News and analysis dedicated to the commercial litigation funding sector including regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

While not legally binding, the recent NYC Bar Association opinion on litigation funding is a powerful statement on the ethics of funding and what regulations are needed. In response to this, a 25-person working group on litigation funding was assembled. 

As litigation funding increases in popularity, funders find that they can take their pick of lawyers and cases to back. While on the other hand, securing the funding needed to successfully litigate a case can be a challenge. Aside from the usual considerations—potential recovery amount and time, overall merits of the case, etc.—funders look closely at the lawyer(s) involved.  

A UK case involving the post office, buggy accounting software, and widespread accusations of theft was big news across the pond. After numerous sub-postmasters were accused of theft, many endured firing, public shaming, loss of property, and even jail time. The real culprit was bad accounting software made by a company called Horizon.  Now, the plaintiffs are alleging that the bulk of their payout will go to the firm that financed the legal case—and not to the people who were actually hurt. 

International Women’s Day has come and gone.  But the issues women face in the workplace—and in law firms in particular—are still present.  With that in mind, Buford Capital has set aside a roughly $50 million funding pool to help balance the gender gap in litigation funding.  

In 2018, the NYC Bar surprised a lot of folks by issuing a formal opinion declaring litigation funding in conflict with the Bar’s rules on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, as outlined in Rule 5.4 of the professional conduct code. The reaction within the funding community was swift, however no formal response has been delivered… until now. 

The Arkin Cap is officially sunk. A UK Court of Appeal has sided with the trial court in the case of Davey v. Money, which found that the Arkin Cap is merely a suggestions, and courts are not bound by its limitations. 

No one will ever accuse Aussie law firm Maurice Blackburn of not being proactive. The class action king (Maurice has filed the most in Australia) is pursuing a class action claim against banking giant NAB, and plans to use a contingency-fee model. There’s just one wrinkle here: contingency-fee arrangements aren’t legal in Australia. The state of Victoria is mulling legislation that would legalize such arrangements, but hasn’t passed the final bill yet. 

“Lawyer-Directed” litigation finance, whereby a funder forms a partnership with contingency counsel, provides an opportunity to work around some of the issues that exist in client-directed funding – most notably issues that arise when creditors or lienholders are awaiting recoupment from the client, pending successful litigation. Many funders are averse to partnering with a client that is encumbered by senior lienholders, hence many such claims go unfunded, despite the merits of the underlying case. Lawyer-directed funding provides an attractive solution. 

New Zealand has been far slower to adopt litigation funding than neighboring Australia, where the practice originated. However, the funding market is surging in kiwi-land, thanks in part to local funder LPF Group, which has bankrolled some sizable claims. 

The bankruptcy trustee for the now-defunct aircraft parts manufacturer Super98, is looking to clawback payments made to law firm Quinn Emanuel and litigation funder IMF Bentham, for a claim the company pursued against Delta Airlines. 

Litigation funder JustKapital is considering bailing on the Westpac claim, after the Australian Supreme Court overturned common fund orders.