As the UK litigation finance industry continues to stay in the public spotlight, discussions continue around what any future regulation might entail and whether it would increase requirements around the transparency or disclosure of funding agreements. For now, a recent judgement from the High Court has ruled in favour of the claimants in a high-profile group claim, by denying a request for the disclosure of any funding agreements.An article in The Law Society Gazette highlights a ruling in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Kings Bench Division, that dealt with a request for the disclosure of any funding agreements in the ‘Dieselgate’ group claim. The judgement dealt with two sets of applications, with the second being a funding disclosure application from the defendants that sought to compel the claimants and their lawyers, Pogust Goodhead, to provide ‘information as to their funding position’. The request was sought by the defendants as they stated that they ‘are considering making an application under CPR 25.14(2)(b) for security for costs against the Funders.’In their judgement, Mrs Justice Cockerill and Mr Justice Constable, declined ‘to order disclosure of Pogust Goodhead’s funding agreement, but instead consider that it will be appropriate to revisit the issue relatively shortly, to the extent it is pursued.’ They wrote that this could be done after legal budgets were fixed and once the claimants have had the opportunity to secure ATE insurance, meaning that ‘the question of security against Gramercy would be rendered redundant.’The full judgement can be read here.
Lawdragon has released its 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list for 2024, with the fifth edition of its annual guide ‘dedicated to the leaders of this fascinating – and necessary – avenue of the legal profession.’ The list includes 164 senior executives from all over the glove, representing the entire spectrum of those companies involved in litigation finance, including funders, law firms, insurers, investors, and advisors.Of those companies with leaders included on the list, Burford Capital saw the highest number of executives recognised with 17, with Omni Bridgeway close behind at 12 individuals, and Harbour which had eight of its team listed. Looking at the breakdown by jurisdiction across the 165 litigation finance leaders recognised, the US was the most represented country with 73 individuals listed. The UK came in a close second with 55 leaders recognised, and Australia came behind it with 17 executives profiled.As part of it’s 2024 litigation finance leaders list, Lawdragon has also identified those individuals who are listed in its Hall of Fame, which recognises ‘members and other outstanding lawyers who have made a remarkable contribution to the profession.’ Within litigation finance, three individuals are included in the Hall of Fame:
Louis Young, co-founder & CEO, Augusta Ventures
Stuart Grant, co-founder & managing director, Bench Walk Advisors
Andy Lundberg, managing director, Burford Capital
The full list of individuals recognised in 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance list can be found here.
One of the latest critiques of the litigation finance industry is that it represents a potential threat to US national security, due to the possibility of foreign governments and entities by funding lawsuits that target American companies and strategic national interests. Whilst there has been scant evidence of this being a tangible issue, a new investigation has revealed that Russian billionaires have been avoiding international sanctions by financing lawsuits in the West.The detailed investigation by Bloomberg Law focuses on the activities of the investment company A1, its parent corporation Alfa Group, and A1’s directors. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Alfa Group has been sanctioned by both the United States and United Kingdom, as were A1’s billionaire directors Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, German Khan, and Alexey Kuzmichev. The US also individually sanctioned A1 in September 2023.Bloomberg’s investigation reveals that A1 has financed and been directly involved in the proceedings of bankruptcy lawsuits in both New York and London, having spent approximately $20 million across these cases. The investigation highlights that A1’s sanctioned directors attempted to avoid the reach of their individual sanctions by selling the company to another of its directors, Alexander Fain, for the miniscule sum of $900. In a witness statement for one of the bankruptcy cases, Fain explained that his directors had sold the company because “it became obvious that A1 LLC would no longer be able to operate normally and that there was a risk of default on its obligations to fund the litigation.”Commenting on the investigation, J. Scott Maberry, partner at Sheppard Mullin, described A1’s funding activities as “a big development in that sense because it kind of puts the US judicial system on par with the New York Stock Exchange and the US dollar as things that we need to start thinking carefully about how to deny access to.” Matt Webb, senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, argued that “A1’s actions are an example of the problems that arise when foreign entities can finance litigation.”The full details of A1’s involvement in these cases, as well as the roles played by sanctioned individuals can be read in Bloomberg Law’s article.
Westfleet Advisors has published its fifth annual Litigation Finance Market Report, providing a data-driven overview of the commercial funding industry in the United States from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. Westfleet summarises its findings as ‘indicative of an industry in a state of flux, with some notable players exiting the industry, numerous professionals making lateral moves, and capital commitments to new deals contracting by nearly 14%.’ With regard to the decreasing volume of new capital commitments, Westfleet attributes this trend to the difficult global economic conditions that are affecting all industries, rather than a decline in demand for litigation funding.Despite this contraction on new capital, Westfleet still found that ‘many funders thrived both in terms of new capital raised, capital committed to new deals, growth in their headcount, and profitability.’ Westfleet’s report suggests that the data from 2023 indicates that the market is still favourable for those established funders ‘with strong track records and a proven ability to consistently attract new capital.’Key highlights from the 2023 report include:
$15.2B in assets under management for 2023, representing a small increase from $15.1B in 2022
$2.7B in new commitments to deals in 2023, down from £3.2B in 2022
The average deal size declined from $8.6M in 2022 to $7.8M in 2023
This was driven by a reduction in the average size of portfolio deals from $10.5M in 2022 to $9.9M in 2023
In contrast the average size of single-matter transactions increased from $4.3M in 2022 to $4.8M in 2023
The share of new capital dedicated to claim monetization reached 21% in 2023, continuing the upward trend from 14% in 2022 and 8% in 2021
To read the full report from Westfleet Advisors, click here.
A new piece of analysis by Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of Lexolent, sheds light on the current state of the litigation funding market post-PACCAR.
As is customary of Rowles-Davies, his analysis pulls no punches. Writing on LinkedIn, he opines that industry stakeholders have varying perspectives on the Litigation Funding Agreements Bill. Despite the Supreme Court's judgement and the industry's claims of adaptability and compliance, not all funders operate transparently, according to Rowles-Davies. The speed of the proposed new legislation and the lobbying efforts to expedite its implementation have also raised concerns.
The litigation funding industry is diverse, with different funders operating in different ways. There is a growing call for regulation, particularly as 90% of the London Solicitors Litigation Association believe it's time for the industry to be regulated. The PACCAR decision has created uncertainty and led to attempts to reopen concluded deals. As a result, a thorough review by the Civil Justice Council is needed.
The proposed 'Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill' aims to restore the pre-PACCAR regime, allowing individuals and small businesses to fund large claims against corporations. While many eyebrows have certainly been raised, the litigation funding industry isn't going anywhere any time soon, even if future regulation is on the horizon.
Michael Perich is a Senior Vice President and Head of Litigation Insurance in the Transaction Liability Practice at Lockton. Prior to joining Lockton, Michael spent much of his career working at the world’s largest litigation finance company, Burford Capital, as well as a Chambers-ranked litigation finance broker, Westfleet Advisors. In these roles, he helped a wide range of clients—including multinational corporations and AmLaw100 firms—use innovative litigation finance structure to achieve their financial objectives.
Michael is also a former litigator, having represented clients on contingency fee, alternative fee, and hourly fee arrangements. He now uses those skillsets to help his clients structure bespoke insurance policies designed to help his clients achieve their financial objectives.
Michael has been recognized by LawDragon as one of the top 100 Global Leaders in litigation finance and is listed in the IAM Strategy 300, a guide listing individuals who innovatively create and action strategies which realize and amplify the worth of IP portfolios.
Company Name and Description: Lockton is the largest privately held global insurance brokerage that provides outstanding risk mitigation and claims management through the application of modern insurance strategies. With expertise in risk management, property and casualty, employee benefits/people solutions, professional and private risk, we help our clients protect what matters to them most: people, property, and their bottom line.
Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Contingent Liability Insurance products
Member Quote: Having ventured into the field of litigation finance almost ten years ago, I remain repeatedly astounded and impressed by the growth and increased sophistication the market has exhibited in recent years. The progress has been truly remarkable, and I feel grateful to be involved in this dynamic industry.
The Post Office scandal, and its rise to the forefront of public attention in the UK, has been repeatedly cited as a prime example of the crucial role that litigation finance plays in securing access to justice for victims. However, arguments over the legal costs and funder’s returns in this case continue to be aired, as a lawyer for one of the subpostmasters is calling on regulators to get involved.Reporting by The Telegraph, and shared by Yahoo Finance, reveals that one of the subpostmasters in the Post Office Horizon litigation is calling for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to investigate the legal fees paid out from the £58 million settlement fund. The subpostmaster’s lawyer, Jim Diamond, has written to the SRA after he has repeatedly asked for additional information from Freeths, the firm which represented the victims in the case, about how the settlement was divided between the law firm, litigation funder and the claimants.Mr Diamond explained in his letter that he has twice asked Freeths to provide the information along with supporting documents, but the law firm has rebuffed his outreach and said that as the litigation is now closed, they are not open to engaging on the subject. Diamond is asking the SRA to clarify whether the law firm is obligated to comply with his request and provide the documents to their former client, the postmaster.Mr Diamond also used the letter to criticise the recent article written by Neil Purslow, founder and chief investment officer of Therium Capital Management. In the guest article published in The Times, Purslow had refuted suggestions that Therium’s remuneration accounted for 80% of the settlement fund. In his letter to the SRA, Diamond argued that Therium’s founder should not have discussed the breakdown of costs in public, as these details are ‘private and confidential.’At the recent Brown Rudnick European Litigation Funding Conference, Mr Purslow once again denied the claims about an ‘80% payout’ to Therium and offered a detailed explanation of the funder’s involvement in the case.
As LFJ reported last month, the ongoing saga of Burford Capital and Sysco’s antitrust lawsuits continued, as both parties appealed a Minnesota judge’s denial of a joint request for the substitution of plaintiff in the antitrust case. As we wait to see the outcome of that appeal, Burford and its subsidiary, Carina Ventures, have secured a favourable ruling in another antitrust case in the United States District Court for The Northern District of Illinois.Reporting by Reuters provides the latest update on the Sysco antitrust cases funded by Burford Capital, as U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted Sysco’s request to assign the ‘Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation’ to Burford’s affiliate company, Carina Ventures. The Illinois judge rejected each of the arguments brought by the defendants who objected to the substitution, stating: ‘An invalid assignment might have been a reason to deny the motion. But the Court has rejected those arguments.’Explaining his decision to grant the substitution of plaintiff in the case, Judge Durkin said that “despite defendants protestations to the contrary, the assignment does not appear to be a very unusual circumstance either.” He further reasoned that “such assignments are a fact of modern litigation”, and therefore he had no reason to “interfere with sophisticated parties’ business decisions."The favourable ruling in this poultry case in Illinois will be welcomed by Burford Capital and Sysco, as their efforts to similarly reassign the pork antitrust claim in Minnesota were denied last month. Whilst the initial denial of their request for substitution of plaintiff in that case was disappointing, Burford will no doubt see Judge Durkin’s ruling as a positive factor in their appeal of the Minnesota court order.
As the litigation funding industry continues to evolve, Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal shares insights into the sector and Fenchurch Legal’s approach and practices. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Louisa Klouda:
What drew you to the world of litigation funding?
My entry into the world of litigation funding wasn't a direct one, but rather a spark of curiosity during my previous role in corporate finance and the asset-backed lending world. I came across the concept of litigation funding and found myself instantly drawn to its unique characteristics. I discovered a market dominated by large funders focusing on large cases like class actions. However, I noticed a significant gap: a lack of support for smaller claims, particularly in areas like housing disrepair and the challenges the law firms faced in accessing funding for these meritorious claims. Recognizing the gap in the small-claims market, I saw an opportunity to create Fenchurch Legal in 2020. The aim of the business was twofold: to facilitate access to justice for smaller claims and to provide an avenue for investors looking for alternative investment opportunities.
Can you provide an overview of small ticket litigation funding and its significance in the UK legal landscape?
Small ticket litigation funding plays a vital role in the UK legal landscape, offering an alternative approach to financing legal claims. In essence, it involves providing funding to law firms for smaller value cases across various areas like personal injury, housing disrepair, and financial mis-selling, unlike large-ticket funding which targets high-stakes class actions. Small-ticket funders like Fenchurch Legal focus on quantity, funding a high volume of smaller cases. These case types have clear legal precedent, and are protocol-based and process-driven consumer claims, with high success potential. This subset of litigation funding addresses a gap in the legal financing ecosystem created by rising legal costs and resource-intensive cases. Small ticket litigation funding ensures that even modest claims, like housing disrepair receive the backing necessary to navigate the legal process, ultimately facilitating access to justice and contributing to a more balanced and inclusive legal landscape.
How does this subset of litigation funding attract investors?
The appeal of small-ticket litigation funding to investors is multifaceted, driven by three key factors - flexible entry points, portfolio diversification, and unique security features. Firstly, it provides investors with lower entry points compared to larger funders. This is particularly attractive to those moving away from traditional markets and seeking a more balanced investment approach with steady returns. The accessibility of smaller minimum investment amounts aligns with the preferences of investors aiming for a diversified and resilient portfolio. Small-ticket funders focus on quantity, funding a high volume of smaller cases. This diversification approach effectively spreads the risk across various law firms, multiple cases and case types, reducing the reliance on the success of a single case. Investors are drawn to the stability and risk mitigation inherent in this investment strategy. Moreover, investors like the insurance-backed nature of this investment. All cases are supported by an After the Event (ATE) insurance policy, covering all costs and disbursements if the case is unsuccessful. Additionally, upfront interest is charged, debentures are in place and there is an assignment over the case proceeds.
How has Fenchurch emerged and established itself in this market, and what key strategies contributed to its growth?
Our key strategy is to have a niche focus on smaller claims within specific case types where we have a deep understanding and only partnering with fully vetted law firms. Recognizing growing interest in litigation funding as an alternative asset class, Fenchurch strategically lowered investment entry barriers making it a more accessible investment solution. This has enabled us to broaden our investor base, enabling us to raise more capital and support a wider range of law firms seeking funding.
How have you seen the landscape of small ticket litigation funding evolve, and what trends do you anticipate for the future?
There's a noticeable shift towards recognising the significance of smaller-scale claims in the funding market. I anticipate the market to continue its expansion into new case types beyond traditional areas but with that will come changes in the regulatory landscape, potentially impacting market dynamics and requiring adaptation from funders. As a funder specialising in small ticket claims, especially those funded at volume, staying ahead of regulatory changes is important. We remain cautious about specific case types, recognising that shifts in litigation trends could render a case type unviable, as witnessed in the Road Traffic Cases (RTA) cases when fixed costs were brought in. Funders must develop a broad network of contacts to stay informed about evolving market conditions. Another trend I see growing is wider tech adoption within the industry. Technology is playing a pivotal role in streamlining processes, enhancing risk assessment and driving efficiency and scalability. Recognizing the limitations of off-the-shelf solutions, we developed our own loan management software, providing a bespoke platform for managing loan repayments, monitoring, and onboarding. Continued tech integration is needed to enable automation, boost efficiency, enhance risk assessment capabilities, and improve investor reporting. I also see increased awareness and interest from investors. I think small-ticket litigation funding will become increasingly more attractive as investors become more familiar with the potential benefits and opportunities, resulting in a rise in investment inflows. Lastly, the focus on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations is likely to gain prominence, influencing investment decisions and funder strategies. The growing recognition of the value and impact of small-ticket litigation funding aligns with ESG requirements.
What sets Fenchurch Legal apart from other funders? What are your unique value propositions?
Our core strength lies in our deep understanding of the small-ticket claims landscape. We have developed a rigorous and data-driven selection process tailored to this specific segment, allowing us to identify top-tier law firms and high-potential case types with lower individual risk profiles. Through discussions, we've learned that law firms often face challenges with other funders, including issues like complex drawdown procedures, undisclosed fees, and the non-funding of crucial costs like WIP capital or case acquisition expenses. Recognizing these pain points, we've developed an offering specifically designed to avoid these issues. As mentioned before having access to our own proprietary software has been a game-changer. It has significantly enhanced our whole business operations, driving efficiency and enabling us to scale. This technological edge not only sets us apart but also positions us as an innovative and forward-thinking player in the industry. Additionally, our team is a vital component of our unique value proposition. Made up of experienced professionals who understand the industry, our team ensures we look thoroughly at both legal merit and financial viability. This dual expertise ensures that every funding decision is based on a thorough understanding of the legal intricacies and financial soundness of each case.
Could you elaborate on your approach to case selection and investment criteria?
Our selection process is multi-layered, considering both legal merit and financial viability. In the initial stages, we conduct an in-depth evaluation of case strength, law firm expertise, financial strength and claim history, while also examining the specific legal and procedural landscape surrounding each claim. After completing the underwriting process, we grant each firm a facility limit. They can regularly draw down against this limit, as long as they adhere to the terms of the agreement, including providing a list of claims for auditing and granting us access to their systems. We also employ robust financial modelling and stress testing to evaluate potential returns and manage risk effectively. This approach ensures we invest in case types with strong success potential and manageable risk profiles. So far, we’ve funded various case types with strong merits, including Plevin, Motor Finance Mis-selling (PCP), Tenancy Deposit Schemes, and Housing Disrepair claims. Our compliance criteria for each case type involve thorough vetting, examining details such as case referrals, fee earners, and the experience of law firms. This process enables us to partner with trusted law firms, further mitigating risks associated with our investments. Importantly, Fenchurch Legal only provides funding for cases where After the Event (ATE) insurance has already been obtained. This insurance covers costs and disbursements in the event of an unsuccessful claim. By advancing the premium directly to the ATE Insurer, we ensure that each policy is live at the time of funding, adding an extra layer of security to our investment strategy. This unique security feature enhances the attractiveness of funding ATE claims, aligning with our commitment to minimising associated risks.
The recent PACCAR ruling in the UK has sparked discussions about the future of litigation funding. What are your thoughts on its implications and potential impact on the industry?
The recent PACCAR ruling didn’t impact Fenchurch as our small ticket business model is focused on charging a fixed return per case, regardless of the outcome and not a percentage of damages recovered. However, whilst the ruling presents certain challenges, I believe it ultimately presents an opportunity for the industry to strengthen its practices and regulations.
Could you share your vision for Fenchurch Legal's future growth and expansion plans?
We plan to maintain our focus on small-ticket litigation funding, leveraging our experience, growing our loan book, and onboarding new borrowers. As the business grows, we plan to deploy more capital aiming to reach a loan book value of £75 million within the next two years. We will also recruit key roles to bolster our team.
Lastly, for investors considering small ticket litigation funding, what key factors should they take into account, and how can Fenchurch Legal add value to their investment strategies?
For investors contemplating small ticket litigation funding, several key factors should be carefully considered to make informed and strategic decisions. Firstly, understand the specific criteria and due diligence processes the litigation funder uses and pay attention to their track record in managing and funding small ticket claims. Risk management is vital and investors should seek funders with robust strategies in place. This includes an assessment of how the funder mitigates risks associated with smaller claims and adapts to changing circumstances. In the case of Fenchurch Legal, our approach to small-ticket litigation funding is grounded in a commitment to comprehensive due diligence, case assessment, and risk management. We have created an offering suitable for investors seeking diversification, lower risk profiles, access to a broader market, and lower entry points.
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.
