There are household names in the litigation funding world that are well-known throughout the industry and beyond. However, some financial institutions seek to benefit from the lucrative returns available from litigation finance whilst trying to avoid the public spotlight on these activities.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers fresh insights into the involvement of non-traditional litigation funders in the market, with investments from hedge funds and private equity firms in high-value cases and deals only coming to light through court documents and filings. 

The article highlights the role of Davidson Kempner in funding patent claims brought by Audio Pod IP LLC against Audible Inc., which was revealed through a countersuit by Audible in a Manhattan federal court. Notably, Bloomberg’s investigation of public filings also found that this was not an isolated example of Davidson Kempner’s ties to patent holders engaged in lawsuits against large technology firms including ByteDance, Hulu, Samsung and SAP America. 

Other examples of these non-traditional funders' engagement with the legal sector include BlackRock’s use of its credit fund to lend to law firms and plaintiffs, and Cliffwater’s $14 million involvement in the funding deal between Gramercy Funds and Pogust Goodhead.

The extent to which these companies do not want to be publicly associated with litigation finance was strikingly demonstrated in the article. Beyond the number of firms who declined to comment on the reporting, when Bloomberg Law reached out to Soros Fund Management about one of their analysts whose LinkedIn revealed a focus on litigation finance, the analyst quickly removed the reference to legal funding from their profile.

More detail on the specific cases these hedge funds and private equity firms are backing can be found in Bloomberg Law’s full article here.

As LFJ reported at the end of February, Arizona’s legislature appears set on moving forward with some form of enhanced regulation for litigation funding in the state. However, a recent development in the House has demonstrated that there is not yet consensus on the final scope and focus of these new rules.

An article in the Arizona Capitol Times provides an update from the state legislature on the progression of two competing bills, each offering a different approach to the regulation of third-party litigation funding in Arizona. Whilst both bills successfully passed through votes in the House Judiciary Committee, it is not yet clear which bill will be the preferred candidate in an eventual floor vote, with the differences in disclosure rules between the bills being a key factor.

Senate Bill 1215, sponsored by Senator Leach, was passed by the Senate on March 13 and contained the oft-seen provisions of mandating disclosure of funding agreements, limiting funder control over legislation and some prohibitions against foreign funders. SB 1215, which Leach described as a “consumer protection bill”, retains the backing of chambers of commerce, insurance companies, and business associations.

Senate Bill 1542 was introduced in response to Leach’s proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin, seeking to limit the disclosure provisions to only include foreign funders or civil cases involving the state. Furthermore, disclosure of third-party funding would only be made to the attorney general rather than to the court itself. Kolodin suggested that existing court mechanisms for discovery are sufficient and questioned the potential for malign use of mandatory disclosure, arguing that “you shouldn’t be able to deprive somebody of the ability to pursue a case by threatening their source of funding.”

While Kolodin joined the rest of the committee in unanimously voting in favour of SB 1215 at the committee stage, he said that he would likely vote against it in a floor vote. Kolodin’s alternative bill passed comfortably at the committee vote, but did receive two no votes from Rep. Selina Bliss and Rep. Lupe Contreras.

The full text of SB 1215, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

The full text of SB 1542, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

International arbitration cases can be a lucrative sector for litigation funders, but just as LCM highlighted the success of two such cases in their latest interim results, the possibility of an unfavourable outcome remains an intrinsic part of these investments.

An announcement from LCM revealed that a commercial arbitration claim that it had provided funding for has not succeeded, following a tribunal’s ruling against the claimant at the London Court of International Arbitration. LCM explained that whilst in these cases “the avenues for appeal are limited”, the funder would continue to work the claimant and their legal team to assess 

Whilst the details of the arbitration claim are confidential and the announcement did not disclose the parties involved, LCM provided some additional information on the financial background to its investment in the claim. 

LCM provided £2.5 million of its own capital for the claim alongside £7.5 million in co-funding coming from Fund I, with the funder stating that it has no exposure to adverse costs. The arbitration claim’s fair value for LCM was set at £17 million as of 31 December 2024, following a detailed evaluation of the case’s prospects and independent advice from Kings Counsel. LCM emphasised that despite the disappointing outcome of this funded arbitration claim, “Fund I's performance remains robust, with the Net Realised IRR standing at 35% post this unsuccessful investment.”

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, provided the following comment on the unsuccessful arbitration: “While this outcome is disappointing, we remain steadfast in our confidence in the strength of our broader portfolio. Legal finance inherently involves binary outcomes, and while this case did not deliver the expected result, our long-term track record demonstrates our ability to generate strong returns. We continue to believe in the substantial value embedded in our portfolio and remain focused on delivering successful outcomes for our investors.” 

As funders and law firms await the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding later this summer, industry experts are opining not only on the potential direction any future regulation could take, but what body would be in charge of this new oversight function.

In an insights post from Shepherd and Wedderburn, Ben Pilbrow looks ahead to the CJC review of litigation funding and poses the question that if some form of regulation is inevitable, who will act as the regulator for these new rules? Drawing upon two previous reports that reviewed the funding of litigation, Pilbrow points out that historically there have been two main bodies identified as the likely venues for regulation of third-party funding: the courts or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Analysing the comparative pros and cons of these institutions as prospective regulators, Pilbrow highlights that each one has two core contrasting qualities. The courts have the requisite expertise and connection to litigation funding yet lacks ‘material inquisitive powers’. On the other hand, the FCA does not have the aforementioned ‘inherent connection to the disputes ecosystem’, but benefits from being an established regulator ‘with considerable enforcement powers’.

Exploring options outside of these two more obvious candidates, Pilbrow suggests that utilising one of the existing legal regulators may be viable due to the fact they are all ‘largely staffed by lawyers but have regulatory powers.’ However, Pilbrow notes that these legal regulators may have common flaw that would stop them taking on this new role. That flaw being the comparatively small size of these organisations, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) still only boasting 750 employees despite being the largest of these legal regulators.

Concluding his analysis, Pilbrow suggests unless the government opts for an expanded system of self-regulation under an industry body such as the Association of Litigation Funders, the most likely outcome is for the FCA’s remit to be expanded to include the regulation of litigation funding.

The full article from Ben Pilbrow can be read on Shepherd and Wedderbun’s website.

In an announcement posted on the ASX, Omni Bridgeway announced that it had completed the final payment for the acquisition of the Omni Bridgeway Europe (OBE) business that took place in 2019. The litigation funder confirmed that 5,213,450 fully paid ordinary shares had been ‘issued in satisfaction of the fifth and final tranche of variable deferred consideration’ to complete the acquisition.

Highlighting the progress of the business over the past six years, Omni Bridgeway said that the European business ‘has been successfully integrated into the global operations of the group, creating the most diversified legal asset management platform globally, covering all relevant civil and common law jurisdictions and all relevant areas of law.’ 

The announcement also revealed that OBE has ‘achieved the defined five-year KPIs in full’, whilst the management team ‘has been fully retained.’

With the global economy and financial markets in a current state of uncertainty, the stability of litigation funding as an uncorrelated asset class for investors is attracting wider attention than ever.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital discussed the current state of the litigation finance market, explained why third-party funding is attractive to clients and investors alike, and addressed the common critiques that are levelled at the industry.

On the enduring appeal of litigation funding to corporate clients, Bogart said that for many CEOs and CFOs the truth is that their companies are “spending too much money today on legal fees”. He went on to say that money spent by companies on legal fees is “not doing anything that advances their core undertaking”, and as a result, “the ability to offload that to somebody like us [Burford] is very valuable.”

When asked about why the litigation finance market is thriving during the global economic uncertainty, Bogart highlighted that all of Burford’s “cash flows come entirely out of the outcome of litigation results and those are independent of what’s happening in the market, independent of what’s happening in the broader economy.” In terms of the future of litigation funding and the potential for the market to continue to grow, Bogart pointed out that between legal fees and litigation judgments there is a “multi-trillion dollar a year global market” and that whilst the industry is already “booming”,  there is still “a lot of room to run here” for litigation funders.

In response to a question on the criticisms of litigation funding and the suggestion that funders may look to prolong the duration of cases, Bogart pointed out that Burford is just like any other investment firm that is “looking for high quality assets that are going to produce a reasonable return in a short period of time.” Bogart emphatically rejected what he described as “false concerns” by opponents of third-party funding, and stated plainly: “we’re absolutely not in the business of being interested in prolonging duration or in bringing forward things that are not ultimately going to yield a good result for our shareholders”.

The full interview can be found on Burford Capital’s website.

The benefits of litigation funding in providing the necessary financial resources to individuals to seek justice are clear, however, there are still those in the legal industry who are concerned that the third-party funding model is incentivising the wrong sort of behaviour from law firms.

An article in Legal Futures provides an overview of comments made by Jennifer Ackers, deputy executive director of investigations and enforcement for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), at a recent industry conference. At the event, Ackers raised a variety of concerns that the SRA has around the relationship between litigation funders and law firms in the housing sector.

Ackers suggested that whilst third-party funding has opened more opportunities for firms to pursue housing disrepair claims, the SRA has also found “unstable business models that are really being driven through that third-party funding arrangements”. Ackers went on to highlight “inappropriate relationships” between funders, ATE insurers and experts; describing how the flow of money between these parties is “driving poor behaviours and wrong incentives for firms and solicitors.”

Ackers provided more examples of concerning behaviour in the consumer claims sector, arguing that in situations where clients are signing funding agreements directly with funders, the SRA “would challenge whether that can ever be in clients’ best interests.” On a broader scale, Ackers suggested that the SRA’s review found that there were law firms who have been “prioritising their commercial interests when taking on that litigation funding without giving sufficient thought to clients’ interests”. 

Ackers’ comments can be read in further detail in the full Legal Futures article.