asia and Shanghai Representative Office of ICC. The discussion centered on third-party funding and arbitration rules, drawing on the practices and experiences of the respective institutions. The panelists exchanged insights on recent updates to arbitration rules concerning third-party funding, disclosure requirements, measures to prevent conflicts of interest, and relevant cases processed by their organizations. The panelists concurred that third-party funding is evolving rapidly in practice, and arbitration institutions generally adopt a relatively open stance towards its use in arbitration. They also recognize the necessity for ongoing practice to fully understand the impact of third-party funding on arbitration procedures and rules, with the aim of maintaining the independence and justice of arbitration while better serving the parties.
During Panel II, the discussion was moderated by Fei Ning, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital. The panelists included Quentin Pak, Director at Burford; Fu Tong, Co-founder and CEO of Houzhu Capital; Michael D. Friedman, CEO of Hilco IP Merchant Banking; Lau chee chong, Senior legal counsel of Omni Bridgeway in Singapore; Falco Kreis, Senior Investment Manager and Head of the Munich Office at Nivalion; Zhang Zhi, Founder of Dingsong Legal Capital; and Zhu Zhen, Product Sales & Solutions Director of Dun Bradstreet. The panelists discussed third-party funding practices both domestically and internationally, sharing their institutions' experiences across various jurisdictions. They explored a range of topics, including case selection processes and criteria, monetization and funding in the field of intellectual property, the interaction between arbitration rules and funding practices, and risk management for enterprises expanding into foreign markets. They noted that the client base and demand for litigation funding are becoming increasingly diversified, prompting third-party funding institutions to expand their product and service offerings. The panelists expressed optimism regarding the development of third-party funding in China while highlighting unique challenges that the Chinese market faces compared to the international landscape.
During Panel III, the discussion was moderated by Wang Jialu, Co-founder of Houzhu Capital. The panel featured Zachary Sharpe, Head of the Global Disputes Team at Jones Day’s Singapore office; Liu Xiao, Partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Zhong Li, Partner of Hui Zhong Law Firm; Wang Zheng, Partner of Hongqiao Zhenghan Law Firm; Li Zhiyong, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of CSCEC International; and Li Lu, Chief Compliance Officer of Essence Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. The panelists discussed the application of third-party funding, sharing common challenges and solutions they encountered in their past practices, each informed by their specific business contexts. They addressed various issues, including how to set and manage reasonable expectations regarding case progress and outcomes, effectively handle confidentiality and privilege concerns, and navigate disclosures along with related conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the panelists agreed that third-party funding plays a unique role in promoting dispute resolution and accessing justice, especially in bridging the gap between law firms and enterprises in complex cross-border litigation and arbitration.
The successful convening of this conference has established a valuable channel for ongoing communication between domestic and international practitioners and scholars in the field of third-party funding. It has enhanced understanding and awareness of third-party funding within the domestic market and facilitated positive interactions and cooperation among third-party funding institutions, dispute resolution agencies, and relevant users. This will significantly advance the further development of third-party funding in China and make an indispensable contribution to helping Chinese enterprises effectively address cross-border disputes and achieve high-quality development.
The following article was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.
A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.
With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.
In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrenchv Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.
The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.
The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.
The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But - at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 - the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.
In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker - in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details - including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.
Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’
In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.
Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.
After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court 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. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only 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 heldthat the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.
This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.
We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.
Heather Collins is Chief Investment Officer at Court House Capital and a member of the Investment Committee and is responsible for assessing and overseeing investment opportunities across Australia and New Zealand, as well as identifying and managing a portfolio of funded claims through to resolution.
Heather brings over twenty years’ expertise in legal funding, commercial legal practice and in-house corporate counsel roles. In litigation funding, Heather has underwritten significant disputes. She is a veteran commercial litigator with significant experience advising clients on insolvency, banking and finance, property, construction, Corporations law, trade practices and employment matters. Her client base has spanned industry sectors including property, construction, infrastructure, finance and retail and she has acted for leading consumer brands such as Tiffany & Co, Ralph Lauren, Valentino, Aldi and Sephora.
Heather holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Adelaide and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors course (GAICD). Heather is the former President of the Women’s Insolvency Network Association NSW branch (WINA) and a Professional Member of the Australian Restructuring & Insolvency Association (ARITA) and the Turnaround Management Association Australia (TMA). She is recognised in Chambers and Partners Litigation Support (2024) and Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance (2021-2024).
Company Name and Description: Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Court House Capital was established with a mission to provide financial and strategic support to parties seeking capital, risk management and access to justice. Our team is led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, and is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration.
Member Quote:We offer cost and risk mitigation strategies for commercial clients and ‘a level playing field’ for those who cannot afford to pursue justice themselves. It is an honour to be co-founders of an industry that provides access to justice for so many, and to be the funder of choice for claimants and professional advisers. Our financial resources, industry network and knowledge has helped many claimants achieve successful outcomes.
Sarama Resources Ltd. ("Sarama" or the "Company") (ASX:SRR)(TSXV:SWA) is pleased to advise that it has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement ("LFA") with Locke Capital II LLC, an arm's length party that specializes in providing funding for dispute resolution (the "Funder") to commence international arbitration proceedings in relation to its investment dispute (the "Dispute") with the Government of Burkina Faso (the "Government").
The Dispute pertains to the illegal withdrawal of the Company's rights to the Tankoro 2 Exploration Permit (the "Permit") (refer news release 5 September 2023). The Permit covered the Tankoro Deposit which was the focal point of the Company's Sanutura Project (the "Project") which featured a multi-million ounce gold resource.
Litigation Funding Agreement
The LFA provides a four-year non-recourse loan facility ("Facility") of US$4.4 million to the Company to cover all fees and expenses related to its Claim to Arbitration (the "Claim").
Security of the Facility is limited to the Claim, associated potential proceeds and all benefits arising from the property and assets of the subsidiary companies comprising the ownership chain (the "Chain") pertaining to the Project (refer Annual Information Form, 2 April 2024). The Facility has been structured to enable the Company to continue to operate and consolidate its business outside the Chain without encumbrance or lien from the LFA.
All monies advanced through the Facility are non-recourse and repayable only in the event of a successful Claim or settlement of the Dispute that results in the receipt of Proceeds ("Proceeds") by the Company or in the event of a default by Sarama under the LFA. In the event of the occurrence of a material adverse change under the LFA, the Funder shall be entitled to recover only those funds which were advanced but remain unspent. The Funder's return is directly tied to the successful award and settlement of the Claim, with the total amount payable being a function of time and total Proceeds receipted. The priorities for distribution of receipted Proceeds are set out in the LFA and where commercially and legally sensitive, shall remain confidential.
If there is no settlement or award (or no default by Sarama under the LFA), the Company does not have an obligation to repay the loan. A detailed budget has been approved as part of the LFA, which covers all expected legal and ancillary costs associated with the arbitration process.
Plans for Arbitration
On 29 November 2023, the Company issued a Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso. The Government of Burkina Faso did not respond substantively to the Company's efforts to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. With funding to support legal costs secured, the Company is now preparing to lodge a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"). The Company will seek full compensation for the loss suffered which may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the Permit, the value of the Company's historic investments in the Project, the value of the Project at the time the Permit was withdrawn and damages the Company has suffered as a direct result of the Government's actions. The Project hosted a multi-million-ounce gold resource which was the subject of a substantially complete Preliminary Economic Assessment and fast-tracked development study at the time of the Government's illegal actions.
The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP ("BSF"), a leading international law firm, to assist with legal matters pertaining to the dispute (refer news release 17 October 2023). BSF is an internationally recognised dispute resolution law firm with extensive experience representing investors in international investment arbitrations in the mining and natural resources sectors worldwide.
Background to Claim
On 31 August 2023, the Company received notification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Quarries of Burkina Faso (the "Minister") that the Company's application for the Permit, received in August 2021 and granted to Sarama in November 2021 had been purportedly "rejected", even though the previous Minister had approved the Permit in accordance with the applicable laws nearly two years prior.
On 6 September 2023, during his public presentation at the Africa Down Under Mining Conference in Perth, the Minister, Simon-Pierre Boussim, stated that the Permit was available for purchase. Based on the notification from the Minister and his subsequent actions, the Company was forced to interpret the Minister's letter of 25 August 2023 as withdrawing the Company's rights to the Permit. The Minister did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Company on the matter.
The unlawful withdrawal of the Permit by the Minister, resulting in the removal of the rights to the land conferred thereunder, has rendered the Project valueless to Sarama, consequently destroying the value of the Company's investment in the Project.
Sarama's President, CEO & MD, Andrew Dinning, commented:
"The establishment of a non-recourse funding facility to cover all expenses related to the Company's arbitration case represents a major step forward in its pursuit of redress for the substantial damages suffered as a result of the Government of Burkina Faso's illegal actions.
Sarama's legal representatives, Boies Schiller Flexner, are highly experienced and have a very successful track record in international investment disputes, including an arbitration claim brought by Indiana Resources (ASX:IDA) against Tanzania which saw the company recently receive the first tranche of a US$90M settlement.
The Company will now proceed with filing a Request for Arbitration and intends to prosecute its case to the fullest extent possible."
CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION
Information in this news release that is not a statement of historical fact constitutes forward-looking information. Such forward looking information includes, but is not limited to: the sufficiency and continued availability of funding for arbitration; statements regarding the possibility of initiating international arbitration proceedings in accordance with the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso; the impact, if any, of the actions of the Government on the Company's investments in mineral projects in Burkina Faso; the ability for the Company to successfully recover proceeds of an award or settlement from Burkina Faso; the filing of the material change report; the occurrence of an event of default or material adverse change under the LFA; and providing further information in due course. Actual results may vary from the forward-looking information due to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; the success of the Claim; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations and expropriation or nationalization of mining operations; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; as well as those factors disclosed in the Company's publicly filed documents. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.
Sarama does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable laws.
Litigation funders and claimant law firms regularly highlight the value of legal funding for class action cases, both in widening access to justice and ensuring businesses are held accountable for their wrongdoings. However, organisations and interest groups who advocate for the interests of these companies continue to argue that third-party litigation funding is having an overall negative impact on the UK’s business environment and legal sector.
An article in City AM covers the publication of a new report by the Adam Smith Institute, which takes aim at the expansion of class action cases in the UK, claiming that it represents a danger to businesses whilst primarily benefitting litigation funders and law firms. Authored by Sam Bidwell, the report is titled ‘Judge Dread: How Lawfare Undermines Business Confidence in the UK’, not only takes aim at litigation funders, but also calls on the government to “regulate TPLF on a level-playing field, subjecting it to the same rules and regulations as other investment products”.
The ASI report includes a number of recommendations for the regulation of third-party funding and the introduction of measures to redress the balance in favour of businesses facing class actions. In terms of litigation funding, Bidwell argues for the “introduction of a blanket requirement of transparency” and the “consistent application of money laundering regulations, in order to prevent TPLF being used as a backdoor for international financial fraud.” He also suggests that the government must “ensure that the UK’s competition law is fit for purpose, by protecting businesses from class action cases while regulators are in the process of making decisions on questions of regulatory compliance.”
The chairman of the International Legal Finance Association, Neil Purslow, responded to the ASI’s publication by saying: “As this report recognises, funders take on just a fraction of cases after careful consideration of the risk and significant due diligence.” Purslow continued to push back on the report’s critiques of litigation funding, arguing that it is “contradictory and disingenuous in the extreme to simultaneously argue funders take on too few cases while also causing a proliferation in litigation.”
The full report from the Adam Smith Institute can be read here.
Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.
An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion.
Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.
Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.
Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding.
Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.
On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.
The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.
Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.
The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.
Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It's about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.
Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses.
However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.
Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.
Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.
The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks.
As a business leader, you understand your business's strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects. Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner.
So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business?
Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It's all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential.
So, it's all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation.
There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm's potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company's potential.
But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond.
Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
