Trending Now

Burford German Funding Sued Over Hausfeld Ownership Stake

By Harry Moran |

The ownership or funding of law firms by litigation funders continues to be a hot topic in the world of legal funding, with models such as alternative business structures (ABS) gaining momentum in places like Arizona. However, a complaint filed by a client in Delaware reveals a falling out due to the reverse funding model, where a law firm maintained an ownership stake in the funder.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers a new lawsuit brought against Burford German Funding (BGF), an affiliate of Burford Capital, by a client who claims that the funder failed to disclose the fact that BGF was partly owned by the same law firm it nominated to lead the client’s antitrust cases. Financialright Claims GMBH (FRC) alleges that when it negotiated the funding agreement with BGF for its antitrust litigation against the trucks cartel, it had no knowledge “that Hausfeld  was  also  a  part  owner  of  BGF  through  an  entity  called German Litigation Solutions LLC (“GLS”) or that one of the lead German partners at Hausfeld responsible for the firm’s representation of FRC had a personal stake.”

The complaint, filed by FRC in the Delaware Superior Court, explains that as Hausfeld is part-owner of BGF, and the funding agreement “provides for a share of FRC’s recoveries in the Trucks Litigations to flow to FRC’s lawyers”, this constitutes a contingency fee arrangement which are illegal under German law.  FRC had filed a lawsuit against Hausfeld in a German court and then applied for discovery from BGF, Burford and GLS in the Delaware District Court, which was followed by an assertion by these parties that the application for discovery “is subject to mandatory arbitration” under the terms of the funding agreement.

FRC argues that “as  a  direct  result  of  BGF’s  fraud  on  FRC,  FRC  did  agree  to  the Arbitration Agreement that—according to BGF—subsumes disputes between FRC and GLS.” However, FRC claims that it “would  never  have  agreed  to  an  arbitration  clause  requiring  it  to arbitrate claims against Hausfeld”, were it not for the concealment of Hausfeld’s ownership stake in BGF. FRC is therefore asking the Superior Court to declare that “BGF fraudulently induced  FRC  into  agreeing  to  the  Arbitration  Agreement”, and that the agreement should be declared both invalid and unenforceable.

Lisa Sharrow, spokesperson at Hausfeld LLP, provided the following statement:  “The US-based Hausfeld LLP and the UK-based Hausfeld & Co LLP hold indirect economic minority interests in Burford German Funding. These are separate legal entities from Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP that do not practice law in Germany. Burford German Funding was of course developed and set up in a way that was fully compliant with all relevant regulations.”

David Helfenbein, spokesperson at Burford, also provided a response to Bloomberg via email: “There is a dispute in Germany between a client Burford has funded and its lawyers. Burford is not a party to that dispute and its outcome has no impact on us. This Delaware proceeding is a third-party discovery request to Burford for material for the German litigation, which Burford believes should be adjudicated in arbitration and not in the Delaware courts.”

The full complaint filed by FRC can be read here.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Case Developments

View All

Administrators for VFS Legal Repay Millions to Creditors

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

For those litigation funders who achieve great success with their investments in meritorious claims, the financial returns can create the foundation for a long-term strategic growth. However, with the inherent risk at play in any legal funding enterprise, there will always be funders who do not survive in the market.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the status of the collapsed litigation funder, VFS Legal, with administrators having reportedly been able to pay back millions of pounds to the company’s creditors by recovering loans taken out by law firms. 

In the last six months, administrators have reportedly been able to return £3.9m to VFS’ one secured creditor, resulting in a total of £22.2m in payments made to investor OBS. In addition to these sums paid to the creditor, administrators have also fully repaid £74,000 to preferential creditors. Finally, unsecured creditors who were owed a total of £9m have been given a final dividend of 5.34p on the pound.

Alvarez & Marsal Europe LLP, as the firm appointed to handle the administration of VFS, have reportedly accumulated £284,000 in time costs, with their final fees expected to exceed the starting estimate of £1.5 million.

As LFJ covered in August 2023 when VFS Legal had confirmed the appointment of administrators, the funder had reportedly provided £150 million in funding to support over 25,000 cases across the last eight years, with law firms including Slater and Gordon having previously received funding. However, by 30 June 2022, VFS reportedly owed £38.7 million in repayments within the following year, primarily comprised of a bank loan for £35.6 million.

Henderson & Jones Awarded £2.15m for Assigned Breach of Confidence Claim

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

A decision handed down in the High Court earlier this week has demonstrated the potential value for funders in securing the assignment of a claim, providing the funder with more control over the litigation, and when a claim is successful, a direct return on investment through any eventual damages.

An article in Legal Futures covers the ruling from the High Court, where litigation funder Henderson & Jones has been awarded £2.15 million in damages in the case of Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors. Henderson & Jones took assignment of a claim by Tony Gifford in December 2021, a software inventor who had accused his early-stage investors of misusing confidential information shared in private meetings to develop their own software application. 

As a result of this breach of confidence, Mr Gifford claimed that he had been unable to secure funding from other investors, as Salica Investments and Dominic Perks had created competition through their own business. Mr Justice Calver’s ruling found in favour of Gifford’s claim, stating that it was “clear that Mr Perks stood to benefit personally financially from the misuse of the confidential information.”  Notably, the size of the eventual £2.15m award was made by the judge without any input from expert witnesses for the defendants, as they had failed to deliver expert reports prior to the deadline. 

Henderson & Jones’ managing director, Piers Elliott, provided the following comment on the judgment: “We’re very happy with the outcome and are delighted to have been able to assist Mr Gifford, who has been fighting for justice for many years.”

Hugh Sims KC and Jay Jagasia from Guildhall Chambers represented Henderson & Jones, instructed by Cardium Law Limited.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Calver can be read here.

LCM Announces Filing of Appeal in Australian Energy Class Action

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As LFJ reported in December 2024, an Australian class action funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) had received an unfavourable ruling in the Federal Court of Australia, with the judge ruling against the claim brought over claims that two government-owned entities engaged in market manipulation to create an artificially scarce supply and raise prices.

An announcement from LCM revealed that an appeal has been filed in the class action brought on behalf of Queensland consumers against the Stanwell Corporation LTD and CS Energy LTD. The funder’s brief announcement suggested that further details around the appeal would be released in due course, stating: “We look forward to engaging further with investors after our interim results have been published on 18 March 2025.“

In LCM’s release following the December ruling, CEO Patrick Moloney had said that their “expectation has always been that an appeal in this case was likely, regardless of the initial outcome” and that they “remain confident in the strength of the underlying claim.” The previous announcement also included a top-line overview of LCM’s involvement in the case, disclosing that the funder had provided A$25m in funding from its own balance sheet capital to support the class action.

The first instance judgment from Justice Dennington in the case of Stillwater Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Stanwell Corporation Ltd can be read here.