Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the campaign to introduce new rules governing litigation funding in the state of Louisiana, with proponents of the legislation sensing an opportunity to make progress since the state elected a new governor, Jeff Landry. The two bills making their way through the Legislature are: HB336, which would create a Litigation Financing Disclosure Act, and SB355, which would enact ‘transparency and limitations on foreign third-party litigation funding’. 

In an interview with Bloomberg, Representative Emily Chenevert ,who brought HB336, explained that the turnover in elected representatives provided a fresh opportunity, saying: “The appetite was there already within the legislature and so now it’s like, let’s attempt this and let’s see with a new House and some new senators what could happen.” Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director at funder Parabellum Capital, spoke out in opposition to Chenevert’s bill but said that SB355 was “acceptable to our industry.”

HB336 would require any party in a civil action to disclose the existence of a litigation financing agreement, whilst redacting the financial details of the agreement, and would make all financing arrangements ‘permissible subjects of discovery’. The bill also prohibits funders from controlling or making any decisions in the proceedings, stating that ‘The right to make these decisions remains solely with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney in the civil proceeding.’

SB355 requires any foreign litigation funder involved in a civil action in Louisiana to disclose its details to the state’s attorney general (AG), and to provide the AG with a copy of the funding agreement. Similarly to HB336, this bill would prohibit the foreign funder from controlling the legal action in any way and also prohibits the funder from being ‘assigned rights in a civil action for which the litigation funder has provided funding’.

HB336 has been approved by the state House and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whilst SB355 has cleared the majority of procedural hurdles and now awaits a vote by the House.

In an interview with Leaders League, Guido Demarco, head of legal assets at Stonward, discusses the current state of the litigation funding market. The interview explores recent trends affecting funders, the nuances of the Spanish funding market, and Stonward’s own approach to legal strategy and market specialization.

Beginning with an overview of the global litigation funding industry, Demarco highlights the move towards consolidation, with funders specializing in specific legal sub-sectors or markets. Demarco says that this approach allows funders “to leverage expertise in particular legal domains or jurisdictions, enhancing their ability to assess and manage risks effectively.” He goes on to explain that the cost burden of case origination and due diligence, along with the need for specialized experts for each legal area, means that consolidation allows funders to maximise capital efficiency and scale their operations.

Focusing on the Spanish market, Demarco describes the country as a “promising hub” for litigation finance, pointing to the jurisdiction’s “sophisticated legal market” and its position as “a double gateway to the broader Latin American continent and the EU market.” Referencing his earlier explanation of the trend towards consolidation, Demarco argues that this has benefitted Spain as the market continues to attract specialist funders who can build an on-the-ground footprint in the market. As for Stonward’s exclusive focus on the Spanish funding market, Demarco says that this strategy has allowed the business “to develop an in-depth understanding of local legal intricacies, enabling the team to navigate the unique challenges and opportunities presented by Spanish procedural law.”

Following the second debate of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in the House of Lords, the bill was moved forward to the committee stage for members to propose amendments and undertake a line by line examination. As LFJ reported yesterday, three amendments were proposed in advance of the committee debate, with two being put forward by Lord Stewart of Direlton, the Advocate-General of Scotland, and one by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. 

LFJ has read through the full transcript of the committee stage debate and has provided a summary, highlighting key takeaways from the contributions made by each of the members of the House.

Yesterday’s debate was opened by Lord Stewart, who began by responding to issues raised by other members during the second reading of the bill. With regards to the retrospective nature of the bill, Lord Stewart acknowledged the potential issues that this could raise for claimants who negotiated new funding arrangements post-PACCAR, and told the House that “the Government are looking into the questions raised and hope to provide a further update on Report.” 

Lord Stewart then went on to introduce the two amendments on behalf of the government, starting with Amendment 1 which was described as a “technical amendment” and was designed to close a small gap in the definition of litigation funding agreements (LFAs). He explained that the amendment would ensure that an LFA “which is used to fund items of expenditure where the litigant is unrepresented” will be rendered enforceable by the new legislation. He stated that this amendment “reflects the policy object of the Bill”, and would avoid any LFAs being missed in the government’s efforts to reverse the impact of the PACCAR ruling.

Amendment 2 was also described as another technical change, which Lord Stewart said would “make it clear that the payment of adverse costs the litigant may be required to pay to another party, which would be funded under an LFA, includes the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement.”

Following on from Lord Stewart’s introduction of the government’s amendments, Lord Marks began by covering the arguments in favour of the introduction of regulation for the litigation funding market. Among these arguments, the most prominent point raised by Lord Marks was the idea that “in an unregulated market, litigation funders can effectively impose their terms on clients”, thereby reducing the amount of compensation that claimants may receive from any settlement. He also pointed to the question posed by others that, “if regulation of DBAs is appropriate for lawyers, why is it not for litigation funders?”

Lord Marks then continued on to address the issue of “retrospectivity” in the bill, noting that concerns had been raised that the retrospective nature of the bill and that any legislation attempting to include such a measure, must demonstrate “special justification”. Lord Marks said that he had concluded that in order to avoid “confusion and uncertainty”, this was one such situation that demonstrated special justification because it would ensure  that “in the case of LFAs between the PACCAR decision and the commencement of this Bill, such LFAs should be in the same position as LFAs entered into in the interregnum or in the interim period.”

Moving on to his own probing amendment, which called for a review into third-party funding and laid out the scope of the proposed review’s focus, Lord Marks acknowledged that “it has been comprehensively and well answered” both by letters from the Secretary of State and Lord Stewart, and by the publishing of the terms of reference for the Civil Justice Council (CJC) review. He went on to say that he was “pleased to see that the Government realise that this is urgent and that the whole question of looking at the field of litigation funding is both important and urgent.”

Speaking briefly about the CJC’s planned review, Lord Marks expressed that he was pleased to see the breadth of the review’s remit, including the issue of “whether there should be regulation and how, if there is to be regulation , it should be framed.” Among the other important issues that the review will be exploring, Lord Marks highlighted areas including the idea of a cap on funder’s returns, the recoverability of funder’s costs, and the potential conflicts of interest between funders, law firms and their clients.

Lord Marks closed his contribution by voicing his support for both of the government’s amendments.

Lord Carlile of Berriew was the next member of the House to speak, addressing the questions previously raised around the bill’s potential to violate the Human Rights Act and whether the retrospective quality of the bill. Lord Carlile spoke succinctly in saying that the arguments about the Human Rights Act were “not strong, and the Government are perfectly entitled to act as they are in that regard.” Furthermore, he went on to say that this legislation “would be absolutely pointless if it were not retrospective”, arguing that the purpose of the bill was to “right a wrong that nobody expected, and it is simply restoring to people the legal rights which they already had.”

Lord Carlile also took time to briefly endorse the CJC review and its terms of reference, going on to praise the choice of the CJC as the reviewing body. He explained that he would not be “an enthusiast for an independent reviewer in this situation”, and that the CJC would have the ability to be flexible whilst also retaining the ability to “change the law in small ways to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed.”

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle followed Lord Carlile but rose to voice opposition to the current approach to this legislation and said that it “is still not an adequate solution to the problems at hand.” She argued that the government is actually facing “a structural problem”, arguing that the current legal system demonstrates a “huge inequality of arms”. She concluded by saying that under this existing system, which the bill does not attempt to deal with, “there is far too much justice denied to individuals in our society when they are crushed by the weight of corporations or the state.”

Lord Sandhurst joined Lord Carlile in supporting the government’s amendments, arguing in favour of the retrospective nature of the bill whilst this opens up the possibility of “a spate of future litigation of the wrong satellite nature”, the government cannot afford to allow the current situation to continue. Considering the issue of a challenge by the ECHR, Lord Sandhurst argued that when crafting this type of legislation, “There may be no perfect answer, but this is the right route—or the least bad.”

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd spoke briefly in support of the bill and the CJC review, noting that the reviewer will be able to draw upon the lessons learned during Australia’s review of litigation funding regulations and the research completed by the European Law Institute. He argued that the example of Australia may demonstrate that the best strategy is not “the creation of yet another regulatory body” but instead giving the courts “the powers and guidance necessary to deal with the issues.”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede was the final peer to join the debate and took the time to address the real world use cases for litigation funding, highlighting its value to small and medium-sized companies to manage their cashflow whilst pursuing meritorious litigation. He argued that the use of LFAs is an ideal “way of managing risk”, and that the UK should not fall behind other jurisdictions such as Singapore, Australia, and Dubai, which would happily take up this share of the global litigation funding market.

Lord Stewart returned to the floor to close out the debate, taking the time to address issues and concerns raised by each of the members and reiterate the objectives of the government’s bill. Of primary importance procedurally, Lord Stewart focused on Lord Marks’ amendment requiring a review of the third-party funding sector, stating that in the face of the CJC review “his amendment is not necessary and will duplicate efforts.” Therefore, he requested that Lord Marks not press the amendment at this stage.

At the close of the debate, both of the government’s amendments were agreed and as Lord Marks had decided not to press his amendment, the debate was ended. The amended version of the bill can be read here.

The bill now moves to the report stage, which provides an opportunity for members of the Lords to further examine the bill and propose any additional amendments to the text. 

The full transcript of the committee stage debate can be read here.

A frequent talking point among claimant law firms and litigation funders is the use of delaying and prolonging tactics by defendants, hoping to continually increase the financial cost of bringing a case until it is no longer viable to do so. However, as a recent example demonstrates once again, third-party litigation funding provides a significant weapon in the claimant’s arsenal when it comes to combating this type of strategy.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers ongoing developments in the group action being brought against the Ministry of Defence over claims that its prescription of Lariam, an anti-malarial drug, caused harmful side effects to armed forces personnel. The law firm leading these claims, Hilary Meredith Solicitors, has denied reporting that it is facing bankruptcy due to the large costs involved in the case, and told the Gazette that its financial backing is secure.

In a statement to the Gazette, the law firm stated that its “bank and litigation funders have confirmed their ongoing financial support”, which will allow the law firm to continue with the Lariam cases without fear of bankruptcy. Hilary Meredith Solicitors admitted that whilst it had been necessary “to borrow millions of pounds to fund this David and Goliath type action”, the law firm’s financial footing was secure with the support of outside lenders.

The identity of the litigation funder supporting Hilary Meredith Solicitors is not specified by the law firm’s statement or the Gazette’s reporting.

The firm also confirmed that with 10 lead cases scheduled for trial at the High Court next year, they are now “close” to agreeing a settlement with the MoD. The Gazette also cites its reporting from last year, which revealed that the MoD had spent £20 million on its legal budget to defend against the claims brought between 2021 and 2022.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill is subject to a line by line examination during the committee stage today, we can analyse the amendments that have been put forward by members of the House of Lords. Of the three amendments that were discussed during the committee stage, two were put forward by Lord Stewart of Direlton and one by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

Both of Lord Stewart’s amendments deal with the section of the bill that provides a definition of a litigation funding agreement.

The first of Lord Stewart’s amendments calls for the following line to be inserted at the end of the Clause 1, page 1, line 14: “(ia) where the litigant is a litigant in person, expenses incurred by that litigant, or”. In his explanatory statement, Lord Stewart said that this language “ensures that the definition of litigation funding agreements includes agreements under which a funder agrees to fund expenses incurred by a litigant in person.” 

The second of Lord Stewart’s amendments relates to Clause 1, page 1, line 16, which would take the following sentence: “the payment of costs that the litigant may be required to pay to another person by virtue of a costs order”, and would now be followed by: “, an arbitration award or a settlement agreement”. Lord Stewart explained that this would ensure that the bill’s definition of an LFA would also include “agreements under which a funder agrees to pay costs relating to litigation that arise by virtue of an arbitration award or a settlement agreement, as well as by virtue of a costs order.”

Lord Marks’ “probing amendment” would follow Clause 1 and would be titled “Review: enforceability of litigation funding agreements”. The language of the amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to “establish an independent review of the impact of provisions in this Act” and lays out the scope of such a review. This would include a review of safeguards for claimants, regulation of third-party funding, funders’ returns, and alternatives to LFAs. The amendment dictates that the review must be completed by 31 August 2025, and that the Lord Chancellor must then provide a response before Parliament within three months of receiving the review.

The full text of the amendments can be read here.

The current version of the bill can be read here.

LFJ will be providing a summary of the committee stage hearing once the Hansard transcript is available.