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

An Australian court recently offered guidance regarding when litigation funding agreements will be grandfathered, vs when they’ll be subjected to the Managed Investment Scheme regime. This came in the form…

Third-party litigation funding has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade, and brought with it tremendous innovation. The pandemic spurred many investors to diversify their portfolios with uncorrelated,…

An ‘Initial Litigation Offering’ billed as the first tokenized lawsuit debuted on Republic in October of this year. In the case against one California county, token holders may receive a…

Manolete, the leading UK insolvency LitFin firm, recently secured a GBP 35 million funding package in support of its plans for future growth. The London-based funder focuses on specialist recovery…

Law firm ownership has been changing in recent years. Legal professionals in Australia and the UK are leading the world regarding ownership of legal firms. Recent developments in US states like Arizona, combined with a more liberal approach on ownership from the American Bar Association, means that the tide may be turning on this issue. Other US states are considering similar measures, including California, Utah, Florida, Illinois, and Michigan.

Affirmative recovery programs are a growing trend, and with good reason. ARPs involve monetizing existing litigation once believed to be too costly or time consuming to pursue. Burford’s 2021 Legal Asset Report has some telling insights on ARPs. This year’s survey includes 378 senior financial officers of companies whose revenue is at least $50 million annually.

What happens when two women using similar names both want to sell branded clothing lines in the same country? When that name is Katy or Katie Perry, the result is a trademark infringement suit.

With the elimination of ethics Rule 5.4, the state of Arizona loosened regulations prohibiting non-attorney ownership of law firms. Not unexpectedly, this has attracted interest from several prominent litigation funders. Comparable legislation is expected in multiple states in 2022, with Michigan, North Carolina, Illinois, New York, and California already considering it.

This week, a hearing was held to determine whether a collective action against five car carriers based in Japan, Sweden, and Chile. The action will allege that more than 17 million cars were impacted by a price-fixing scheme run by the five firms that ship internationally. The case is being funded by Woodsford Litigation Funding.

LegalPay bills itself as India’s ‘first homegrown litigation finance company.’ The business was founded in 2020 by Kundan Shahi, and strives to expand the reach of legal funding as both an alternative asset class and a means to increase access to justice.

When litigation funding began in earnest, funded cases tended to be those against deep pocketed corporations and governments. While Litigation Finance is a boon to justice, it’s also a business,…

As litigation funding grows in popularity and legislation struggles to keep up—much attention is drawn to the outliers who fill funding opponents with fear. Unscrupulous funders get plenty of press coverage, further clouding already contentious issues.

The Australian government’s bid to reform class actions, and by extension third-party litigation funders, is nearing its climax. A parliamentary committee assembled to examine the bill has expressed support. A key argument in favor of increased legislation is that funders ostensibly make profits that are out of proportion to the risk taken and the costs incurred.

As difficult as it might be to imagine someone being misled by a Tinder communique, Sean Rad, a co-founder of the app, alleges that’s exactly what happened. Last week, Rad testified that Match Group (which also owns Hinge, OKCupid, and PlentyOfFish) undervalued Tinder by billions.

Perhaps more than any other industry, healthcare companies have scrambled to keep up with the changes brought about by COVID-19. Now that some of the changes made are destined to stay, healthcare companies are taking steps to further innovation.

ICLG’s Global Class action Symposium discussed the dynamic and evolving issues surrounding class actions and litigation funding. One takeaway is clear: attitudes about class actions and their funding are evolving with the industries themselves. Growing pains and a constant stream of regulatory changes point to new opportunities for claimants seeking compensation, and the lawyers and funders who serve them.

It’s predicted that several sizable UK law firms will find themselves in the hands of private equity investors in 2022. These investors will likely focus on large firms that are utilizing damages-based agreements (DBAs).

A Supreme Court decision was handed down in the Lloyd v Google appeal. And Google has a lot to be celebrating. In short, the question at hand was whether damages could be sought in a collective action over “loss of control over data,” without specifically listing the monetary or punitive damages of each individual claimant. Requiring individual loss statements from every claimant in a case impacting millions seems untenable. What happened here?

We already know that litigation funding is growing by leaps and bounds. This industry is a little over a decade old, and by 2019, had become a global industry worth nearly $40 billion. As the reach of funding grows, more businesses are learning the ways in which legal funding can monetize existing litigation assets while sharing risk.

All eyes are on Bank of America Corp v Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC, because of the issues the case is bringing before SCOTUS. In this instance, an upcoming decision has led the US Chamber of Commerce to lament the oft-repeated (but unproven) assertion that the American justice system simply cannot withstand undisclosed funding agreements.

Legal funder GLS Capital has announced plans to finance a licensing and enforcement campaign for patents owned by Asustek Computer Inc. The patents are related to cellular networks—specifically 3G, 4G, and 5G tech.

Typically, a business focused on the insolvency sector can expect to be busy. During COVID, insolvencies were predicted to skyrocket. But as governments stepped in to alleviate financial peril for businesses, those counting on insolvency to keep their own businesses afloat were left wanting.

The transportation sector is notoriously litigious, complex, and vital to the global marketplace. The complexities of contracts, regulation, and the constant evolution of the industry can result in expensive disputes carrying high levels of risk. What’s more—these disputes are likely to be cross-border.