Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners

John Freund's Posts

3659 Articles
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Omni Bridgeway Analyzes Potential Pathways for Irish Legislative Reform

As reported by LFJ in September, the Irish government announced plans to introduce legislation permitting litigation funding for international arbitrations and disputes. However, the exact roadmap for what kind of regulatory system will be adopted is yet to be defined, as we wait to see which other jurisdiction Ireland will emulate. A recent piece of analysis by Camilla Godman, Investment Manager at Omni Bridgeway, outlined the various factors that may be at play in the formation of Ireland’s new regulatory regime. Godman suggests that beyond any initial legislation passed to define this new structure, it will be up to the Irish courts themselves to further refine and interpret how it is to be applied and which cases could benefit from the new rules. One significant question that Godman explores is to what extent the new legislation will detail requirements around third-party funding agreements and the operations of funders within the country. Godman contrasts the system in the UK where funders are mostly self-regulated, versus that of Singapore, which has specific guidelines for the types of organisations that can fund cases.  Finally, this analysis raises the added influence of the European Union, which may lead to Ireland legalising the use of litigation funding in a broader range of cases, but will also be affected by the ongoing regulatory developments since the approval of the Voss Report proposals, earlier this year.
Announcements Commercial Deals

M&A Dispute Volume Is Rising in Climate of Economic Uncertainty and Geopolitical Upheaval, BRG’s 2022 M&A Disputes Report Finds

Mergers and acquisitions disputes accelerated in 2022 even as deal activity slowed, with the darkening economic outlook expected to fuel further disagreements over deals in the coming year, according to the 2022 M&A Disputes Report from Berkeley Research Group (BRG) released today.

Now in its third year, the report examines the global M&A disputes landscape and features qualitative and quantitative research from some of the world’s leading deal and disputes experts. The latest survey found that macroeconomic concerns are surpassing COVID-19 disruptions as primary dispute catalysts, a trend that dealmakers, lawyers and private equity executives expect to extend into 2023.

Continuing last year’s global scope, the 2022 report examines M&A dispute activity and insights from the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), North America and Asia–Pacific (APAC) regions, investigating recurring themes while posing additional questions and revealing new trends as the pandemic’s effects begin to subside.

The report draws from a quantitative survey of 181 lawyers, private equity professionals and corporate finance advisors, with additional perspectives from more than 20 of the world's top lawyers and experts working in M&A, disputes and private equity. Outside contributors come from leading firms including Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Jones Day, Hogan Lovells and Linklaters.

Key takeaways include:

  • The dispute pace likely will pick up in the coming year amid continued market volatility due to concerns over inflation and a possible recession, as well as geopolitical uncertainty and lingering effects of COVID-19.
  • Financial Technology (FinTech), Energy & Climate and Traditional Financial Services are the top-ranked sectors for increased dispute activity in 2022. Respondents expect the Construction & Real Estate sector to take the lead in 2023.
  • Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disputes are brewing as regulations take shape and businesses strive to meet evolving, multifaceted ESG criteria.
  • EMEA is the region expected to drive dispute activity in the coming year, with strict regulatory regimes and political strife seen as significant disruptive factors.

The report examines how rising concerns around the volatility of markets and political upheaval are influencing M&A deals and dispute behavior. BRG’s research found that the dramatic events of the past year—including the energy crisis in Europe and elsewhere, falling stock prices and real-estate market disruptions—have shifted the sectors experiencing the most disputes compared to 2021, when COVID-19’s effects heavily impacted hospitality, life sciences and technology. The report also tracks steps that lawyers and advisors are recommending to reduce the likelihood of disputes, such as a greater emphasis on conducting enhanced due diligence while deemphasizing material adverse change and material adverse effect clauses for sellers.

"With geopolitical tensions, macroeconomic concerns and lingering COVID-19 disruptions impacting increasingly complex M&A deals, this report emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the fundamental issues driving disputes. A multidisciplinary approach will be required to address these challenges effectively," said BRG Managing Director Mustafa Hadi. “The data and expert analysis collected within the 2022 report offer deep insights on the volatility and uncertainty that will drive disputes in the months ahead.”

Download a copy of the 2022 BRG M&A Disputes Report.

About BRG Berkeley Research Group, LLC is a global consulting firm that helps leading organizations advance in three key areas: disputes and investigations, corporate finance, and performance improvement and advisory. Headquartered in California with offices around the world, we are an integrated group of experts, industry leaders, academics, data scientists and professionals working across borders and disciplines. We harness our collective expertise to deliver the inspired insights and practical strategies our clients need to stay ahead of what's next. Visit thinkbrg.com to learn more.

Commercial

Woodsford Outlines the Benefits of Litigation Finance for Corporates

An increasingly common talking point among litigation funders is that in-house counsels and CFOs are growing more open to using third-party funding when pursuing legal action. However, as LFJ recently reported, one of the biggest hurdles for funders to overcome when persuading corporates to consider outside financing is the difficulty in demonstrating what the tangible benefits are for these businesses beyond shifting legal costs off the balance books. In an article for Reuters, Bob Koneck and Alex Lempiner of Woodsford, outline what they see as the key advantages for corporates utilising third-party funding. Firstly, the authors highlight the ability to lower the risk of pursuing costly litigation in a time of financial strain, referencing a survey from Burford Capital that showed nearly 50% of companies avoided pursuing legal judgments in 2022 as a result of cost. Additionally, funders are often experienced in facilitating alternative fee arrangements with a company’s outside law firm, going beyond simply reducing flat costs as a reason for pursuing litigation. This reduction in costs is also beneficial as it frees up an in-house legal department’s budget to be spent on important operational modernisation, and in onboarding technological advancements.  Woodsford also raises the value of expertise a funder can bring when evaluating whether a claim is even worth bringing in the first place. Whilst litigation finance primarily assists by providing capital, this argument reinforces the idea that in order to demonstrate value to corporates, funders must move beyond their most direct value proposition.
Announcements Consumer

MedResolve Offers Unique and Innovative Personal Injury Legal and Medical Funding Products

Harrison, New York based Altuitive Partners LLC (Altuitive), an investment management company led by alternative investment veteran, Robert Cannon CFF, MBA, AIFA, announces the launch of MedResolve, a litigation financing company dedicated to providing funding solutions to personal injury plaintiffs, healthcare professionals and attorneys. The company was founded by a group of dedicated professionals with decades of experience in finance, law and health care services, resulting in an unrivaled offering of services. Spearheading the day to day operations of the Company is Richard Berman, who brings more than 15 years of experience, both in the legal field, and since 2016, as an underwriter and originator of nearly $100 million in personal injury litigation fundings on thousands of underlying cases. Being injured in an accident can be a life altering experience, causing disruptions such as lost time from work, long-term disability and the need for specialized medical care. MedResolve helps alleviate this burden and allows personal injury plaintiffs to turn a portion of their future settlement into cash by offering non-recourse advances for life needs, expenses and true to the company’s name, surgical advances to help uninsured patients fund the cost of surgery that is related to the ongoing case. Unlike traditional loans, these fundings are structured as purchases of the plaintiff’s future settlement or award. MedResolve also helps medical professionals who treat injured plaintiffs and the attorneys who represent such injured plaintiffs accelerate the collection of a portion of their medical bill or legal fee receivables by offering practice-specific factoring and revenue cycle management solutions to normalize income streams and help these professionals grow their business. To learn more about MedResolve and its personal injury funding solutions for plaintiffs, doctors and lawyers, please call (866) 744-5242 to speak with a funding representative. Or visit www.med-resolve.com.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Chamber of Commerce Claims Litigation Funding Represents Threat to National Security

While litigation funding is seen by many as a vehicle for widening access to justice and changing the balance of power in favour of consumers and plaintiffs who lack the capital to seek legal redress, there are institutions who view it as a nefarious influence on the legal system. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has recently reemphasised its opposition to third-party funding, with the release of a report questioning the national security risks of litigation finance. Outlined in an article by Reuters, the report produced by the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, claims that the intrusion of third-party funding into American litigation could allow foreign adversaries to damage the United States through funded litigation. In particular, the report suggests that foreign funders could influence litigation designed to sow division in the country, or gain access to confidential corporate information through these lawsuits. The report, which was written by four attorneys at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, proposes that foreign funders be required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Chamber also continues to seek wider regulation of the industry with a focus on increasing disclosure requirements for all funders.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

ICSID’s Secretary-General Reflects on Developments and Rule Changes for Third-Party Funding

International arbitration and dispute resolution remains one of the most complex and wide-ranging areas which litigation funders are involved in. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sits at the heart of this activity, and its leadership is well-placed to observe the latest developments and trends, as demonstrated by a recent interview with ICSID’s secretary general. On the latest episode of D.C. Bar Communities’ The Tea on International Arbitration podcast, Meg Kinnear, secretary-general of ICSID, was interviewed by Nicole Silver, investment manager at Validity Finance, and Gaela Gehring Flores, partner at Allen & Overy. Looking back on her tenure over the last 13 years, Kinnear points out that ICSID’s membership has grown from 143 to 158 states in that time, which has also been reflected in the volume of caseloads. Reflecting on backlash against ICSID from political figures in the US, Kinnear stated that most of these perspectives are a result of misinformation or a simple lack of information, especially with common myths such as states always being on the losing end of this type of arbitration. However, in recent years Kinnear believes that there has been somewhat of a change in broader opinions, and that while the system is continually evolving and improving, state perspectives are becoming more favourable. Discussing ICSID’s new rules, especially in regard to transparency and disclosure of third-party funding, Kinnear highlighted that having last been amended in 2006, these rules were overdue for a change. Litigation funding was a key area of consideration, with Kinnear making it clear that it was not ICSID’s role to condemn or endorse third-party funding. Kinnear also reiterated that the main focus for this rule was to avoid conflicts of interest, not to enhance disclosure or discovery.
Commercial Deals

Leading Indian Funder Promotes Utility of Litigation Finance for Homebuyers

Recent regulatory developments by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) have altered the legal status of homebuyers, to now be counted as ‘financial creditors’. As a result, those purchasing homes can go to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to seek resolution of any disputes with sellers or builders, opening a new avenue for litigation funding to provide support to consumers. Writing for the Financial Express, Kundan Shahi, CEO of LegalPay, highlights that homebuyers in India have traditionally faced a litany of legal issues when purchasing, but previously have not had the legal status or the capital to seek redress. However, under these reformed rules, Shahi believes that homebuyers should take advantage of third-party funding to resolve such disputes without incurring further expenses or additional risk. In particular, Shahi notes that in situations where there are ongoing delays due to real estate developments being behind schedule or facing further complications, buyers can seek compensation. Additionally, he raises the key point that even where buyers had legal redress previously, their lack of funds meant any chance of seeing an expedited resolution in the court system was slim. Yet with the help of funders, consumers can achieve a faster resolution.
Commercial Deals

Litigation Funding as an Antidote to Fraudulent Insolvency Practices

The ongoing fallout from the pandemic has seen a rise in insolvencies, and with that rise, there have been numerous examples of companies unlawfully restructuring in order to avoid compensating creditors. Litigation funders can provide a valuable antidote to this kind of fraudulent behavior and enable creditors to seek justice. Speaking with the Financial Times, Gwilym Jones, director at Henderson & Jones, highlights that liquidators are often left powerless in these situations and lack the capital to dedicate to an investigation. However, by bringing the option of third-party funding to the table, creditors can provide a tool to balance the equation and identify what assets can potentially be recovered. Jones points out that some liquidators may lack the experience, or may be initially hesitant to approach a funder, therefore it may be up to creditors to either suggest this approach or to contact the funder to reach out to the liquidator. However, Jones argues that the communication between creditors and funders should not end there, as they may be able to provide valuable insight and information that could guide potential future litigation.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Patent Counsel Argues Litigation Finance is Exploiting Weak Patent Approvals

There has been plenty of commentary in recent months arguing that litigation financing has revolutionized the patent dispute market, providing an invaluable asset to inventors and patent holders who have been unjustifiably exploited by corporations. However, this viewpoint is not unanimously held, and some industry figures believe that the presence of third-party funding is doing more harm than good. In an opinion piece for Bloomberg Law, Joshua Landau, patent counsel for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, argues that the vast number of low-quality patents granted every year has created a fertile market to be exploited by ‘non-practicing entities’ (NPEs). He claims that funders and investors are able to use these overly broad patents to sue businesses, with the primary aim of securing a return on investment rather than protecting intellectual property. In Landau’s opinion, another major issue with these funded lawsuits is the lack of transparency, something that has become a regular topic in patent disputes in the US where funders are involved. He claims that where funders are not visible to the courts, it allows litigants to represent themselves as small inventors taking on large corporations, rather than being backed by equally large financiers.
Commercial Deals

How the Time Value of Litigation Should Influence Investment Decisions

When considering the pros and cons of engaging in litigation, the issue of costs cannot be considered without also factoring in how long the process could take. As a result of systemic backlogs and inefficiencies, the ability to accurately assess the ‘time value of litigation’ is paramount when determining the appropriate quantum–an in turn, whether an investment in the claim is warranted.  In a new piece of analysis for Thomson Reuters’ Dispute Resolution Blog, LionFish’s managing director, Tets Ishikawa, provides an in-depth look at the mathematical breakdown of this concept. At the centre of the argument is the idea that the further prolonged the litigation process, the more the present day cost value is diminished.  Ishikawa argues that through this model, it is plain to see why defendants can and do seek to extend the duration of litigation processes, as they are in fact arbitraging the time value of litigation. In his view, it is symptomatic of a wider issue in the legal system, one which encourages parties to commit wrongdoings and pay for their misdeeds later at a lower value than if they were brought to justice more swiftly.
Consumer

Litigation Funding has Upended the Balance of Power in Medical Malpractice Cases

One area of litigation funding that receives less time in the spotlight but carries great importance is in the realm of medical malpractice and personal injury cases. According to industry insiders, the emergence of third-party funding for these types of claims has dramatically reoriented the balance of power away from medical insurers and into the hands of individual plaintiffs. Speaking with South Florida Hospital News and Healthcare Report, Matt Gracey, managing director of Danna-Gracey, points out that litigation finance allows claimants to fight cases they wouldn’t otherwise have the capital to sustain, and then avoid settling early where cases may have prolonged timeframes. He goes on to argue that this development should not only be a concern for doctors, but any other commercial entities that could be targeted with litigation funded by third-parties. Gracey highlights the important statistic that insurance companies were previously winning 85-90% of cases brought to trial, yet in instances where a plaintiff has the support of a litigation funder, plaintiffs are now winning by the same landslide ratio. He states that insurers must continue to analyse the types of cases that funders are having successful returns on in order to be better prepared, and must also realise that doctors must evaluate the financial capabilities of their insurers to make sure they can measure up against this new force of capital for plaintiffs.
Commercial Deals

Scotland Represents Potential Growth Jurisdiction for Class Actions

The rise in the volume of class actions in Europe has shown no sign of slowing down in recent years, with more and more cases demonstrating the possibility of success, especially for consumers bringing legal actions against multinational corporations. With this growth, litigators and funders alike are keen to pinpoint jurisdictions where this success can be built upon. Writing for Lawyer Monthly, Richard McMeeken, a partner at Morton Fraser Lawyers, argues that Scotland may be the next country to see an explosive rise in class action activity. He identifies the three key factors that could fuel this growth: the relatively low cost of bringing class action claims, the low adverse costs risk and the presence of a mature litigation funding industry. When it comes to the final factor, McMeeken states that Scotland benefits from the lack of legislative and regulatory restraints on the use of third-party funding in this type of litigation. This is further supplemented by the use of After The Event (ATE) insurance, which can provide additional security for claimants where there is the risk of adverse costs order. However, McMeeken explains that Scotland has not yet seen the kind of activity present in other jurisdictions, due to the fact that the Scottish legal system has only recently adopted procedures for these types of proceedings, and as of today, has been restricted to opt-in class actions. McMeeken expects that if courts are able to replicate this openness in regards to opt-out cases, and as the system becomes more familiar with a broader swathe of class actions, Scotland could see significant activity in the near future.
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

New research reveals growing business impact of in-house lawyers and legal departments as they increasingly generate cash recoveries

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research based on a survey of 300 GCs and heads of litigation in the US and UK that demonstrates the transformative way that GCs view legal department impact. GCs seek to add value to the business, and affirmative litigation recoveries play an increasingly important role. GCs also see a role for their law firm partners and for legal finance, especially in relation to fostering innovation and providing support for affirmative recovery programs.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “Burford’s latest independent research shows that GCs are determined for the legal department to increase their business impact. Legal finance can help them, and the research shows that GCs are increasingly open to cost- and risk-sharing with third parties and that law firms need to be ready to talk to clients about this solution.”

Among the core findings of the research:

  • GCs are ambitious for the legal department’s impact in generating liquidity and transcending its traditional understanding as a cost center.
    • Over half (54%) say the legal department is understood to add value to the business by pursuing recoveries through litigation or arbitration.
    • An even larger majority (69%) say identifying new ways to add value to the business is the most important means by which in-house lawyers can contribute to the success of the company.
  • Still, many see opportunities to do more, specifically in adding value through meritorious affirmative recoveries.
    • Over half of those surveyed (51%) say they need to build infrastructure and process to add value through meritorious affirmative recoveries.
  • GCs expect law firms to be ready to provide guidance on value generation.
    • A solid majority (65%) say that receiving guidance from law firm partners about opportunities to innovate or add value to the business is one of the most important factors in individual GC success.
    • Six in ten say either that their panel litigation firms have spoken to them about legal finance in the last five years or that the firm’s doing so would have contributed to the company success.
  • Legal finance is poised to play an increasingly important role in GC success.
  • GCs see a role for legal finance, especially in relation to their affirmative recoveries.
  • Just under a third of GCs (27%) say their companies have used legal finance.
  • Similarly, almost six in ten say either that they reviewed legal finance partners in the last five years or that doing so would have contributed to the company’s success.

The 2022 GC Survey can be downloaded on Burford’s website, where full results are also available. The research report was conducted in June 2022 by GLG via an online survey, with responses from 300 US and UK GCs, heads of litigation and other senior in-house lawyers responsible for their companies’ commercial litigation.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Sydney and Hong Kong.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Commercial Deals

Patent Infringement Litigation Represents Major Growth Sector for LitFin

One of the largest areas of growth for litigation funding commitments is in the world of patent litigation, with patent infringement cases representing a lucrative world of disputes between patent holders, inventors and corporations. These funded lawsuits have become increasingly prevalent, yet with this activity has come an added layer of scrutiny as to the nature and origin of third-party funding. Reporting in Bloomberg Law details this trend, highlighting the recent case of VLSI Technology and Intel Corp., where Fortress Investment Group funded VLSI’s case and successfully secured a $2.18 billion verdict in its favour. Both parties are now set to appear before a federal district court, to examine whether VLSI sufficiently disclosed the financial backing it received. Regardless of the outcome of that case, it is expected that funders will continue to target similar cases, as Westfleet Advisors' managing partner, Charles Agee, points out that the costly and protracted timelines of these cases often could not go forward without third-party funding. Despite the expensive nature of patent infringement disputes, the possibilities of large payouts like the VLSI case make them an attractive proposition for funders. This viewpoint is reflected by other funders, with Burford Capital’s managing director, Katharine Wolanyk, stating that their firm receives more intellectual property-related requests for funding than any other area. Wolanyk also notes that this activity is now seeing patent owners exploring third-party financing much earlier in the process.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Industry Leaders Discuss the Value of Disclosure

One of the hot topics of discussion for litigation finance leaders, regulators and commentators, is the extent to which disclosure of third-party funding needs to be mandated and enforced.  With numerous examples of judges highlighting this issue in ongoing cases, and legislators proposing reforms to disclosure rules, the debate appears to be growing in importance. Reporting by Law360 outlines recent comments from industry figures at a conference hosted by UC Hastings Law School in San Francisco. Speaking in favour of enhanced disclosure, Hausfeld’s global managing partner, Brent Landau, argued that requiring disclosure will actually benefit funders, as it will grant added legitimacy to the practice through transparency. Speaking from a funder’s perspective, Jiamie Chen, director of investor initiatives at Parabellum Capital, claimed that while funders are not opposed to certain disclosure, she believes that the idea of disclosure being used to unearth conflicts of interest is misguided, due to the fact that funders do not influence decisions during the litigation process or offer legal counsel. Bringing a different point of view, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a retired US District Court Judge, pointed out that the existence of funding should not influence a court’s perspective, as any verdict or decision on awards should be made based on a case’s merit alone. This viewpoint was reinforced by Steve Weisbrot, the CEO of UK claims administrator Angeion Group, who argued that litigation funding has been a positive for the legal industry, as it has enabled lawyers without access to funds to fight cases that are ignored by larger firms.
Commercial Fundraising

North Wall Builds on Previous Successes with New €500 Opportunities Fund

With the ongoing economic instability and inflation pressures felt around the globe, investment firms are looking for alternative avenues to maintain returns and scale future growth. As a result, those firms willing to explore more niche opportunities including litigation finance are continuing to raise capital to take advantage. Reported by Bloomberg UK, North Wall Capital is a recent example of this trend, as it looks to raise €500 million to complete a second opportunities fund focused on the European market. North Wall’s chief investment officer, Fabian Chrobog, said that as opportunities in traditional markets remain restricted, the firm is looking for additional funding partnerships to exploit these alternative asset classes. The firm has already raised €250 million, with a significant portion committed by MLC, an Australian superannuation fund. On top of this second Europe opportunities fund, North Wall may soon look to build its third fund focused on litigation, having seen great success with its previous endeavours which included a £100 million commitment to the law firm PGMBM to fight high-profile ESG cases.
Commercial Deals

Pravati Capital’s CEO Discusses the Growth of Litigation Funding and ABS for Law Firms

As the litigation finance industry continues to mature, established leaders within the industry are now able to trace recent developments to the history of this niche area of financing. One such long-established figure, Alexander Chucri, founder and CEO of Pravati Capital, recently shared his thoughts on the most significant changes in litigation funding and what the future of third-party funding holds. Speaking with Dealmakers’ LINE magazine, Mr Chucri spoke about the transformation of litigation finance from a boutique world of small investments, to law firms being open to and eager for financing from firms like Pravati.  In particular, Chucri honed in on recent developments in certain states in the US around Alternative Business Structures (ABS) for law firms, which allows non-lawyers to participate in law firm ownership. While he sees the benefits for law firms seeking capital, Mr Chucri maintains that for a funder like Pravati, it is far more advantageous to invest in a firm through existing methods rather than risk the complications and potential conflicts of interest that come by taking an equity position. As for the future of the litigation finance industry, Mr Chucri sees no slowdown on the horizon and expects growth to continue as law firms and corporates will utilise this tool in their litigation arsenal with increasing frequency. He also highlighted the benefits of working with a dedicated litigation funder over a hedge fund, as the former can handle all case underwriting needs and therefore reduce the complications of sharing confidential data with third-parties.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Omni Bridgeway Weighs In on New Zealand’s Proposed Class Action Reforms

As regulation continues to be the subject of debate in the litigation funding industry, the differences in approach across jurisdictions has shed light on wider issues of legislation covering litigation. In New Zealand, this has most recently manifested through the government’s review of its class action regime and the impact of litigation funding. In an article for BusinessDesk, Omni Bridgeway’s Gracey Campbell offers a funder’s perspective on the Law Commission’s report on class actions, released in June of this year. Their analysis praised the Commission’s recommendations for courts to oversee concurrent class actions, but argued that where concurrent actions do not include members present in both actions, then they should not be classed as competing actions. Furthermore, Campbell suggested that any kind of certification test would only increase the time and cost burdens on proposed class actions, without providing significant benefits. With regard to the Commission’s proposals for third-party funding regulation, the article praised the report’s view of funding as primarily existing to provide access to justice, as well as the decision not to impose any kind of mandatory level of returns to class action members. However, Campbell argued against the proposal of a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that funders would provide for security costs, and instead argued in favour of giving the courts the power and discretion to order this based on a case’s individual circumstances.
Commercial Deals

General Counsels Share Views on Third-Party Litigation Funding

A common refrain from leaders and commentators in the litigation funding industry is that one of the biggest developments that has fuelled growth has been the uptake of third-party funding by corporates. However, the exact type of situation and motivation for these large companies to engage funders is not so clear, and some in-house counsels are still struggling to see the benefits over self-funding. Reporting from the International Legal Finance Association’s (IFLA) inaugural conference, Legal Newsline, highlighted comments by general counsels (GCs) at some of America’s leading companies that suggest widespread acceptance is still not a reality. Rishi Varma, general counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise, acknowledged that while the industry has momentum, GCs still have concerns around undue influence and control by funders over the litigation process and settlement decisions. Looking at the issue from a different perspective, Raytheon Technologies’ chief litigation counsel, Steven Greenspan, argued that a large obstacle is the imbalance in returns that a funder may receive. Greenspan stated that a situation where the funder’s own returns outweigh the client’s is a major issue, therefore funders may need to explore structure agreements which see a more equal distribution of financial return if companies are to be enticed. However, not all GCs shared the same concerns and objections. Sandy Grimm, chief legal officer at Southeastern Grocers, highlighted the benefits of being able to shift costs off the balance book and reduce impact on the company’s budget. Grimm pointed out that being in an industry that primarily values a company’s EBITDA, the value of moving those costs away from the budget and onto a third-party does represent a major benefit.
Commercial

Legal 500 Releases Funder Rankings and Shares Industry Insights from Litigators

Legal 500 has announced its litigation funding rankings for 2023. This year sees the rankings expand to cover not only the top UK funders, but also the leading funders in the US market. In its article announcing the 2023 rankings, Legal 500 provided an update on the state of the market with insights from industry leaders and litigators in both regions. Diane Sullivan, a partner in Weil’s New York office, described how the size and breadth of the industry had grown, with funders now engaged in a wide variety of cases from patent litigation to mass tort cases. Commentary from litigators also stressed the importance of the relationship between law firms and funders, with Jonathan Sachs, partner at BDB Pitmans in London, highlighting the need for funders to trust solicitors and to avoid trying to control the litigation process as a third-party. Meanwhile, Hausfeld’s Lucy Rigby pointed out that funders now exist in a competitive market, and to stand out from the crowd, they must go beyond just providing capital and excel in terms of speed and transparency Legal 500’s finalised rankings for this year included ten firms in its UK listings, whilst its inaugural US rankings included nine funders. Burford, Harbour and Therium were all listed as tier one funders in the UK, and Burford repeated that achievement in the US, alongside Omni Bridgeway. It is worth pointing out that Legal 500 has yet to disclose its methodology for assigning funders to its various tiers.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Deminor’s CEO Argues the EU’s Proposed Fee Caps Would Harm the Industry

As Litigation Finance Journal has reported in recent weeks, the response to the EU Parliament’s approval of the Voss Report has been largely negative from industry leaders across the continent. Whilst funders and law firms alike recognise the need for regulation and oversight, the specific proposals in the report have been criticised for addressing problems that don’t exist, and for a lack of empirical basis. In an interview with The Law Society Gazette, Deminor’s CEO, Erik Bomans, specifically took aim at the proposal to cap litigation funders’ fees to 40% of any awarded damages. Bomans argued that a hard cap like this would result in cases not receiving much-needed financing, as any funder must weigh potential returns against the inherent risks of a case which includes the possibility of exorbitant costs driven up by a prolonged process. Bomans reiterated the criticism of many industry leaders that the proposed changes represent an incomplete understanding of the third-party funding industry, with Bomans further comparing it to the actions of the US Chamber of Commerce, which has always opposed and lobbied against the industry. Bomans argues that there is no more pressure placed on a client by a funder than any normal relationship between a claimant and their legal counsel, citing the existing oversight in place from the courts themselves.
Case Developments Commercial

LCM Funds £900 Million Class Action Against Amazon

Class actions alleging anti-competitive behavior by corporations have become a frequent sight in the UK litigation space, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal as venue for these high-stakes showdowns between consumers and businesses. Many of these actions would not be possible without third-party funding, and last week saw yet another example, as Litigation Capital Management (LCM) announced the financing of a new claim against Amazon. Detailed in reporting by The Guardian, the e-commerce industry leader is facing a class action suit alleging that its ‘Buy Box’ feature misinforms consumers by highlighting products and sellers beneficial to Amazon, rather than promoting the genuine best deals and prices. Julie Hunter, the class representative for the case, argues that by putting either Amazon’s own products or retailers who use Amazon’s logistics services at the top of their online store, the company is using its dominant position to deny consumers’ fair choice. The CEO of LCM, Patrick Moloney, said that this case was the latest in a series of competition-related cases that the firm has funded, and that the funder would continue to support consumers in disputes in the UK. The £900 million class action covers all UK consumers who purchased products through Amazon since October 2016, and is an opt-out claim. Amazon’s representative denied any wrongdoing by the business, and stated that there was no merit to the claim, as the company has always supported independent sellers and therefore allowed consumers to choose from the best prices.
Case Developments Commercial

Woodsford Funds $1 Billion Class Action Against Toyota Australia

The Volkswagen emissions scandal of 2015 stands out as one of the largest automobile industry scandals in history, and one of the most notable examples of a corporation facing repercussions for violating environmental standards. In what may be a successor to that, Toyota is facing a major class action suit in Australia, alleging that it produced hundreds of thousands of vehicles with so-called diesel defeat devices (DDD). An article by Sky News Australia illustrates the scale of this class-action, which alleges that up to 500,000 vehicles may have been affected, with the prospect of a settlement that could exceed $1 billion. Maddens Lawyers Australia, which is bringing the action against Toyota, argue that Toyota’s conduct was both ‘misleading and deceptive’ and violated Australian Consumer Law. Brendan Pendergast, special counsel at Maddens Lawyers, argues that if the allegation is proven, then this would represent one of the largest class action successes in Australian history. The class action is being funded by Woodsford, as part of an ongoing push by the funder to back cases targeting ESG violations and open avenues for consumers who otherwise would lack the capital to seek legal redress. Charlie Morris, chief investment officer at Woodsford, states that this action is about offering justice to consumers who were deceived, as well as holding corporations to account where they deliberately act in a way that harms the environment. In a statement, Toyota Australia denied any wrongdoing and stated that all of its processes meet emissions standards, and that they will strongly defend against this class action.
Commercial Deals

New Law Firm Brings Together Transatlantic Expertise to Target Group Litigation

As Litigation Finance Journal heard at IMN’s conference this week, group litigation continues to be a growing market and one of particular interest to litigation funders in the UK and around the world. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that a new law firm has launched in the UK, specifically targeting this area of litigation. As reported in The Law Society Gazette, the launch of Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar & Roberts LLP represents a transatlantic partnership between two English barristers and a US trial lawyer. Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm, along with its chief operating officer, Kevin Roberts, represent the American side of this partnership. While both the UK founding partners, Tom Longstaff and Ducan Hedar, hail from Manchester-based Exchange Chambers and have both previously worked as solicitors at Linklaters. Mr Lanier stated that he views the UK as an ‘emerging market’ for the same kind of group litigation that has flourished in the US, whilst Mr Longstaff agreed that there is a great opportunity for UK litigators to learn lessons from legal actions in the US that seek to represent groups of consumers seeking justice. Now that the firm has been granted its license by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, it expects to announce its first case in November, and will continue to recruit staff for its office in Manchester.
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Hausfeld & Co LLP: Amazon faces £900m demand to compensate tens of millions of UK customers, as Lawsuit accuses E-Commerce giant of unlawfully favouring its own product offers

A ground-breaking new legal claim (“UK Buy Box Claim”) alleges that Amazon has breached competition law and caused millions of UK customers to pay higher prices for products sold on Amazon.co.uk and the Amazon mobile app by obscuring better-value deals.

The opt-out collective action, to be filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London, will allege that the Big Tech company abuses its status as the dominant online marketplace and harms customers by channelling them towards its “featured offer”.

This featured offer – prominently located in the “Buy Box” on Amazon’s website and mobile app – is the only offer considered and selected by the vast majority of users, many of whom trust Amazon and wrongly assume it is the best deal.

However, Amazon uses a secretive and self-favouring algorithm to ensure that the Buy Box nearly always features goods sold directly by Amazon itself, or by third-party retailers who pay hefty storage and delivery fees to Amazon, it will be alleged.

The Buy Box is designed and presented in a way that effectively prevents millions of consumers from navigating the site to find cheaper offers, or better delivery options, for the same product, according to the claim.

Such manipulation of consumers is a breach of Amazon’s obligation as the dominant marketplace not to distort competition. The claim will seek damages from Amazon estimated in the region of £900 million.

Julie Hunter, a longstanding advocate of consumer rights, is seeking to represent the interests of tens of millions of Amazon users in the collective action, which is due to be filed before the end of October.

Who is eligible

Anyone who lives in the UK and made purchases on Amazon.co.uk or on the Amazon app since October 2016 is an eligible member of the claimant class. In accordance with Competition Appeal Tribunal rules, the collective action is being filed on behalf of all potential claimants without them needing to actively opt in to the claim.

The case against Amazon

The e-commerce giant is accused of unlawfully abusing its dominant position. According to the claim, Amazon steers potential purchasers to products which are not designed to be the best offers for consumers. Rather, the so-called Buy Box offers are systematically biased to favour goods sold by Amazon itself as part of its retail business; and/or by third party sellers who pay to use Amazon’s order fulfilment and delivery services (which are a key source of revenue for Amazon).

Other sellers, who do not pay for Amazon’s fulfilment services, are nearly always excluded from the Buy Box, stifling their ability to offer consumers a better deal, and leaving consumers out of pocket. It will be alleged that Amazon uses the Buy Box feature to manipulate consumer decision-making - directing customers to the product featured prominently in the Buy Box, and thereby obscuring the full range of options available to them, which may be cheaper and/or offer greater value.

The claim will accuse Amazon of breaching section 18 of the UK Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It coincides with increased concern amongst the public and policymakers about Amazon’s dominant position as both a marketplace and a market participant (see Investigations and regulatory decisions, below).  

About the class representative

Julie Hunter has worked exclusively in consumer research, advocacy and protection for more than 20 years. She is an independent consultant who has worked with leading consumer organisations in the UK and abroad on topics such as consumer vulnerability, digital services, financial services, consumer rights, customer service and complaints.

Ms Hunter is Chair of the Consumer & Public Interest Network, an independent organisation representing consumers in the development of voluntary standards, supported by the UK standards body BSI. Ms Hunter is also a member of the Financial Services Consumer Panel (FSCP), an independent statutory body representing consumer interests in the development of UK policy for the regulation of financial services. Earlier in her career, Ms Hunter spent six years leading research projects and investigations at Which?.

Investigations and regulatory decisions

The European Commission is pursuing two formal antitrust investigations into Amazon.  One of these, initiated in November 2020, is evaluating the same alleged “self-preferencing” by Amazon as is alleged in the UK claim.  The Commission’s preliminary finding was that the rules and criteria for the Buy Box unduly favour Amazon's own retail business, as well as marketplace sellers that use Amazon's logistics and delivery services. The Commission is currently evaluating commitments offered by Amazon to address these concerns.

In July 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA”) announced that it was investigating Amazon’s business practices, including how it sets the criteria for selection of the featured offer.  The CMA indicated that its investigation followed on from that conducted by the European Commission.

An investigation by Italy’s competition regulator concluded in December 2021 that Amazon had abused its dominant position by making certain benefits to third-party retailers conditional on their purchasing of its logistics service.

In the United States, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust concluded that Amazon’s online retail dominance gives it monopoly power over third-party sellers on its US marketplace and that it effectively precludes retailers who have not purchased its logistics services from “winning the Buy Box”.

Statements

Julie Hunter, the proposed class representative in the action, said: “Nine out of ten shoppers in the UK have used Amazon, according to surveys, and two thirds use it at least once a month.  Like countless millions of people in the UK, I often use Amazon for the convenience it offers.

“Many consumers believe that Amazon offers good choice and value, but instead it uses tricks of design to manipulate consumer choice and direct customers towards the featured offer in its Buy Box. Far from being a recommendation based on price or quality, the Buy Box favours products sold by Amazon itself, or by retailers who pay Amazon for handling their logistics. Other sellers, however good their offers might be, are effectively shut out – relegated down-page, or hidden several clicks away in an obscure corner of Amazon’s website.

“Online shoppers have a right to be treated fairly and to be able to make informed decisions. This lack of transparency and manipulation of choice is an abuse of consumers’ trust, as well as a raid on their wallets.  Amazon occupies an incredibly powerful position in the market, making it impossible for consumers to take individual action. Amazon shouldn’t be allowed to set the rules in its favour and treat consumers unfairly. That is why I am bringing this action.”

Lesley Hannah, one of the partners at Hausfeld & Co LLP leading the litigation, said:

“Most consumers use the Buy Box when purchasing products on Amazon – estimates range from 82% to 90%. This means that millions of consumers have paid too much and been denied choice. This action seeks fair redress for them.

“Amazon takes advantage of consumers’ well-known tendency to focus on prominently-placed and eye-catching displays, such as the Buy Box. Amazon doesn’t present consumers with a fair range of choices – on the contrary, the design of the Buy Box makes it difficult for consumers to locate and purchase better or cheaper options. Amazon should not be allowed to take advantage of its customers in this anticompetitive way.” 

“Competition laws are there to protect everyone. They ensure that individuals can make genuine and informed choices, and are not simply led into making selections which benefit the companies they interact with. Fairness is at the heart of competition law and consumers are not being treated fairly by Amazon.”

Further information

Affected Amazon users, on whose behalf the class action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by LCM Finance, a global litigation funder.

Ms Hunter is represented by Anna Morfey, Lesley Hannah and Aqeel Kadri of Hausfeld & Co LLP, and by Marie Demetriou KC, Robert O’Donoghue KC and Sarah Love of Brick Court Chambers.

To learn more about Ms Hunter’s claim, please visit www.ukbuyboxclaim.com.

About Hausfeld & Co LLP

Hausfeld is a leading disputes-only law firm specialising in competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of collective redress and group claims, including abuse of dominance litigation against Big Tech and other large corporates.

The firm pioneered the Trucks Cartel litigation in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. It has acted on some of the most complex damages claims of the last decade: on the “Interchange Fee” litigation against Visa and Mastercard, in “Google Shopping” claims on behalf of price comparison websites against Google; against six financial institutions over their participation in unlawful price-fixing of the foreign exchange currency markets; and against Google, Apple and Qualcomm in relation to their alleged abuse of dominance concerning Google Play Store, Apple App Store and the smartphone chip market respectively.

Commercial Special Features

Recap of IMN’s Inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum

IMN’s inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum brought together a crowd of international thought-leaders from across the industry, showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content.

Following IMN’s successful New York conference, the London event demonstrated the growing reach and maturity of litigation funding, as topics covered everything from recent industry developments to the nuances of international arbitration and dispute resolution. At the core of the day’s discussion, the central themes of regulation, ESG and insurance were present throughout each session, with unique insights being shared by panelists.

The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, where the topic of regulation took center-stage. Whilst most speakers agreed that the proposed reforms in the recently approved Voss Report were a step in the wrong direction for the industry, Deminor’s Erik Bomans offered a contrarian take on regulation, and highlighted that the very existence of this debate around regulation is a positive sign of the industry being taken seriously.

During the second panel on jurisdictional differences in Europe, this view was echoed by Clémence Lemétais of UGGC Avocats, who stated that it was promising that the EU parliament is raising the visibility of the industry, but that the draft resolution ‘shows a lack of knowledge’ about the industry itself. This was further reinforced in terms of individual country requirements by Koen Rutten of Finch Dispute Resolution, who argued that regulation has to be based on facts, and has to address a problem, which he does not see in the Nethlerlands.

A fireside chat with Rocco Pirozzolo of Harbour Underwriting gave the audience a detailed overview of the impact and evolving nature of ATE insurance on litigation funding. During this interview, Mr Pirozzolo highlighted the difference in approaches between insurers and funders when assessing cases, but further highlighted the need for collaboration between the two to deliver wider access to justice.

Two panels completed a busy morning of discussion, with the first providing insight into the evolving nature of funders’ approach to capitalization, and the second analyzing the best practice for those seeking funding. LCM’s Patrick Moloney honed in on the evolution of the industry having come from a place of being perceived as ‘the dark arts and then loan sharks’ to now being in a position where funders like LCM garner investment from public listing. Later, Ben Moss of Orchard Group, offered a detailed overview of how requests for funding should be best structured and highlighted the ‘holy trinity’ of ‘merits, budget and quantum’.

The afternoon saw a broadening of the range of discussions, kicking off with Tom Goodhead of Pogust Goodhead providing an insightful presentation on group litigation in the UK and the need for future reforms to enable growth. Another two panels brought a wealth of insights, with the topics of co-investing, diversification and the secondary market in the first, being followed by a wide-ranging discussion of the different types and applications of litigation insurance.

After a breakout meeting explored the best practices in talent development and growth for women in litigation finance, a trio of panels capped off the day’s agenda. In a wide-ranging discussion of innovative deal terms and structures, panelists from the likes of Brown Rudnick, Litigation Funding Advisers and Stifel, provided insight into everything from the effect of insurance on pricing to the increasingly technical and data-drive process of due-diligence.

Taking a more global approach for the penultimate panel, Alaco’s Nikos Asimakopoulos, skillfully guided the audience through a global look at enforcements and international arbitration. The panel of legal experts discussed an extensive range of topics, with Tatiana Sainati of Wiley Rein, spotlighting ESG as a primary driver in the increase in transnational disputes and particularly in the EU where ESG initiatives have taken hold.

In the final panel of the day, the topic focused in on the use of litigation funding by corporates and institutional investors. In an illuminating exchange, Woodsford’s Steven Friel played down claims by other funders that CFOs and other corporate executives primarily look to litigation funding for its ability to shift legal costs off the balance book. Instead, Friel and other panelists highlighted the need for funders to bring more than just capital to the table, and that true value could be brought through a funder’s insight, as well as its ability to manage the litigation process and reduce the non-financial resource burden on corporates.

Overall, IMN’s inaugural UK event displayed the incredible depth of the litigation funding industry and gave attendees a wealth of insights that will no doubt generate further discussion and debate among leaders. In a day of packed content, IMN’s roster of speakers and panelists provided both high-level overviews and detailed looks at the nuances of certain industry sub-sectors.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article erroneously attributed the detailed overview of how funding requests should be structured to Rosemary Ioannou of Fortress Investment Group. The remark was made by Ben Moss of Orchard Group.  We regret the error. 
Commercial Legal Innovation

Funders Must Move Beyond Providing Capital and Add Value Through Collaboration

To close out IMN’s International Litigation Finance event, a panel discussed the ways in which corporates and institutional investors are using litigation finance. Moderated by Stefano Catelani, Founding Partner at Calimala Legal, the panelists included Andrew Leitch, Senior Associate at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Sonia Hadjadj, Chief Insights Officer of Crafty Counsel, Noah Wortman, Director-Global Collective Redress for Pogust Goodhead, Verity Jackson-Grant, Head of Marketing and Business Development at Simmons & Simmons and Steven Friel, CEO of Woodsford.

The panel began with Steven Friel challenging the oft-repeated claim that corporates use litigation finance to offset legal costs from their balance books, stating that in Woodsford’s experience, this is rare and not the primary motivations for corporates. Friel went further and argued that in regular commercial litigation there isn’t often a great incentive for corporates to seek third-party funding, saying that ‘more has been said about it than done’. Instead, Friel noted that the real value of litigation funding to these institutions tends to be in group litigation, where a funder like Woodsford can bring these opportunities to stakeholders’ attention, organize them and then manage the process moving forward. Verity Jackson-Grant agreed with Friel’s position and highlighted that it was refreshing to hear a funder challenge this mantra which is regularly repeated by other industry leaders. She pointed out that while corporates are not using litigation finance for every kind of case, there are occasions where ad hoc cases can represent cash flow issues or just unnecessary hassle for using legal spend, where a company will then take advantage of third-party funding. Instead, Jackson-Grant argued that litigation funding should be seen as a tool that can be used when it adds value. Noah Wortman emphasized that in his experience of working with institutional investors and particularly pension funds, the value of bringing in a third-party funder often stems from a desire to outsource the management of these cases externally. Not only does it offload administrative responsibilities and alleviate strain, but funders can actually add real value through their experience and insight from working on similar cases. Wortman also emphasized that in order to maximize value, funders must highlight that the relationship is collaborative and a partnership beyond just funding. Sonia Hadjadj brought the insightful perspective of in-house legal counsels, stating that for those in that role, every decision has to be reinforced by a business case, and in order to justify bringing in a funder, in-house counsels need the support to actually bring a viable business proposition to the CFO. Andrew Leitch put forward that this is an area where education and information still plays a key role in helping to overcome these obstacles, and that all leaders in the industry need to continue to provide that education wherever possible. Woodsford’s Friel also stated that funders need to be experts at removing obstacles in the litigation process, and offering more than just capital, arguing that if all a funder can provide is capital then ‘clients want us to be cheap, fast and quiet.’ Jackson-Grant added to this idea, suggesting that funders need to move away from the message of ‘funding is your solution’ and instead work collaboratively with lawyers and insurers to offer options to general counsels, and then let those counsels choose the solution that best fits their problem.
Commercial Legal Innovation

Wide Range of Insurance Solutions Available to Litigators and Funders

Building on the earlier fireside chat about ATE Insurance, IMN's conference began its afternoon agenda with a panel exploring the broader impact of insurance on the litigation funding market.

The panel was moderated by Steve Jones, Executive Director & Joint Practice Head at Gallagher, and the panelists included: Robin Ganguly, Executive Director for UK & EMEA at Aon, Carlos Ara, Equity Partner at Cuatrecasas, Mohsin Patel, Co-Founder & Director of Factor Risk Management Ltd and Rocco Pirozzolo, Underwriting Director at Harbour Underwriting.

The panel began with an overview by Rocco Pirozzolo on the ways in which insurance providers have innovated to meet the needs of funders, as the capacity required for these cases has continually increased. In particular, he focused in on Security for Costs cover, which has been designed to combat defendants' use of this mechanism as a stalling tactic. Pirozzolo explained that this can come in the form of an anti-avoidance endorsement or deed of indemnity. As a result, Pirozzolo argued, these tactics force defendants to instead look at the merits of the case and often settle.

Mohsin Patel addressed the market growth which has seen the volume and scale of requirements for insurers increase. As a result, some industry leaders are looking to co-insuring arrangements and therefore, the importance of brokers has also grown, as they can help reduce that 'transactional angst'. Patel also highlighted the utility of Capital Protection Insurance (CPI), which can allow a funder to remove the downside risk of losing a claim in exchange for a lower potential return. Patel argued that CPI can make a broader range of cases financially viable, thereby benefitting both funders and lawyers.

Moving from single-case to portfolio insurance, Robin Ganguly examined the ways in which insurers will assess the risks of different types of portfolios. For those with existing historic cases to be insured, insurers can tailor a policy for a secondary market sale based on factors including case duration and funder involvement. For those empty or forward looking portfolios, it is the funder's track record that the insurers are underwriting. Ganguly also stressed that insurers can put limits on policies for these portfolios including case type and size, jurisdiction of cases, and can even mandate insurer approval of individual cases.

Carlos Ara agreed with the panel that the evolving market is experiencing a wider breadth of investors, and that this has also opened the way for insurance policies that can be taken out after the initial investment, or in cases where secondary market transactions are possible. Ara also raised the suggestion of greater collaboration between funders and insurers, with opportunities for them to collaborate on the creation of new products for clients.

Mr Pirozzolo also covered the cases of defendants taking ATE insurance policies. He explained that this was a less common occurrence, in part because it is much more difficult for a defendant to define what would count as a win. Outcomes are clear when the claim is dropped or the defendant is successful at trial, but other degrees of success make it harder for insurers to offer the right cover for a defendant. Pirozzolo did raise the very rare example where insurance can be provided, which only kicks in if the case goes to trial, but in his own words, 'it's jolly hard to do'.

Commercial Fundraising

Funders Diversify Their Capitalization Sources, Driven by ESG and Emerging Markets

In a panel during the morning of IMN's International Litigation Finance event, the topic of differing approaches to capitalization and sources of investment was discussed. The panel was moderated by Dennis Knitowski, EVP & Head of Capital Markets at Cartiga, LLC and featured Patrick Moloney, Managing Director of LCM, Andi Mandell, Partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel and Katherine Mulhern, CEO of Restitution Impact Limited.

The discussion began with the panelists exploring the evolving nature of funder capitalization. LCM's Moloney spoke to his firm's blended approach, where its business model is that of a fund manager whilst also utilizing listings on both the Australian and London Stock Exchanges. Moloney noted that this has been an evolution as the company and wider industry has matured, and that LCM is now seeing interest from increasingly sophisticated investors, including endowment funds.

Andi Mandell discussed her view on the North American market, where there has been an increased interest from private equity and hedge fund entities that are keen to provide funding to law firms. Mandell noted that recent legal reforms in states like Arizona and Utah, which allow non-lawyers to share in the firms' revenue, has also driven further investment. However, Mandell clarified that this new Alternative Business Structure has also attracted bad investment into the sector.

In a different area of focus, Katherine Mulhern's Restitution works in the space of supporting post-war newly democratic government, and therefore has a wider approach to seeking investment. Mulhern explained that Restitution works with everyone from foundations and donors to ESG investors and insurers.

The panel also discussed the need to garner mainstream appeal for the litigation funding industry in order to increase the pool of investors engaged with funders. Moloney highlighted that the industry went from being viewed as 'the dark arts and then loan sharks', but the perception of the industry has already shifted dramatically. Mandell noted that ratings agencies are now more willing to rate some transactions in the market, but also raises the issue that the IRS has still not provided concrete tax guidelines for funding deals, which is a barrier to some investors.

When looking to attract new investors, the panel agreed that ESG investors are likely to represent an increasingly large share of the market, as the number of ESG-related cases is continuing to rise. However, Mulhern pointed out that the Sustainability and Governance aspects of ESG are less-defined, but that if funders can successfully define and measure impact, then class actions in this field will be a valuable asset. Moloney also suggested that emerging markets play a similar role in broadening a funder's portfolio, as they continue to look for jurisdictions with evolving legal systems to open the door for third-party funding.

A discussion of the impact of technology and data on litigation funding led to a question around the rise or cryptocurrency and the blockchain, and whether it has had a significant impact on funders. Moloney acknowledged that it is beginning to encroach on funding and has utility for those looking to trade in business and cases. However, Mulhern provided a unique view, and described it as a mixed blessing. She pointed out that while crypto can unlock capital, it is also widely used in countries with weak regulatory oversight to hide money.

Announcements Commercial Deals

EU and UK market are set to capture 15.8% of global litigation funding, poised for strongest growth worldwide

Deminor, a leading international litigation funder, projects that the investment potential for litigation funding in Europe is set to reach USD 1.8bn annually, representing nearly 16% of the global market. This is according to the white paper, Litigation Funding from a European Perspective, released today. Deminor predicts the investment potential for litigation funding in Europe is set to reach nearly USD 3.7bn in 2025 (+100%), compared to USD 17.8bn globally in 2020.

The actual amount invested in litigation annually is still a fraction of the investment potential estimated at 27% (USD 486m in Europe).  As a percentage of total litigation spend, actual amounts invested by third party funders in litigation represent less than 1%.  Real investments in litigation are likely to move closer to the investment potential over the next years, but fears that third party litigation funding is driving up the cost of doing business in Europe are largely overdone.

The white paper predicts the ESG agenda will be one of the drivers for growth in the UK and Europe, with cases having already been heard claiming damages for environmental harm. Climate and human rights issues are equally set to benefit from litigation funding over the next few years as this market looks to keep up with changing social issues. Other areas for growth include anti-trust damages, commercial litigation, including intellectual property, and data breaches.

Erik Bomans, CEO of Deminor, commented: “The growth of litigation funding in Europe will not only create a shift in perception, but in consumers’ and businesses’ ability to successfully resolve legal disputes that otherwise wouldn’t be accessible to them. Given the economic uncertainty, Deminor anticipates the market will shift towards businesses using the funding to be strategic with capital and release money that would otherwise be tied up in litigation. This is also likely to lead to more successful litigation outcomes where businesses can benefit from the knowledge of experts in the field.”

The report forecasts that while the EU market is still relatively small, the increase in the use of litigation funding is expected to hit annual growth of 8.3% in the next five years. Growing costs and focus on working capital is a key factor, prompting businesses to free-up working cash from long-term litigation projects and use litigation funding as a financial management tool. The United Kingdom is set to be the biggest single market contributor, with annual investment potential reaching USD 1bn.

Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have been key players facilitating collective actions ahead of the European Representative Action Directive which makes a collective action mechanism available for consumers in all EU countries in the future. Several business lobby groups are calling for regulation of the litigation funding industry but, given the industry’s small scale in comparison to the litigation market as a whole, this looks premature.

Erik Bomans added: “Regulation is not necessarily negative and may create more certainty and transparency in the market, provided it is used to protect fair market competition and access to justice for all market players regardless of their financial means. The goal should be to give consumers and smaller companies litigation options to support justice, to champion social progress and to restore balance.”

About Deminor

Founded in 1990, Deminor is a leading privately-owned and international litigation funder with offices in Brussels, Hamburg, Hong Kong, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Milan and New York. Deminor’s name, derived from the French “défense des minoritaires”, reflects its origins in providing services to minority shareholders. Deminor is still very much defined by the pursuit of good causes and its determination to restore justice for clients. Combining skill sets from 16 different nationalities and 14 languages, Deminor has funded cases in 18 jurisdictions including the Americas, the Middle East and offshore centres such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. With specialists in arbitration, intellectual property, competition, corporate & post-M&A, investments, enforcement, and tax litigation, Deminor has achieved positive recoveries for clients in more than 81% of the cases it has funded, against an industry average of 70%.