Litigation Finance Journal is well-regarded as the leading publication covering the global legal funding sector, but what is perhaps less-well known is that LFJ also serves as a digital hub for industry stakeholders to connect, via our informal introductory services. A recent example illustrates the impact that LFJs access to the global funding community can have, as Brazilian attorney and activist Daniel Cavalcante leveraged our introductory services to raise funding for a claim on behalf of Indigenous communities in the Amazon.  In a post by No Impunity on LinkedIn, the impact litigation funding platform announced that it would be collaborating with Daniel Cavalcante, a lawyer who has been fighting for the rights of indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon. No Impunity stated that it would be funding a lawsuit “that directly benefits indigenous communities, taking real steps towards justice”, highlighting the synergy between Cavalcante’s goals and their mission to finance litigation that fights back against climate and human rights abuses by corporations. Yanis Lunetta, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of No Impunity, praised LFJ's global network of litigation funding stakeholders: "Through LFJ's network, No Impunity was introduced to Daniel Cavalcante. This connection proved transformative, enabling grassroots fundraising for an ESG claim. Daniel's commitment, backed by No Impunity and combined with the trust LFJ instilled, illustrates a dynamic synergy in financing legal action to achieve corporate accountability." Aurelia Le Frapper, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of No Impunity, added: "Litigation Finance Journal played a key role in our mission to democratize impact litigation. They had an essential part in connecting us directly with Daniel Calvalcante, representing Brazilian communities facing substantial socio-environmental harms.This connection paved the way for No Impunity to fund the investigation phase of this legal process. As we prepare for our public launch event at UCL on 25 September to present our platform and start fundraising for this first case, we express our gratitude to LFJ for its essential contribution in advancing impactful legal initiatives." In his own post on LinkedIn, Cavalcante expressed his excitement for the collaboration with No Impunity, saying that “the recognition of my work as a lawyer, representing different associations and tribes, is a source of inspiration to continue facing socio-environmental challenges.” As LFJ reported back in February, Cavalcante has been actively campaigning for support from funders and law firms to support lawsuits against large international corporations harming the people and the environment of the Amazon.  No Impunity stated that it would reveal the details of the case on August 25, and encouraged any interested parties to get in touch.

In a bid to decongest the Indian legal system, LegalPay, India’s largest litigation financier has launched an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) wing called Bharat Dispute Resolution (BDR). BDR is a revolutionary service that will help businesses across the sectors, fintech startups, banks, and NBFCs recover their dues efficiently and manage their portfolio better. BDR is a digital platform that leverages artificial intelligence, data analytics, and legal expertise to resolve disputes and recover dues in a fast, cost-effective, and hassle-free manner. Through its cutting-edge technology, which includes automation of bulk notices, tracking responses, administration of stamp duty, and data repository for cases intertwined with the legal services of experienced professionals, it offers a holistic and comprehensive solution for all legal woes. "We are excited to unveil Bharat Dispute Resolution, an innovative solution poised to redefine the landscape of dispute resolution and tackle the problem of unpaid account receivables”, said Kundan Shahi, Founder & CEO of LegalPay. BDR leverages the industry's expertise in online arbitration and mediation and its network of over 5,000 lawyers and arbitrators across the country to provide fast, fair, and cost-effective solutions for resolving disputes arising from unpaid loans, payment defaults, and other issues. BDR expects to manage 1,00,000 cases by the end of December this year. “It [BDR] also reduces the burden on the judiciary and promotes alternative dispute resolution methods. We are excited to launch this service and help millions of businesses across India. We are confident that BDR will continue to grow and scale in the coming years and become the preferred choice for dispute resolution across the globe”, Shahi added. With its new wing, LegalPay aims to empower its clients to focus on growing its business, while reducing their bad debts, improving their cash flow, and confidently growing their businesses. About LegalPay:  LegalPay is a pioneer in the litigation funding space in India. Since its inception in 2019, LegalPay has underwritten over 30,000 cases across various sectors, including e-commerce, fintech, ed-tech, healthcare, logistics, and manufacturing. LegalPay aims to democratize access to justice and make legal services affordable, accessible, and transparent for everyone. Currently managing over INR 2,600 Crores in claims under management, LegalPay expects to manage INR 5,000 Crores by the end of this year.

The Frankfurt-based litigation financing company LF Legal Finance SE, through its subsidiary Legal Finance International GmbH (Düsseldorf), has acquired an option to finance an international tort case with a value in dispute of up to EUR 1.0 million. If the case is financed and won, Legal Finance expects significant cash inflows. The option agreement was signed on 11 August 2023 and has a term of 2 months. It gives Legal Finance the exclusive option to fund the litigation with a value of approximately EUR 1.0 million. Subject to funding, Legal Finance will decide whether to exercise the option within the term of the agreement. The financing of further claims and ancillary litigation arising from related matters with a further cumulative amount in dispute of up to a further EUR 1.0 million is currently being negotiated. The complex international case involves several jurisdictions, including non-European jurisdictions, and is ripe for trial. The defendant in the main action is solvent and reachable. The issues in the case include damages and corporate law. As usual, Legal Finance is only involved in the funding of the proceedings and is not intervening in the litigation. The proceedings are conducted solely by the plaintiff through experienced litigators. Any cost-increasing measures will be taken in consultation with Legal Finance. LF Legal Finance SE is in the process of further clarifying the ancillary litigation and will involve external lawyers in a more detailed examination of the prospects of success of the claims. In addition, other sources will be consulted to verify the solvency of the defendants in the ancillary proceedings.

Wednesday, August 9th, LFJ hosted a panel of UK-based litigation funding experts who discussed the recent UK Supreme Court decision, and the potential impacts on the funding industry. The expert panel included: Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Neil Johnstone (NJ), Barrister at King's Bench Chambers, and Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director at LionFish. The panel was moderated by Peter Petyt (PP), Founder and CEO of 4 Rivers Services. PP: How does this ruling impact the enforceability of LFAs in current, ongoing cases?  And what about LFAs from previously funded and concluded cases?   NRD:  It has a pretty big impact.  First of all, the existing arrangements between clients and litigation funders are going to come under scrutiny, because the lawyers acting for clients are going to have to review their positions. This is not a decision which is making new law, this is a statement of existing law as it has always been, so that review will have to be dealt in the light of the decision. The bigger impact is going to be on concluded cases. That may cause some difficulties. I'm already hearing that there are ongoing discussions on matters that have already concluded, where an agreement that provided for a percentage to be paid to the funder is now being discussed as to whether it should have been paid. That is going to be a distraction, it is going to be an ongoing issue, and I suspect that there will be opportunistic attempts on the part of defendants, in terms of challenging existing litigation funding agreements. So how that concludes, one can only guess, but the reality is, it's a distraction and disruption, and will be an ongoing issue. PP: Tets, you're running a fund. You've concluded agreements, you've got ongoing agreements. How are you proposing to deal with all of this?  TI: Ultimately we are in the business of funding litigation cases, so the world goes on. We can't stop doing it just on the basis of what may be a speculative risk. What we're trying to understand here, is the key risks we have. In terms of our book, we don't have any percentage share of the awards, in relation to proceedings in the CAT. So we're safe in that regard. But in terms of enforceability, there are some agreements that we've had to refute. But obviously, that's a commercial conversation, and the reality is, people are generally appreciative that they've got funding, not ungrateful, so there's a lot of cooperation. I agree with Nick that generally speaking, the ongoing cases and cases going forward are more manageable. The big distraction will be the concluded cases. My position is slightly more nuanced than Nick's, in that I think it is a distraction, but I think it's going to be far less of a risk, partly because the reality is that a lot of funding agreements are entered into in the first place with the purpose of helping claimants that are impecunious. If the claimants have got damages out of it, they are certainly very grateful. Granted, there are some who may not have gotten as much as they wanted because of funding arrangements. But there is the fact that they've gone through a very long litigation process. If it was all about money, then some might very well pursue that course of action. But the reality is, most will think twice about going after a funder, and if they do, the chances are that they'll probably need funding anyway. So if they have to go back to funders, only funders with no interest or claims or willingness to back the industry in the UK would fund those claims. So I think it's more of a distraction than a real risk. PP: Do you see any consolidation or direct impacts on the consolidation piece, from this judgement?  NJ: I suspect there will be anyway. This comes at a time that is difficult for all funders given the larger macro-environment. This comes at unfortunate timing. However, the hardest knives are forged in the hottest fires. I do think you will see not just consolidation within the industry, but funders looking at where they can best add value, such as portfolio funding or other strategies, so they have a proper niche within the market. Overall, it's not terminal for the industry by any stretch. It is a bump in the road that is inherent in any growing industry. But I do think that regulatory clarity would help the industry a lot. There is a lot of useful ammunition for ILFA in Lady Rose's dissenting judgement and in previous judicial comments making well-worded judicial criticism of the legislative patchwork we have in the UK. And I think there could be a very good argument to put forth to a government that I hope could be sympathetic to wishing this industry continues. London is a legal and financial capital of the world, and this industry sits at that nexus. So long term, there is nothing to particularly worry about. To listen to the full panel discussion, please click here.