Following this month’s elections in the United States, litigation funding leaders and industry observers have begun to try and predict what the change in government at the federal level may mean for efforts to increase regulation and oversight of the litigation finance industry.

An article in The American Lawyer looks at the issue of increased regulation for litigation funding through the lens of the election, getting the views of industry experts as to what approach the incoming GOP trifecta might take. With one piece of draft legislation focusing on funding disclosure already introduced to the House, courtesy of Rep. Darrell Issa of California, lawyers and funders alike are anxious to see whether the Trump administration will take a more combative approach to third-party funding.

Broadly speaking, the view from industry appears to be split on whether the attitudes of Congress and the White House will be aligned on this issue. Charles Agee, CEO of Westfleet Advisors, said that “regulating the litigation finance industry does not seem to be at the top of the agenda for the Trump administration”. Whilst Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director at Parabellum Capital, noted that Trump has previously exhibited a trend towards appointing judges with less litigation experience, which may harm the industry as it could “inject more variability in litigation funders' ability to underwrite outcomes.” 

Paul Haskel, partner with Crowell & Moring, agreed that regulating third-party funding may not be a high priority for President Trump, but suggested that the commonly-repeated claim that funding acts as a route for foreign actors to malignly influence US interests could be “an appealing way for this administration to attack it.” Similarly, Mark Behrens of Shook Hardy & Bacon, suggested that over on Capitol Hill, “the new congressional leadership provides a reason for optimism that there will be increased attention paid to the disclosure of commercial third-party litigation financing and the involvement of foreign funders in U.S. litigation.” 

Seeking to gain some insight into any provisional policy position that the new administration might hold, The American Lawyer contacted the Trump transition team for a comment. However, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not provide a direct answer to the question, instead emphasizing that Trump had been re-elected “by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail.”

As policymakers and legal experts debate what the future of UK litigation funding should look like, it is clear that even smaller regional funders continue to attract investor interest as they look to take a larger share of the market.

An article in TheBusinessDesk covers the news that Sandfield Capital has agreed a £10.5 million funding facility from an unnamed Canadian investor, with the deal arranged by Altimapa Capital. This latest deal is reportedly part of Sandfield’s £100 million fundraising effort led by Altimapa, with the debt finance specialist having already secured a £20 million facility in December 2023.

The Liverpool-based funder was founded in 2020 and has since expanded its footprint to include an office in London, secured the new funding facility to support its growth plans both in terms of hiring additional staff and broaden the range of cases it funds. Over the last four years, Sandfield has provided funding for a variety of claims including those targeting brokers for undisclosed commissions, landlords for failures to maintain rental properties, and claims over Military Hearing Loss.

Sandfield Capital’s CEO, Steven D’Ambrosio, said that the funder has witnessed “a dramatic increase in undisclosed commissions and housing disrepair cases following news coverage and increased awareness of the legal remedies available.” D’Ambrosio explained that the £10.5 infusion of capital would allow Sandfield to support these claims and “enable many more people to bring their case to court.”

Pedro Tavares, CEO of Altimapa, provided the following comment on the deal: “We’re pleased to have secured an additional £10.5m credit facility for Sandfield Capital. It underscores our ability to bring international capital to UK businesses and the attractiveness of the civil litigation market to a widening, and increasingly international, panel of investors.”

In an announcement released earlier this week by LPF Group, the New Zealand litigation funder revealed that it had strengthened its board with the appointment of Judge Robert Dobson KC as a director. Mr Dobson brings a wealth of experience as both a commercial lawyer and judge, having served on the High Court from 2007 to 2020. Mr Dobson briefling returned to the bench as an acting judge on the Court of Appeal in 2022, before returning to his arbitration and mediation practice at Stout Street Chambers.

Phil Newland, founder and director of LPF, said “LPF is delighted to have Mr Dobson, a proven jurist with substantial legal and judicial experience join the board at such an important time for the development of class action law in New Zealand.”

Commenting on his new role, Mr Dobson stated: “Having observed LPF’s role from a different perspective for many years I now look forward to playing a part in continuing the development of litigation funding and assisting access to justice. I am very much looking forward to joining LPF in helping meritorious cases attract funding in the pursuit of justice.”

In addition to the appointment of Mr Dobson, LPF also stated that the company’s current Chairman, Bill Wilson KC, will be moving to the position of Emeritus Chair to provide continuing support to the funder’s board. Newland praised Wilson’s work during his time at LPF by saying “With Bill’s strong support LPF has assisted many thousands of New Zealanders to achieve redress, including in leading cases such as Mainzeal, Kiwifruit and in the recent CBL and Intueri shareholder class actions.”

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s interim report on litigation funding, industry leaders and experts have opined on the future direction of UK’s funding market. At a recent industry conference, attendees were treated to the views of the head of one of the country’s most important judicial bodies when it comes to litigation funding.

Reporting by CDR covers remarks delivered by Andrew Lenon KC, chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) at the Global Class Actions Symposium. The keynote speech on the second day of the symposium saw Lenon discuss the current state of the CAT and the involvement of third-party funding, which he described as “essential to the success of the collective proceedings regime.”

Lenon noted that despite the period of uncertainty in the initial aftermath of the PACCAR decision, he suggested that “it seems likely that the UK market for litigation funding and collective proceedings will continue to grow.” Furthermore, Lenon argued that in this growth environment, the result would be the emergence of a “fully functioning competitive market for litigation funding.”

The CAT’s chairman emphasised the tribunal’s role “to clarify the legal principles relating to funding arrangements”, with a focus on ensuring that “collective proceedings do not become a cash cow to funders and lawyers, with minimal returns to class members.” However, in a welcome nod to funders and lawyers alike, Lenon assured that the CAT “will be slow to interfere with funding arrangements freely negotiated between funders and class representatives.”

Whilst he acknowledged that the CAT must keep a close eye to ensure that funder’s fees and legal costs do not spiral out of control, Lenon agreed that it was “entirely legitimate for funders to seek a return on their investment.” In summarising the CAT’s position on interfering with litigation funding agreements, Lenon said that “the tribunal should therefore be slow to second guess.”

The growth of multinational technology corporations has provided years of product innovation and a mass availability of affordable consumer electronics. However, the resulting monopolies that have risen to dominate these markets have also created space for the potential for anti-competitive behaviour that harms consumers. In this environment, it is unsurprising we are seeing more and more claims being brought against these tech giants, with the legal proceedings supported by third-party litigation funders.

An article in TechCrunch covers the announcement of a new collective action being brought against Apple by the UK consumer rights group Which?, representing up to 40 million consumers over allegations that Apple breached competition law by overcharging users of the iCloud service. The opt-out proceedings, valued at approximately £3 billion, claims that Apple abused its monopoly position to favour iCloud over competing cloud storage providers and locking in customers to the iCloud services, thereby preventing them from switching to a competitor and enabling Apple to charge increasingly higher fees.

The application for certification was filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 November 2024, with the claim seeking to represent any UK consumer who used an iOS device or iCloud services from 1 October 2025 onwards. This nine year time period is particularly relevant as it follows the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act from that date. The claims is being funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), with litigation risk insurance having been secured to cover Apple’s legal costs if the claim is not successful

More information about the collective proceedings can be found on the Cloud Claim website.

In response to this new legal action being brought, Apple spokesperson Tom Parker provided the following statement: “Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible — whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Australian funder Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced the promotion of Emma Colantonio to the position of Chief Investment Officer. In the announcement, LLS said that Emma’s dedication and strategic insight have been instrumental to the success of the business.

Colantonio joined LLS in 2021 as an investment manager and served in that role for two years before being promoted to senior investment manager in May 2023. Prior to joining LLS in 2021, Colantonio had also spent five years at MinterEllison as a senior associate, as well as having served as a senior legal counsel at Commonwealth Bank. 

In her own post on LinkedIn, Colantonio provided the following comment: “Excited to step into the role as Chief Investment Officer at Litigation Lending Services Limited! A big thank you to the leadership team for their trust and support. Looking forward to driving our mission forward and exploring new opportunities in litigation funding.”As LFJ reported in August of this year, Colantonio was recently appointed to the board of The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) as a non executive director, replacing LLS’ own Stephen Conrad in that position.

The enthusiasm for cryptocurrency over recent years has seen retail investors look to these digital assets as a route to impressive financial returns. However, this relatively nascent and unregulated asset class has also resulted in a significant amount of malpractice and criminal activity, leading to a surge in related legal cases that some funders are engaging with.

An article in TheBusinessDesk covers the news that IQuote, a Manchester-based litigation funder, has acquired over 1,000 claims related to cryptocurrency fraud. The cases that IQuote is funding are being brought by individuals who have been the victims of crypto scams or had their digital assets stolen. IQuote’s acquisition of these claims was achieved both through marketing efforts and organic traffic, with the individual value of the cases ranging from £10,000 to £10 million.

Craig Cornick, founder and chief executive, stated: “At IQuote, we are continually evolving our funding strategies to stay aligned with the dynamic and rapidly changing litigation landscape and are committed to helping victims receive justice. Our goal is to ensure that our financial solutions not only meet the current demands of the legal industry but also anticipate future trends, providing innovative and sustainable funding options for our clients.”

Class actions focusing on anti-competitive behaviour by big businesses continue to provide ample opportunities for litigation funders to support claimants in their pursuit of justice, with European jurisdictions benefitting from a strong regulatory and oversight structure that seeks to clamp down on corporations abusing their dominant market positions.

In a LinkedIn post from LitFIn, the Prague-based litigation funder provides an update on the ongoing class actions brought against online travel agency Booking.com over its alleged anti-competitive practices. The allegations relate to the company’s use of pricing parity clauses, which have harmed hotels by preventing them from offering lower prices on their own websites or other online travel platforms. 

The travel company is now facing lawsuits across a number of jurisdictions in the European Union, with ongoing investigations in Italy, Sweden and France, following in the footsteps of regulators in Spain and Czech Republic who have already issued fines. One class action, brought by German hotels seeking compensation, has already begun proceedings in the Rechtbank Amsterdam.

Juraj Siska, partner at LitFin, provided the following statement: “The recent decision by Spain’s Competition Authority to fine Booking.com €413.2 million is a significant step forward in the fight against anti-competitive practices. Booking.com’s actions have affected market players across the EU, not only in Spain. Now is the time to end these practices and ensure compensation for damages already incurred.”

Concluding the post, LitFin emphasised their active involvement to support claimants seeking compensation in the Booking.com class actions, and encouraged any potentially affected parties to contact them.

As we enter the final months of 2024, it is only natural for industry commentators and analysts to lay out their observations on the state of litigation finance, seeking to understand how third-party funding has evolved this year.

A column in Bloomberg Law, written by former lawyer turned writer David Lat, examines the current state of the litigation funding industry and examines the changing face of the market, from its growing successes to the evolution of issues it faces. The column draws upon Lat’s time at the LitFinCon event hosted in September of this year, featuring insights from industry leaders who spoke at the conference.

One of Lat’s primary observations is the transformation of litigation funding from a fringe activity in the legal sector, to a mainstream stable that has transformed the way claimants and law firms pursue disputes. Lat highlights this change in attitudes within law firms, quoting Casey Grabenstein of Saul Ewing, who noted that his firm was somewhat reluctant to embrace litigation funding”, whilst Mayer Brown’s Michael Lackey emphasized that third-party funding “was just anathema”, a decade ago. Nowadays, these attitudes have largely been reversed, with Lackey himself noting that in today’s legal landscape “virtually every large law firm that does litigation probably has a funded case somewhere.”

Speaking to one of the prominent topics discussed at LitFinCon, Lat explains that with the startling growth experienced by the litigation finance market, the issue of the ‘commoditization’ of funding continues to be raised. Across the speakers at the event, Lat highlights that the general view of funders and other parties is that the industry has moved towards maturation rather than commoditization, with a lack of standardization across funding arrangements being absent across the industry. Looking to the future of third-party funding, Lat says that industry leaders continue to take a cautiously optimistic view, and quotes Mani Walia of Siltstone Capital who said, “ours is a young industry, and we need to make sure that there are no bad apples.”

In the spirit of this cautious attitude towards ‘bad apples’ and the potential for issues to arise, Lat also addresses the ways in which opposition to and criticism of the funding industry has changed with its maturation. Lat describes this transformation as being a move away from issues of legality to issues of disclosure, highlighting the ongoing debates among lawmakers and the judiciary as to what level of mandatory disclosure should be required for funding arrangements.

The ongoing saga of the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company, and funded by Burford Capital, has remained one of the most high profile instances of litigation funding in history. Whilst the Argentine government continues to appeal the award, the U.S. government has now formally offered its own opinion on one of the legal issues at stake in the dispute.

An article by Reuters covers the latest development in the Argentina YPF case, as the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a statement of interest arguing against the seizure of Argentina’s shares in the oil and gas company, as part of the enforcement of the $16 billion judgment. The letter, sent to U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan, appeared to disagree with Burford Capital’s position that there was a commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign immunities Act, and that the law was not intended to disregard immunity for foreign sovereign property. This argument seemed to reflect the DOJ’s position that carving out such an exception to immunity would create a parallel risk for U.S. property in foreign jurisdictions.

In response to media reporting on this latest development, Burford Capital issued a statement that argued the DOJ’s letter only addressed “a narrow question of law in relation to the enforcement of judgements.” Furthermore, Burford argued that the filing “does not reflect DOJ’s taking any broader position on the overall case of the enforcement campaign.” The press release from Burford Capital can be read in full below:

“Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, has noted inaccurate media reporting and subsequent market reaction to an expected court filing last night by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") in the Petersen and Eton Park matters. The filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York restates DOJ's position on a narrow question of law in relation to enforcement of judgments. The filing pertains to one motion filed in the Petersen and Eton Park matters as part of the overall, ongoing effort to enforce the judgment against the Argentine Republic. The filing does not reflect DOJ's taking any broader position on the overall case or the enforcement campaign; indeed, DOJ has previously taken the position that pursuing Argentina in the US courts for its breach of contract in this matter was appropriate, and DOJ has not made any filing at all on the pending appeal (and the time to do so has passed). In its filing, DOJ took the view that Argentina could not be required by a U.S. court to move property presently located in Argentina into the United States so it could there be attached for creditors under New York law, which is an unsettled legal issue. The DOJ view is not binding on the court and further briefing and proceedings will ensue. The Company will provide a further update on the Petersen and Eton Park matters during today's earnings call.”

Fenchurch Legal, a specialist in litigation funding for small and medium-sized UK law firms, has partnered with Altify, a regulated South African alternative investment platform connecting retail and institutional investors with tokenised private market assets. This collaboration will offer investors access to Fenchurch Legal’s litigation funding investments via Altify’s digital platform.

Through this partnership, Altify has launched the world’s first legal finance security token on the Bitcoin Liquid network, with the ticker ALFI. Each token is 1:1 dollar-backed by Fenchurch Legal’s litigation finance loan notes. This Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenisation approach democratises access to the niche market of litigation finance—an investment category traditionally reserved for high-net-worth individuals and specialist finance institutions.

With ALFI, Altify’s 75,000 South African clients can now invest, with as little as $100, in a diversified portfolio of senior secured loans extended to vetted UK law firms. ALFI is a USD-denominated security token offering a fixed annual yield of 11% with quarterly interest payments.

The UK litigation finance market is experiencing robust growth, with increased investor demand. Fenchurch Legal’s Loan Note offering has seen investor uptake increase by 90% from Q2 to Q3 this year. This growth is driven by law firms seeking funding for increased case volumes and investors’ interest in stable, alternative assets.

This partnership marks a strategic milestone for Fenchurch Legal, aligning with its vision to expand and connect with a wider pool of investors. By joining Altify’s platform, Fenchurch diversifies its funding sources and strengthens its ability to support law firms in the rapidly growing litigation finance sector.

Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal, said: “This partnership with Altify marks a key growth milestone for Fenchurch Legal, and we are delighted to be the first company to join their new private debt offering.

Being on the Altify platform allows us to diversify our funding sources and increase our lending power, allowing us to further support law firms and meet the growing demand for litigation finance in the small consumer claims market. Altify investors will benefit from Fenchurch Legal’s investment structure, where loans are secured against case proceeds, proceeds of insurance policies, law firm assets and PGs of shareholders, enhancing investor capital protection. We look forward to collaborating with Altify, a company that shares our commitment to technology and innovative financial solutions.”

Sean Sanders, CFA Charterholder and CEO of Altify, adds: “Fenchurch Legal’s exceptional track record in funding UK law firms and delivering steady returns within a niche alternative asset class makes them an ideal partner for Altify. Legal finance is a compelling investment category for portfolio diversification, as it is largely uncorrelated with traditional economic cycles. However, minimum investments in this category have historically been in the six figures making it a largely unattainable asset class for most investors.

The ALFI token addresses the accessibility challenge, by providing South African clients with the opportunity to own a single token and start investing with the equivalent of $100. This partnership also shifts the landscape of legal finance, as traditionally only the lawyers profit from legal disputes, but with ALFI, both lawyers and investors can earn an attractive return. This is a new era for portfolio diversification, and we are thrilled to be at the forefront.”

Reporting by Law.com International reveals that claimants in a class action brought against the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) have formally accepted a funding agreement with Omni Bridgeway to support the legal action.

The class action is seeking to represent 400 investors who are challenging FINMA over the writing down of $17 billion worth of AT1 bonds issued by Credit Suisse, following the 2023 emergency takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS. The claimants, who are mostly based in Singapore, are being represented by Drew & Napier.

Mahesh Rai, lead partner at Drew & Napier, spoke with Law.com and stated that the value of the class action is set to exceed $250 million, saying that “this claim value will rise as additional investors continue to sign up.” Rai went on to confirm that as part of the funding agreement, Omni Bridgeway “is entitled to a share of any damages recovered by the investors in their claims against Switzerland.”

Whilst the total amount of funding provided by Omni Bridgeway has not been confirmed, the funder’s Singapore investment manager Arvindran Manoosegaran explained to Law.com that it would depend on the number of claimants who register for the lawsuit and the economic viability of the case from Omni Bridgeway’s perspective.

Whilst family law is not always an area of the legal system that is top of mind for litigation funders, the appetite for outside funding to support these disputes continues to be reinforced by specialised firms who are raising capital to grow their services.

In an announcement posted on FinTech Australia, JustFund announced a $92 million capital raise that will allow the family law funder to accelerate the growth of its services and expand operations. The capital raise includes $5.7 million in seed round financing led by Xilium Capital, a $75 million senior debt facility from Global Credit Investments (GCI), and another $11 million in mezzanine funding from family offices. The announcement also explained that the capital raise included investments from Startmate, The Legal Tech Fund (USA) and Tripple, among other startup investors.

JustFund was founded in 2022 by the trio of Andy O’Connor, Jack O’Donnell and Craig Carroll. O’Connor and O’Donnell both formerly practiced as lawyers, whilst Carroll brought his experience as a fintech entrepreneur and investor. According to the announcement, in the two years since its founding, the Sydney-based funder ‘has approved more than $95 million in legal funding to support its clients to access more than $1 billion in relationship property settlements.’

Commenting on the capital raise, Carroll explained that the additional funding “will enable JustFund to help thousands more Australians to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of relationship assets and to rebuild their lives following a divorce or separation.” Gavin Solsky, Co-founder of GCI Funds, stated that his firm is “pleased to be aligning with JustFund and supporting their mission to help Australians access legal representation during a challenging time in their lives.”

Investment treaty disputes between mining companies and nation states have continued to provide legal funders with opportunities to support valuable arbitration claims across the globe. This has once again been demonstrated by an announcement from one such company intending to pursue a dispute with Morocco, enlisting the services of a law firm with a track record of working with funders to support these claims.

An announcement from Emmerson plc reveals that the potash development company has notified the Moroccan government of its intent to pursue an investment dispute over the government’s alleged breaches of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Morocco and the United Kingdom. The mining exploration and development company stated that it “has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as its litigation counsel and is examining various funding avenues for an investment dispute.” Emmerson’s announcement does not provide any significant details about the nature of the investment dispute but does refer to the development of the Khemisset Potash Project in Northern Morocco, which is likely where the dispute’s origins lie with this project. 

Emmerson stated that it had provided this notification to the Moroccan government so that the two parties could “engage in discussions regarding cash compensation for the damages incurred because of Morocco's breaches of the BIT, with a view to achieving an amicable resolution of the dispute.” However, Emmerson asserted that if these discussions cannot find a resolution, then the company “intends to submit a claim for arbitration under the BIT, seeking damages for the harm described above, plus interest, costs, and any such further relief as the Tribunal may deem appropriate in the circumstances.”

The announcement also references Boies Schiller Flexner’s involvement in two other investment treaty disputes: the GreenX Metals arbitration with Poland and the dispute between an Indiana Resources subsidiary and Tanzania. As LFJ has previously reported, both the GreenX Metals and Indiana Resources arbitration claims were funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

In an announcement from the Civil Justice Council (CJC), the Litigation Funding Working Group has published the Interim Report and Consultation for its review of litigation funding. As laid out in the report’s foreword, the publication of the Interim Report represents the first phase of the working group’s efforts, and therefore does not contain any recommendations at this stage. The purpose of the Interim Report is to provide the background to the issues being examined, as well as providing the context for the questions in the Consultation.

The report itself is divided into six parts, which are as follows:

1. The Development of Third Party Litigation Funding in England and Wales
2. The Development of Self-Regulation of Third Party Litigation Funding
3. Different Approaches to Regulation
4. Approaches to Regulation in Other Jurisdictions
5. The Relationship between Costs and Funding
6. Funding Options

Each of these parts is further divided into two sections, with the first section acting as a brief overview of the topic that covers the ‘Key Points’. The second section provides an in-depth exploration of these issues, including examples of relevant case law and drawing upon existing research and studies covering third-party litigation funding.

The Consultation, which represents the second phase for the working group includes a list of 39 questions which consultees are encouraged to answer, divided into the following categories:

• Questions concerning ‘whether and how, and if required, by whom, third party funding should be regulated’ and the relationship between third party funding and litigation costs.
• Questions concerning ‘whether and, if so to what extent a funder’s return on any third party funding agreement should be subject to a cap.’
• Questions concerning how third party funding ‘should best be deployed relative to other sources of funding, including but not limited to: legal expenses insurance; and crowd funding.’
• Questions concerning the role that should be played by ‘rules of court, and the court itself . . . in controlling the conduct of litigation supported by third party funding or similar funding arrangements.’
• Questions concerning provision to protect claimants.
• Questions concerning the encouragement of litigation.
• General Issues

The consultation period is now open and will run for three months, closing on Friday 31 January 2025 at 23:59.

The publication of the Interim Report and Consultation is accompanied by the following statement from Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, Head of Civil Justice and Chair of the CJC: 

“I welcome the publication of the CJC’s interim report and consultation on litigation funding. Litigation funding plays an important role in ensuring access to justice. I am grateful to co-chairs Dr John Sorabji and Mr Justice Simon Picken, and their working group for this report. I encourage all interested parties to read the report and respond to the consultation, which will run until Friday 31 January 2025. I look forward to the publication of the Working Group’s final report in summer 2025.

“It is a busy and exciting time for the CJC, which is also conducting a review of the Solicitors Act 1974, through a working group chaired by Mr Justice Adam Johnson. The CJC understands that there will be areas of overlap between the work of that group and the Litigation Funding Group. It will create valuable consistency and coherence for the Solicitors Act Working Group to be able to take account of the responses to this Consultation by the Litigation Funding Group as they take forward their work in the new year.” 

Following the conclusion of the consultation period, the third and final phase will begin, during which the Working Group will prepare and then submit its Final Report and Recommendations to the CJC. The Interim Report confirms that the current timeline still expects for the Final Report to be delivered and published by the summer of 2025.

The Interim Report’s appendices also include a full list of the members for both the Working Party and the wider Consultation Group, listed below.

Working Party

Mr Justice Simon Picken (CJC member) – Co-Chair, Dr John Sorabji (CJC member) – Co-Chair, Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, Professor Christopher Hodges OBE (Regulatory Horizons Council), Lucy Castledine (Financial Conduct Authority), and Nicholas Bacon KC.

Wider Consultation Group

Alistair Kinley (Director of Policy & Government Affairs, Clyde & Co), Professor Andrew Higgins (CJC member; Professor of Civil Justice Systems, University of Oxford), Dr Mark Friston (Barrister, Hailsham Chambers; Bar Council Representative), Jackie Griffiths (Head of Regulatory Policy, Solicitors Regulation Authority), Jamie Molloy (Head of ATE, Ignite Speciality Risk), Jennifer Morrissey (Partner, Harcus Parker; Law Society Representative), Julian Chamberlayne (Partner, Stewarts) Kenny Henderson, (Legal Adviser, Fair Civil Justice; Partner, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro), Lucy Anderson (Senior Lawyer, The Consumers’ Association (Which?)), Neil Purslow (Chair of the Executive Committee, International Legal Finance Association; UK CIO, Therium Litigation Funding), Professor Neil Rickman (Professor of Economics, University of Surrey), Nicola Critchley (CJC member; Partner, DWF), Professor Rachael Mulheron KC (Hon) (Professor of Tort Law and Civil Justice, Queen Mary University of London), Rhea Gupta (Legal and Policy Research Consultant, Class Representatives Network), Stephen Wisking (Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills), Suganya Suriyakumaran (Legal Services Board), Susan Dunn (Director, Association of Litigation Funders; Head of Litigation Funding, Harbour Litigation Funding), Tajinder Bhamra (Interim Head of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs Policy, Ministry of Justice), and Tom Steindler (Managing Director, Exton Advisors).

The full Interim Report can be read here. 

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.”