Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Firm-Funder Partnerships

September 29, 2022

Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Firm-Funder Partnerships

This Day 2 panel featured Alex Chucri, CEO and Founder of Pravati Capital, Vincent Montalto, Partner at DLA Piper, and Ronald Schutz, Partner at Robins Kaplan. The panel was moderated by Kathryn Boyd, Partner at Hecht Partners. Discussion topics ranged from operationalizing firm decisions involving funding, to the best ways to structure a funding partnership or alliance. Not everyone knows about the various structures of relationships between law firms and funders, so the panel addressed the various models in play, including those that involve some form of recourse funding. Pravati has a debt structure in play, which founder Alex Chucri thinks makes the most sense for his firm’s structure. He believes in recourse to the firm, to the management team, and personal guarantees. This makes investors more comfortable, knowing that Pravati has skin in the game. Panelists also discussed having to monitor the capital structures, and being cautious about capital allocation. A lot of funders raise $100MM and need to put that capital to work, and so they finance claims the wouldn’t otherwise take on. This is concerning. “When you put capital into a deal, it changes the whole landscape of a deal,” according to Vincent Montalto. His firm has implemented internal structures to monitor capital expenditure and management. The panel also delved into some of the risks of partnering with funders, including whether funders will withdraw their funding – how and why would they do this? Where is funder money coming from – there are all types of investment structures out there, law firms have to be aware of those, so they can better understand the risk to the funder, which presents a downstream risk to them. These are things that the average lawyer in a law firm doesn’t appreciate, but it’s very important to know if the funder  has the capital on hand, is it subject to capital calls, etc. One final point on the tax implications of recourse funding: recourse funding can be clawed back, and so its treated as a loan and so it’s not taxed. Recently there was a legal standing that if the funding structure is non-recourse, that is treated as income, which means it is taxes. Often, there are a lot of emotions about getting a deal done, so they overlook the tax implications, and there is a real danger there.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.