Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There’s been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what’s good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn’t say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift – if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that – and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don’t think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that’s right. What’s interesting is, there hasn’t been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we’re seeing a lot of that. We’re also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We’ve seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we’ve seen those deals – especially the ones that happened before Covid – there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you’re debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we’ve seen a shift away more to – I won’t say single cases – but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We’ve also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We’re seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We’re just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.

A long-time litigation funding professional and former trial lawyer, Ronit Cohen is considered among the most experienced legal finance underwriting counsel in the U.S. After working as a litigator at Simpson Thacher and O’Melveny and Myers, she joined the burgeoning funding industry in 2012, first at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway, where she helped launch their first office, and then at Validity Finance, where in addition to serving as a member of the Risk Monitoring Team, she headed up a pro bono effort to provide capital to wrongfully accused individuals during the pendency of their civil actions. She co-founded Arcadia Finance in June of 2024, and serves as Managing Director along with co-founders David Kerstein and Joshua Libling.

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital – fast. Led by industry veterans with over $400 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

Area of Focus: With a focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration, Arcadia Finance is open to the full spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross-border and offshore matters. We consider cases in all federal and state courts, as well domestic and international arbitrations.    

Member Quote: “I believe litigation funding is essential for a balanced legal system. It empowers clients with valid claims to seek justice, even when facing well-resourced opponents.”

On Wednesday October 16th (Thursday the 17th, in Australia), LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled ‘Spotlight on Australia.’ The event featured Michelle Silvers (MS), CEO at Court House Capital, Stuart Price (SP), CEO and Managing Director of CASL, Maurice Thompson (MT), Global Head of Litigation Funding at HFW, and Jason Geisker (JG), Head of Claims Funding Australia. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Unfortunately, Jason Geisker was unable to join the panel due to technical difficulties. However, the other three panelists covered a broad range of topics relating to litigation funding in Australia. Below are key takeaways from the event:

ET: Australia is a pioneer in the use of litigation finance. Can you provide an overview of the Australian market?

MS: Australia has been involved in litigation funding for over 20 years, since the late 1990s. At the moment it’s an interesting environment, we have listed and private funders, hedge funds, law firms and private insurers. Our market is dominated by litigation funders, not necessarily alternative capital sources, which is what tends to happen overseas. We’ve witnessed the market globalizing with offshore funders entering, and local funders expanding abroad, but a lot of the offshore funders have withdrawn from the market in recent years.

The market is small – Australia’s population is 25-28 million, so you can imagine that the way we operate here is quite different than overseas. We have about 10 players operating in the Australian market at the moment. Our environment is quite different than overseas, it’s smaller and well-knit. We all know each other quite well, we compete for the same cases. It’s fierce competition, and an exciting environment.

ET: In terms of return profile, I ‘ve been privy to a lot of litigation finance resolutions on a global basis, and in my review of the data, it strikes me that Australian funders are some of the best in terms of producing consistent returns, albeit the quantum of financing is a little bit smaller than what you might find in the US. Generally speaking, do you agree with that? And to what would you attribute the performance of Australian funders?

SP: I attribute that to the predictability of outcomes, and that really comes from the jurisdiction being established for a long time. Some of the growing pains that other jurisdictions are having, are dealing with new issues and new laws. Most of our bench that deals with litigation funding and new actions, they were senior and junior lawyers, partners, barristers, and now have become judges. So there is an ingrained knowledge of the system, and an appreciation of the importance of litigation funding to provide access to justice.

That in itself also goes with the Australian civil justice system, which is an absolute Rolls Royce. It is gold-plated, it is costly, so you need to be able to navigate that in a way where duration risk doesn’t become an issue to you. So when you talk about performance, I absolutely agree Australia is up there as one of the better performing markets in the world. We select our cases well and we settle cases before trial (about 95% of cases settle before trial – that brings duration risk down). That combination of factors are all a reflection of the 25 years-plus of existing in this market.

ET: Up until recently, outside of the class action space, lawyers have not been able to engage in contingent fee arrangements, but jurisdictions like Victoria have changed this dynamic. Can you discuss the current state of contingent fee arrangements and its likely trajectory, and the implications for the litigation funding market?

MT: Everything Stuart mentioned about this being an isolated part of the world, and the impacts that has on doing business here, is absolutely correct. A flip on that though, is that degree of isolation that we’ve had as a nation has always had us looking closely outside of our borders. So we observe what’s happening in other parts of the world and that influences how we think.

Some of the comments you’ve heard might suggest that we’re a slightly immature legal market, in the sense that politics have impacted the courts and there has been some degree of uncertainty since 2020. But I’d flip that and say that this is a case of us looking hard at what we need moving forward and what will suit Australia. The largest differential between us and the United States, for instance, is that we never want to see a situation in Australia where the overweight child might sue the fast food chain because some lawyer provides contingent fee arrangements, all those sorts of things. We’ve laughed at that scenario overseas, and we don’t want that here. So the whole idea of contingent fees stirs up all sorts of feelings in our legal environment, and in having to deal with those negative perceptions, we have to think very carefully about how we structure things moving forward.

In the period between 2020 and now, there’s been a proliferation of class actions in Victoria to take advantage of the contingent fee arrangements. Not all law firms have done that – my law firm, for instance, we’re running three large plaintiff class actions at the moment, we’ve got a few others in the pipeline. We’re currently not fixated on Victoria, because among other things, the way it’s been dealt with – generally if you want to take full advantage of a contingent arrangement sanction by the court and legislation, you have to bear all the risk of the costs and a security for costs order against the law firm. And most law firms won’t stomach that at all (because this is so new). But other law firms see this as an opportunity – particularly large national firms like Maurice Blackburn for instance. Large firms like that will take advantage because they can finance the risk. If I’m going to sell that to my partners in London, Asia or elsewhere, it’s a different proposition.

So we are inching closer to a wider opportunity for law firms to take on contingent risk, but we’re not there yet. I don’t think it’s going to be the free for all that people have been concerned about. That’s not to say there hasn’t been class actions flooding into Victoria as opposed to other states, but I think that will slow down. And so a firm like us is looking beyond the Victoria borders.

To view the entire 1-hour discussion, please click here.

Viren is a Partner in Milbank’s New York office where he leads the international arbitration practice in the US.  He specializes in international arbitration (construction, commercial, and investment arbitration) as well as enforcement of awards and judgments in U.S. courts. 

He has nearly two decades of experience acting as counsel for parties in a broad range of industries, with a particular focus on energy and mining disputes. His investment treaty experience includes representing investors in disputes against Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  He has advised litigation funders on whether to underwrite prospective matters and also obtained litigation funding for his clients.  He sits as arbitrator in commercial arbitrations and teaches international arbitration at Columbia Law School. 

Viren has been recognized for his accomplishments in international arbitration by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, The Best Lawyers in America:  International Arbitration, Euromoney (commercial arbitration), Latinvex (disputes in Latin America), Law360 (energy disputes), Lawdragon (500 Leading Global Litigators, 2021, 2023, 2024), The New York Law Journal, Crain’s Business New York,The LGBT Bar Association, the South Asian Bar Association, and the American Bar Association.  His client reviews in Chambers include, “Viren is talented, smart, and quick on his feet.  He is a lawyer you want in your corner”; “His attention to detail and commitment made him stand out – he was always thinking of next steps and briefing us often”; “Viren is bright, capable and a really strong advocate.”  Legal 500 identified Milbank as one of three firms to watch in the international arbitration space, noting, “Milbank continues to grow its profile in international arbitration since the late 2022 arrival of Viren Mascarenhas.  The team is particularly noted for its activity in the energy and infrastructure areas.”

Company Name and Description:  Milbank LLP is an international law firm headquartered in New York with offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Beijing, London, Frankfurt, Munich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo, Seoul, and Singapore.  Chambers USA ranks Milbank in Band 1 for a range of practices, including Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Capital Markets, Metals & Mining, Projects, and Transportation.

Company Website: www.milbank.com

Year Founded:  1866.  Company rebranded to Milbank in 2019.

Headquarters:  New York

Area of Focus: Milbank is a full services international law firm.  Viren is a member of the Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group.

Member Quote:  “Litigation funders want lawyers who can chart a course of action from filing a claim to collecting on the award/judgment, and then engage with the wide variety of players involved (client, opposing counsel, co-counsel, witnesses, experts, investigators, the adjudicators, and the funders themselves!) to make it happen.”

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled “Spotlight on Insurance.” The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren’t able to do that as a first-time manager, but it’s something we’d like to explore in the future. We’re currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to ‘yes.’

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I’m seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It’s very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders – an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn’t go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn’t be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you’ve got a policy with an insurer and you’re invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder– all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you’re not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you’re not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you’ll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the ‘divide and rule game’ with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we’ve been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) – things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won’t be insurable in the US. But we’re seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that’s where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we’ve been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Michelle Silvers is Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Court House Capital and leads the company’s business strategy, growth and operations across geographic markets. She oversees stakeholder relations with capital investors and all decisions pertaining to the company’s investment portfolio.

Michelle is a highly-respected leader in litigation funding. She co-founded the litigation funding industry in Australia in 1999 and has over 30 years’ combined funding and legal experience across commercial dispute resolution, insolvency, insurance and collective redress (class actions).

Michelle has played a crucial role in funding more than 200 legal disputes and is passionate about structuring capital and risk management solutions for clients and helping claimants gain access to justice.

In 2019 Michelle joined Court House Capital, quickly establishing the business as a funder of choice in Australia and New Zealand. Previously, she served as Managing Director and CEO of Litigation Lending Services Limited, where she pioneered portfolio funding and grew the business to become one of the most successful funders in the region. Her career also includes senior roles at leading international funders (Augusta Ventures and IMF Bentham, now Omni Bridgeway), global insurance firms (AMP, FAI General, Lawcover) and private legal practice (DLA Piper).

Michelle is a co-founder and Director of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) and is a regular speaker and commentator on industry developments. She holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South Wales and is a Director of Court House Capital Management Limited.

Company Name and Description: Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Court House Capital was established with a mission to provide financial and strategic support to parties seeking capital, risk management and access to justice. Our team is led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, and is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration.

Company Website: courthousecapital.com.au

Year Founded:  2019

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

Member Quote: We offer cost and risk mitigation strategies for commercial clients and ‘a level playing field’ for those who cannot afford to pursue justice themselves. It is an honour to be co-founders of an industry that provides access to justice for so many, and to be the funder of choice for claimants and professional advisers. Our financial resources, industry network and knowledge has helped many claimants achieve successful outcomes.

Boris Ziser is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Finance Group, where he advises on a diverse range of asset classes and transactions such as asset-backed lending and securitization, warehouse facilities, secured financings, specialty finance lending and esoteric finance transactions. Boris manages the London finance practice and the global litigation funding and law firm finance practice.

With almost 30 years of experience, Boris works on a variety of asset classes, including life settlements, litigation funding, equipment leases, structured settlements, lottery receivables, timeshare loans, merchant cash advances and cell towers, in addition to other esoteric asset classes such as intellectual property, various insurance-related cash flows and other cash flow producing assets. He also represents investors, lenders, hedge funds, private equity funds and finance companies in acquisitions and dispositions of portfolios of assets and financings secured by those portfolios.

Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.

Company Website: https://www.srz.com/

Year Founded: 1969

Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.

Area of Focus: Finance, Litigation Finance, Private Credit, Structured Finance

Member Quote: “With its uncorrelated investment opportunity and plethora of rules that vary by jurisdiction (State-by-State and international), litigation funding is a complicated asset class that is rewarding at the same time, as it enables those with meritorious claims, but without the necessary resources, to pursue justice.”

Lewis Edmonds is a Director of Fibre Group and is a seasoned financial planner with over 10 years of expertise in cross-border planning, wealth management, and alternative investments. He serves a diverse clientele across the UK, USA, Middle East, Europe, and Latin America, offering tailored solutions that include diversification, wealth creation, and risk hedging strategies. 

Lewis’s comprehensive approach ensures clients achieve their financial goals while navigating the complexities of international finance. Lewis manages the group’s portfolio of investment opportunities and fund management providers, whilst assessing new opportunities to enhance the company’s offering. 

Company Name and Description: Based in the United Kingdom, Fibre Group focuses on cross-border payments, cross-border wealth and alternative investment strategies. 

The payments side of the businesses ensures clients have access to highly competitive exchange rates through multi-currency banking solutions, and guidance to manage foreign exchange risk, which is often a significant consideration for international property transactions and cross-border wealth matters. 

Fibre Capital focuses on international wealth management and alternative investment, by providing tailored strategies that are customised to individual goals and risk preferences.

Acknowledging the limitations of conventional banking, Fibre looks beyond public markets and traditional investments to identify solutions that diversity, balance and enhance clients’ portfolios. 

Within the Litigation funding ecosystem, Fibre’s role is to introduce their active and growing client base of investors, to investment opportunities in the litigation funding space, via loan note, corporate bond, or direct investment. 

Company Website: www.fibrepayments.com — https://fibre.capital

Year Founded:  2021

Headquarters:  London

Area of Focus:  Traditional wealth management and alternative investment strategies for our active client base. 

Member Quote: “In an ever-changing economic landscape, we are actively seeking innovative investment strategies, to ensure the best outcome for our clients and opportunities in litigation financing are increasingly becoming an attractive alternative asset class, for our clients.”

On Thursday August 15th, LFJ hosted a Virtual Town Hall titled ‘PACCAR Revisited.’ The live event revisited the PACCAR decision one year later and explored what the future holds for legal funding in the UK and beyond.

Panelists included Ben Knowles (BK), Chair International Arbitration at Clyde & Co LLP, Robert Marven (RM), Barrister at 4 New Square, Nicholas Marler (NM), Head of Technical Underwriting at Litica Ltd, and Neil Purslow (NP), Founder and Chief Investment Officer, Therium Capital Management Limited. The panel discussion was moderated by Tets Ishikawa, Managing Director of LionFish Litigation Finance Limited.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

We don’t hear much from insurers in regard to the PACCAR issue. Nicholas, from an insurer’s perspective, what are your thoughts?

NM: The ATE insurers’ odyssey through the world of PACCAR is in some ways quite different from that of a litigation funder. At first bluff, you might think that PACCAR doesn’t have anything to do with insurers because it has to do with litigation funding agreements, and you’d never catch an insurer signing an LFA, so what’s the problem?

If you scratch a little deeper though, the reality is quite different. If you as an insurer, insure a funder, and the funder gives an adverse costs indemnity to the claimant, then all of a sudden, the insurer’s contractual fortunes are tied to the funders. If the LFA is unenforceable, then not only can the insurer not collect its contingent premium if there’s a success, but the coverage provided to the funder has vanished–this is because the LFA is unenforceable.

We actually had this exact experience play out. An opportunistic claimant sought to cut the funder out, because it felt emboldened to do so as a result of the PACCAR decision. When they were informed that doing so would void their insurance, which was to their benefit, they magically found the goodwill necessary to resolve things with their funder and an amicable solution was quickly found.

You’ve touched on enforceability. Given how central that is to the heart of the PACCAR issue, Robert, can you share some insights and perspectives on this corse issue?

RM: There are essentially two views on the concept of enforceability. One is that it essentially says there isn’t anything wrong with the contract, just that it can’t be enforced. There is another view which says that the contract is unenforceable, that it is an illegal contract. I don’t agree with that. It seems this is one of the paradoxes of PACCAR, it seems to have rendered unenforceable funding agreements that were perfectly legal under common law.

A lack of enforceability is important to understand as a two-way street. It means the funder cannot enforce, and it also means the claimant cannot enforce. And this is the key to understanding why things have been put right in cases that are still ongoing. A claimant who says to a funder ‘I don’t have to pay you anymore,’ well, a funder could say to the same token, ‘I don’t have to fund your case anymore.’ And we have seen cases that have been over or very nearly over, where the claimants think they don’t need the funder anymore and saying ‘thank you very much, I needed the funding but I don’t have to pay you.’ Or ‘I did pay you, but I want the money back.’

This is where it’s important to remember that enforceability is a two-way street. If all sides want to continue to carry on, then everyone has an incentive in fixing the problem. It’s only where those interests converge that seem to have led to a significant litigation dispute.

Ben, from your perspective, how do you think this affects the UKs standing as a legal jurisdiction?

BK: PACCAR created a mess, and it was an expensive mess, irrespective of where we’re going to end up. There’s been a lot of lawyer’s time figuring out what PACCAR means and where we’re going to go. The PACCAR fix, as I call it, would have cleared things up to some extend. But the absence of that means some of this uncertainty will continue. And uncertainty means additional costs.

We have these various appeals on the funding agreements out there at the moment. I would expect that in some of these cases, there will be appeals that go to the Court of Appeals, and potentially, all the way up to the Supreme Court. My feeling is, when there’s a case to be funded, lawyers will find a way to get that case funded. Although I’d imagine there will be a risk premium attached to that funding, not least because everybody will be getting their funding agreements checked, double-checked and triple-checked. And you may have lawyers who disagree on what’s permissible, and that leads to additional costs at the start of the case.

This session is about PACCAR, but we’d be remiss not to talk about the CJC, given how the two issues merge. Neil, you’re on the consultation group for the CJC review. Are there any insights you’re able to share?

NP: There’s now a working party reporting up to the CJC. We’re expecting an interim report from that working party to come out in late summer or early autumn, and there will be a consultation, and then the final report in the middle of next year. So we’ve put on quite a tight timeline.

From an industry perspective, this review is welcome, unless you’re opposed to the idea of talking about regulation, which I don’t think the industry is. This is a sensible organizational group that is considering these points in a proper and thoughtful way. I would encourage people to get behind the work that ILFA and ALFA are doing here, and I’d also encourage funders to get involved in the consultation phase as well. It’s very important that the CJC are thinking about these points with a full and proper understanding of how funding actually works, so they can understand the impact.

I think it’s also important that the industry makes sure that the review takes place in a proper context, and by ‘proper context’ I mean that there is an understanding that funding does have benefits. So the review should look at how good responsible funding can be encouraged and those benefits can be maximized, rather than looking at funding as a suspicious thing that needs to be controlled and is just a risk. I think there is a very positive message for funding that needs to be emphasized, and I think the CJC needs to look at it through this positive lens, and I’m confident that they will.

To view the entire digital event, click here.

Dan is a founder of the business, but began his career at one of the UK’s largest FX brokerages. He has since built a robust network of partnerships with financial advisors and lawyers, focusing on high-net-worth clients and professionals in sports.

Dan also specialises in supporting trusts and wealth structures with cross-border payments and management of their assets, addressing challenges typically faced with by traditional banks. 

Recognising the demand from clients for interest solutions to complement the multicurrency offering, Dan also focuses on identifying new growth and investment opportunities to enhance the current portfolio and meet clients’ needs. 

Company Name and Description: Fibre Group

Based in the United Kingdom, Fibre focus on cross-border payments, cross-border wealth and alternative investment strategies. 

The payments slide of the businesses ensures clients have access to highly competitive exchange rates through multicurrency banking solutions, and guidance to manage foreign exchange risk, which is often a significant consideration for international property transactions and cross-border wealth matters. 

Fibre Capital focuses on international wealth management and alternative investment, by providing tailored strategies that are customised to individual goals and risk preferences.

Acknowledging the limitations of conventional banking, Fibre look beyond public markets and traditional investments to identify solutions that diversity, balance and enhance clients’ portfolios. 

Within the litigation funding ecosystem, Fibre’s role is to introduce their active and growing client base of investors, to investment opportunities in the litigation funding space, via loan note, corporate bond, or direct investment.

Company Website: www.fibrepayments.com — https://fibre.capital

Year Founded:  2021

Headquarters:  London

Area of Focus:  Cross-border payments, interest solutions and alternative investment strategies. 

Member Quote: “We are dedicated to delivering the highest service standards by integrating cutting-edge payment technology with innovative interest and investment strategies to achieve the best outcomes for our clients.”

The following article was contributed by Mats Geijer, Counsel Scandinavia of Deminor.

In the complex world of securities trading, disputes and violations can arise, leading to legal actions that seek to hold wrongdoers accountable and provide recourse for affected parties.

In recent years we have seen an increase in actions from investors towards listed companies, shareholders vs the so-called issuers in the region. Notable cases are OW Bunker, Danske bank in Denmark and more recently Ericsson in Sweden.

Securities litigation serves several important purposes in the financial ecosystem, namely:

1. Protecting Investors: Securities litigation helps investors in their fiduciary responsibility to seek financial compensation for losses resulting from securities fraud or misconduct. By holding wrongdoers accountable, it deters fraudulent activities and promotes market integrity.
2. Enforcing Compliance: Securities litigation enforces compliance with securities laws and regulations, ensuring that companies and individuals adhere to disclosure requirements and ethical standards in their financial dealings.
3. Promoting Transparency: Securities litigation can uncover hidden risks, misrepresentations, or conflicts of interest that may impact investors’ decisions. This transparency is essential for maintaining trust in the financial markets.
4. Enhancing Corporate Governance: Securities litigation can target corporate governance failures, such as breaches of fiduciary duty or conflicts of interest among corporate insiders. Holding company officers and directors accountable can lead to improved governance practices.

Securities litigation in Sweden can be done in various ways, through class/group actions, derivative actions, or regulatory enforcement actions (by authorities). Case law in the sphere of private enforcement is historically scarce but will now hopefully start to emerge. A historic reason is probably that Sweden as a civil law country lacks statutory rules regulating civil liability in relation to improper securities activities.

In the Ericsson case, 37 institutions are claiming roughly $200 million from the issuer in the district court of Solna, Sweden. The claimants state they have suffered investment losses since Ericsson withheld information about potential bribes paid to the terrorist organisation ISIS in Iraq, that caused the share price to fall. The claimants are all large (non-Swedish) institutional investors, and the case is funded by a third-party funder (not Deminor). The case will be tried in the first instance court in 2025.

The legal community expects to see an increase in litigation related to securities in the coming years, to paint a picture in 2021 there where was one (1) initial public offering every second day (157 in total). In 2022-23 there were only a handful of initial public offerings each year. Sweden has a disproportionate number of listed companies compared to other EU countries and it is considered a national sport to invest in the stock market. A majority of listed shares are held by local and foreign sovereign wealth funds, they seldom engage in litigation locally but often participate in international cases in the US and elsewhere. The economy is currently in a recession which has historically always led to an increase in the number of disputes.

Deminor is the only international funder with a local presence that focuses on securities litigation. On paper there are plenty of opportunities in Scandinavia, but in practical terms cases are often too “small” meaning the quantum of the potential loss the investor has suffered is not sufficient to initiate the litigation. Or which is more often the situation, the investors that do hold a significant part of the shares (the loss) are not willing to engage in litigation for various reasons. The claimants that are willing to lead the way in terms of creating the much-needed case law is the types we see in the Ericsson case, foreign institutional investors.

We could summarize the situation with a phrase coined by the advertising industry for when there was a minute of silence before the next add was supposed to run – watch this space!

With a background in Physics, Engineering and Software, Julian Coleman has 30+ years’ experience at the COO level conceiving new products and leading the project management, system design, engineering, software development, manufacturing, compliance and delivery teams.

Company Name and Description: 10^th Mind is an e-discovery company that has been created with a major focus on innovation, not only for general e-discovery activities but in particular to assist litigation funds to overcome their specific challenges and threats  –  a special approach demanding a change of mindset.

Our name reflects our focus on innovation and is derived from the intelligence community – the Tenth Man principle. It requires that, where a group of ten analysts is working on the same data and nine of the group reach the same conclusion, it is the duty of the 10^th person, the 10^th Mind, to examine the issue on the premise that the other nine are wrong.

The ‘group think’ consensus may be right most of the time, or even mostly right all of the time, but tends to favour business as usual. The 10^th Mind is there to challenge the consensus view and proffer different solutions.

10^th Mind has defined (and addressed) four key areas:

• Costs – there is in our view an increasing understanding that costs must be reduced
• Process management and recording – not only does a very efficient process drive costs down, but it can (and must) include extensive record keeping of the entire process in order to support effective litigation
• Technology will play an ever increasing role
• Litigation Funds – a rapidly expanding market both in terms of finance available and in market sectors, funds are naturally focused on profit, a critical part of their business being case selection – and costs are a major factor here too. Funds have their own challenges, but also are having a significant impact on the wider litigation landscape.

Addressing these issues has been very interesting. As a seasoned C level executive it has been interesting to analyse and then dispense with so much convention. A business structured around what is today rather than yesterday can look very different and cost far less whilst being intrinsically more responsive and adaptable. In terms of what we can do, having no legacy structures to worry about has major benefits which transfer to the client:

• Costs are reduced.  Many expensive overheads can be dispensed with.
• We have developed our own project management and recording systems; based on PRINCE2 and facilitated by our unique software, integrated with selected new commercial products, management processes are vastly improved. Full traceable record keeping and transparency are built in and automated, essentially at zero cost.
• …and finally but crucially, 10^th Mind will work with funds on special terms:
  • if the fund is prepared to take on a case we will work on a CFA basis
  • we will also work with the fund on a CFA basis to undertake early stage investigations, in our view crucial to improving the evidence on which to base case selection and ultimately, therefore, profitability.

At 10^th Mind we are convinced that not only is such an approach necessary now, but there will be ever-present forces driving the need for continued evolution:

Costs are becoming a major issue.  Significant concern has emerged in the English litigation funding community over last year’s Paccar judgement. Omni Bridgeway’s Co-chief Information Officer, Matt Harrison, has said that some litigation funders may not survive the economic instability as “they don’t have the money available to them to invest in cases and in law firms.”  Bloomberg Law also recently noted that some litigation funds are currently facing financial difficulty.

Burford, one of the biggest litigation funds in the world and which describes itself as “the institutional quality finance firm focused on law“, undertook surveys from which they report:

“[Over half of respondents to its poll] (52%) say drastic steps are needed to better manage legal costs, such as moving away from the billable hour, limiting outside firms and more innovation from outside counsel.“

and

“Finance and legal professionals agree: the legal department’s top priority for the next 15 years is to minimize legal costs. But they are also unified in prioritizing that the legal department simultaneously find new ways to recover value.“

It is clear there is a consensus that costs, specifically cost reduction, must be considered, and in our view, litigation funds will be a driving force.

Litigation funds have a very different focus from law firms, crucially they exist to make profits and that means winning cases, which in turn places a focus on the initial assessment stage.  And, as previously observed, the sector is expanding both in terms of available funds and in scope, driving change and posing challenges for dispute litigation as a whole. 

Logically as funding takes over a larger percentage of dispute litigation, the greater the overall impact this will have on costs. Arguably as saturation approaches, such pressures can only increase.

Process management and recording is in our view now essential, not merely tracking the ingestion and processing of data from collection to court, but the recording of all the management processes which defined the data management: who did what, when and why, recorded in forensic detail. This not only, if done well, improves business processes but it evidences them should legal challenges arise. Hence this data must be ‘forensics ready’.

Technology can and will help. But it must be the right technology which assists the first two objectives, ie improving practises whilst reducing costs. Having found critical gaps in commercial offerings, we have worked on our own solution.

Website: www.10thMind.com

Founded: 2023

Headquarters: UK (London)

Member Quote: We feel it crucial that providers must always question the legacy thinking and structures that entrench lack of efficiency, accuracy, and high costs.  By applying the 10^th Mind principle, we are providing services in a new way: shared risk, formal (and unique) project management and software, along with specialised services specifically to assist funds combine to make us, to our knowledge, unique in the e-discovery sector.

If you would like to find out more as to how we can assist you and your clients, we would be delighted to meet you. Please contact us through our website (www.10thmind.com) or email our COO directly at julian.coleman@10thmind.com.

Michael Klaschka is a Managing Principal and head of the Financial Institutions team based in EPIC’s Jersey City office.  He has over 32 years of industry experience and is a highly respected and skilled negotiator in the professional liability marketplace. 

Mike has extensive experience working with financial institution, investment management, litigation finance, real estate, venture capital, private equity and complex risks with strong technical knowledge of D&O, E&O, Cyber, Fidelity, Fiduciary, Media and Employment Practices Liability. 

Mike joined EPIC in August 2016.  Prior to joining EPIC, Mike was the national leader of Integro’s Management Risk Practice where he spent 11 years.  Prior to Integro, Mike spent 10 years at Marsh & McLennan where he held various positions including head of their E&O Center of Excellence Group based in NY as well as the west coast FINPRO placement leader for their financial institution, technology and commercial accounts group based in San Francisco.  Mike earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Drew University in 1991, and majored in Economics with a minor in Political Science.

Company Name and Description:  EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants

We are a unique and innovative retail risk management and employee benefits insurance brokerage and consulting firm, founded in San Francisco, California in 2007 with offices and leadership across the country.

EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants has a depth of industry expertise across key lines of insurance, including risk management, property and casualty, employee benefits, unique specialty program insurance and private client services.

Company Website: https://www.epicbrokers.com/

Year Founded: 2007

Headquarters: San Francisco, CA

Area of Focus: Property & Casualty Insurance with expertise in Directors’ & Officers’, Errors & Omissions, Employment Practices, Fund, and Cyber Liability.

Member Quote: Procuring insurance for litigation finance companies can be a challenge as many insurers view the industry as driving up their costs.  Several even prohibited their underwriters from offering terms.  In addition, litigation finance companies have unique exposures that are not addressed in “off the shelf” products offered by insurers.  At EPIC, we have the knowledge and experience as well as the relationships with key insurers that gives us the ability to negotiate and place coverage tailored to each client.

Davide De Vido is an Italian lawyer with significant expertise in commercial and company law consultancy and disputes. In 2000, Davide started his career as an in-house counsel for a leading industrial group in the production and sale of building materials, gaining experience in complex transactions and corporate dispute resolution.

Subsequently, he assumed the same role for a leading company in the field of production and sale of eyewear, and after these two experiences, Davide founded his own law boutique.

In 2019, Davide entered in the litigation funding industry and founded FiDeAL®

Company Name and Description: FiDeAL® is a full consultancy company of litigation finance (funding and insurance) solutions that works across Europe with a particular focus on the Italian legal market.

We assist those seeking financial solutions to pursue single cases, and also help create portfolio claims. We collaborate with law firms, associations, other NG organizations, companies and litigation funds or investors to structure complex projects.

Last June, through collaboration with expert and university professors, FiDeAL has established its environmental, climatic, and ESG law department to offer the highest level of expertise in preparing, structuring, and conducting in-depth legal and economic analyses of projects, making the funding process more efficient and effective.

Company Website: www.fideal.it

Year Founded:  2019

Headquarters:  31020 San Vendemiano (Treviso), Italy

Area of Focus: Advising and brokering all types of litigation finance related matters. Since June 2024, FiDeAL has been working in environmental/climate/ESG law to help protect the planet and improve people’s quality of life and business relations.

Member Quote: We dream of a world where access to justice is democratized and easily accessible globally for each individual, company or entity.

Rebecca Berrebi is the CEO and Founder of Avenue 33, LLC, a full service, litigation finance consultancy that provides brokerage, strategic advisory and recruiting services. She handles all types of matters within the litigation finance industry from single case financings to law firm portfolios to insured structured credit matters.  Rebecca has worked in the litigation finance industry since 2016, and her background as a private money transactional lawyer and funder allows her to serve clients with both legal acumen and keen business insight. 

Previously, she was the Head of Corporate Affairs at a leading litigation finance fund manager where she oversaw investments and served on many boards and committees, including of Eco Oro Minerals Corp. (CSE: EOM).  Rebecca graduated from Duke University, after which she worked in the political affairs and public relations industry.  She later obtained her law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and practiced as a private equity M&A lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis LLP and at a global private equity fund. 

Company Name and Description:   Avenue 33, LLC serves litigants, funders, law firms and investors in addressing and closing the litigation finance knowledge and communications gaps in order to facilitate a more seamless, efficient and successful financing process – from outset to outcome.

Often even sophisticated parties come to a “dispute finance” matter with varying backgrounds, underlying understandings and assumptions. With information equality, alignment of interests, harmonization of expectations and clarity of process, the opportunities for maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing contention substantially increases for all stakeholders. Avenue 33 can provide guidance, strategic advice and support leading to efficient value optimization.

Company Website: www.avenue33llc.com

Year Founded:  2020

Headquarters:  Westchester, NY

Area of Focus:  Advising and brokering all types of litigation finance related matters

Member Quote: In this opaque market, visibility into trends and appetites of the players saves lawyers, clients, funds and all stakeholders time and money.  Experienced, high-quality brokers create value for individual deals as well as add credibility to the litigation finance industry generally.

The following post was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. 

Mass tort litigation is a high-stakes world, one where the pursuit of justice is inextricably linked with financial resources and risk management. In this complex ecosystem, two financial pillars stand out: bank lending and alternative litigation finance. For attorneys and their financial partners in mass torts, choosing the right financial strategy can mean the difference between success and stagnation.

The Evolving Financial Landscape for Mass Tort Attorneys

Gone are the days when a powerful legal argument alone could secure the means to wage a war against industrial giants. Today, financial acumen is as critical to a law firm’s success as legal prowess. For mass tort attorneys, funding large-scale litigations is akin to orchestrating a multifaceted campaign with the potential for astronomical payouts, but also the very real costs that come with such undertakings.

Under the lens of the courtroom, the financing of mass tort cases presents a unique set of challenges. These cases often require substantial upfront capital and can extend over years, if not decades. In such an environment, agility, sustainability, and risk management emerge as strategic imperatives.

Navigating these waters demands a deep understanding of two pivotal financing models: traditional bank lending and the more contemporary paradigm of third-party litigation finance.

The Need for Specialized Financial Solutions in Mass Tort Litigation

The financial demands of mass tort litigation are unique. They necessitate solutions that are as flexible as they are formidable, capable of weathering the uncertainty of litigation outcomes. Portfolio risk management, a concept well-established in the investment world, has found its parallel in the legal arena, where it plays a pivotal role in driving growth and longevity for law firms.

The overarching goal for mass tort practices is to structure their financial arrangements in such a way that enables not just the funding of current cases but the foresight to invest in future opportunities. In this context, the question of bank lending versus alternative asset class litigation finance is more than transactional—it’s transformational.

Understanding Bank Lending

Banks have long been the bedrock of corporate financing, offering stability and a familiar process. While bank lending presents several advantages, such as the potential for lower interest rates in favorable economic environments, it also comes with significant caveats. The traditional model often involves stringent loan structures, personal guarantees, and an inflexibility that can constrain the scalability of funding when litigation timelines shift or case resolutions become protracted.

For attorneys seeking immediate capital, interest-only lines of credit can be appealing, providing a temporary reprieve on principal payments. However, the long-term financial impact and personal liability underpinning these loans cannot be overlooked.

Exploring Third-Party Litigation Finance

On the flip side, third-party litigation finance has emerged as a beacon of adaptability within the legal financing landscape. By eschewing traditional collateral requirements and personal guarantees, this model reduces the personal financial risk for attorneys. More significantly, it does so while tailoring financing terms to individual cases and firm needs, thus improving the alignment between funding structures and litigation timelines.

Litigation financiers also bring a wealth of experience and industry-specific knowledge to the table. They are partners in the truest sense, offering strategic foresight, risk management tools, and a shared goal in the litigation’s success.

Interest Rates and Financial Terms

The choice between bank lending and third-party litigation finance often hinges on the amount of attainable capital, interest rates, and the terms, conditions, and covenants of the loans. These differences can significantly influence the overall cost of financing and the strategic financial planning for mass tort litigation.

Bank Lending: Traditional bank loans typically offer lower initial interest rates, which can be attractive for short-term financing needs. However, these rates are almost always variable and linked to broader economic indicators, such as the prime rate. Banks are very conservative in every aspect of underwriting and the commitments they offer.

Third-Party Litigation Finance: In contrast, third-party litigation lenders often require a multiple payback, such as 2x or 3x the original amount borrowed. Some third-party lenders also offer floating rate loans tied to SOFR, but the interest costs are meaningfully higher than those of banks. The trade-off is greater access to capital. Third-party lenders, deeply entrenched in industry nuances, are generally willing to lend substantially larger amounts of capital. For attorneys managing long-duration cases, this variability introduces a layer of financial uncertainty. If a loan has a floating rate and the duration of the underlying torts is materially extended, the actual borrowing cost can skyrocket, negatively impacting the overall returns of a final settlement. This is an incredibly important factor to understand both at the outset of a transaction and during the initial stages of capital deployment.

Similarly, the maturity, terms, and conditions can differ drastically between bank-sourced loans and those from third-party lenders, with no standard list of boilerplate terms for comparison—making a knowledgeable financial partner key to facilitating the best fit for the law firm. Two standard features of a bank credit facility are that the entire portfolio of all law firm assets is usually required to secure the loan, regardless of size, and an unbreakable personal guarantee further secures the entire credit facility. Both of these points are potentially negotiable with a third-party lender. Bank loans are almost always one-year facilities with the bank having an explicit right to reassess their interest in maintaining a credit facility with the law firm every 12 months. In contrast, third-party lenders typically enter into a credit facility with a commitment for 4-5 years, with terms becoming bespoke beyond these basics.

Loan Structures Under Scrutiny

The rigidity of bank loan structures, particularly notice provisions and speed of access, contrasts with the fluidity of third-party financiers’ offerings. The ability to negotiate terms based on case outcomes, as afforded by the alternative financing model, represents a paradigm shift in financial planning that has redefined the playbook for mass tort investors.

Risk at Its Core

The linchpin of this comparison is risk management. Banks often require a traditional, property-based collateral, which serves as a blunt instrument for risk reduction in the context of litigation. Third-party financiers, conversely, indulge in sophisticated evaluations and often adopt models of shared risk, where their fortunes are inversely tied to those of the litigants.

Support Beyond Capital

A crucial divergence between bank loans and alternative finance is the depth of support provided. The former confines its assistance to financial matters, while the latter, through its specialized knowledge, contributes significantly to strategic case management, risk assessment, and valuation, essentially elevating itself to the level of a silent partner in the legal endeavor. Furthermore, litigation funders (unlike banks), are often prepared to extend multiple installments of capital, reflecting a level of risk tolerance and industry insight that banks typically do not offer.

Case Studies and Success Stories

The case for alternative litigation finance is perhaps best illustrated through the experiences of attorneys who have successfully navigated the inextricable link between finance and litigation. The Litigation Finance Survey Report highlights the resounding recommendation from attorneys who have used third-party financing, with nearly all expressing a willingness to repeat the process and recommend it to peers.

This empirical evidence underscores the viability and efficacy of alternative financing models, showcasing how they can bolster the financial position of a firm and, consequently, its ability to take on new cases and grow its portfolio.

The Role of Litigation Finance Partners

When considering third-party litigation finance, the choice of partner is just as important as the decision to explore this path. Seasoned financiers offer more than just capital; they become an extension of the firm’s strategic muscle, sharing in risks and rewards to galvanize a litigation (and practice) forward.

Cultivating these partnerships is an investment in expertise and a recognition of the unique challenges presented by mass tort litigation. It is an integral part of modernizing the approach to case management, one that ultimately leads to a sustainable and robust financial framework.

For mass tort attorneys, the strategic use of finance can unlock the latent potential in their caseloads, transforming high-risk ventures into opportunities for growth and success. By carefully weighing the merits of traditional bank lending against the agility of third-party litigation financing, attorneys can carve out a strategic path that not only secures the necessary capital but also empowers them to manage risks and drive profitability.

One truth remains immutable: those who recognize the need for financial innovation and risk management will be the torchbearers for the future of mass tort litigators, where the scales of justice are balanced by a firm and strategic hand anchored in the principles of modern finance.

The following is a contributed piece by Nicole Clark, CEO and co-founder of Trellis. Trellis is pleased to offer LFJ members a complimentary 2 week free trial to its state trial court database.  Click here to access it today. 

Nobody knows exactly what happened. Each party has their own account of the events that unfolded. This, however, is what we do know. Jalapeno peppers were everywhere. Nestled within the rolling hills of Ventura County in Southern California, Underwood Ranches, a family farm operated by Craig Underwood, had been growing the fruit for the past three decades, serving as the sole supplier for Huy Fong Foods, the company responsible for sriracha. Business boomed. Both companies expanded. The world was their oyster.

Then, in 2016, the paradise they built crumbled. Huy Fong Foods filed a lawsuit against Underwood Ranches, accusing the farm of overcharging for growing costs. In response, Underwood Ranches countersued, claiming breach of contract and financial loss. After a three week trial, a jury for the Ventura County Superior Court found merit with both claims, awarding Huy Fong Foods $1.45 million and Underwood Ranches $23.3 million. Huy Fong Foods appealed the verdict, and, unable to claim its award, Underwood Ranches stood on the brink of financial collapse, left without the funds needed to pay its suppliers or its workers.

The Flames of Uncertainty

“The benefit you get from litigation is that litigation doesn’t fluctuate the same way that the markets do,” explains Christopher Bogart of Burford Capital. The financial service company had been called by the attorneys of Underwood Ranches to assist the farm, providing it with $4 million in non-recourse financing—enough to carry it through the appeal process. Still, according to Bogart, the comparative stability of litigation doesn’t eliminate the risks of financing a case like this. The risks, and the costs, can be big.

It’s easy to overlook the uncertainties embedded within the legal system. After all, this is a system that relies on precedents, a situation which suggests that the outcome of any future case should reflect that which came before. As Gail Gottehrer, an emerging technologies attorney based in New York City, remarks, “[i]f your case is similar and has similar facts to another case, the results shouldn’t be too surprising.” The problem, however, is that the results often are surprising. Judges aren’t computers. Neither are juries. They are people, filled with their own beliefs and their own experiences, both of which shape how they interpret laws, apply facts, and consider arguments.

Over the years, attorneys have developed their own rudimentary tools for grappling with this uncertainty. These rudimentary tools have now morphed into powerful machine learning technologies, packed with the ability to comb through millions of state trial court records in order to analyze court dockets, judicial rulings, and verdict data in ways that have rendered civil litigation more transparent and more predictable. But what does the story of sriracha mean for litigation funding teams? How can litigation finance companies use state trial court records to navigate uncertain legal terrains, not just for cases at the end of their lifecycle, but also for those that have only just begun?

Harvesting the Seeds

It could start with a ping. That’s just one way litigation funding companies can tap into new business opportunities. By registering for alerts with a legal analytics platform, litigation funding teams no longer need to source leads through collaborating attorneys. Alerts afford litigation funders with their own bird’s-eye view of the litigation landscape as it unfolds in real-time. These systems can notify users whenever a new case has been filed against a particular company, a new entry has been added to a case docket, or a new ruling has been issued on a legal claim.

To help manage the scale—and the urgency—of this reality, litigation funding teams can also turn to a different tool: the daily filings report. A daily filings report is a spreadsheet that contains detailed coverage of all new civil actions filed in a specific jurisdiction. Each report is emailed to subscribers every morning and includes all case data (i.e., judge, party, counsel, practice area) and metadata (i.e., case summary) as well as direct links to the docket and the complaint. With reliable access to daily filings reports, litigation funders can be the first to know about any new cases filed within a particular jurisdiction, pinpointing the most lucrative cases before anyone else.

Heat Indexing

What happens, then, when a litigation funding team finds a potential case? The daily filings report lets funders access the complaint within seconds, gathering all of the information they need to perform a Google-like search through the millions of state trial court records that have been curated by their preferred legal analytics provider. The goal? To quickly learn more about the litigation history of the parties that are named in the complaint (What other cases does Underwood Ranches have pending? What practice areas drain its budget? Who is its primary outside counsel?) and the law firm that has chosen to represent them (How experienced is Ferguson Case Orr Paterson with this jurisdiction, practice area, opposing counsel? Who are its typical clients? How were those cases resolved?).

The due diligence process deepens with a look at the merits of the case. Here, a litigation funding team can use legal analytics to follow the logics of conventional legal research. With access to a searchable database of prior decisional law, funders can conduct element-focused analyses of each asserted cause of action in the case, identifying the ways in which judges in the county have ruled on similar actions in the past. And, if a judge has already been assigned to the case, these funders can take their due diligence even further, turning their eyes to a judge analytics dashboard—an interactive interface developed by legal analytics platforms to highlight the patterns, the inclinations, and the past experiences of specific judicial officers.

Consider the dispute between Underwood Ranches and Huy Fong Foods, a case presided over by the Hon. Henry J. Walsh. According to Trellis, the average case length in Ventura County is 945 days. Knowing where Walsh sits in relation to this average, as well as the number of cases he has on deck, could help a litigation funder anticipate the likely pace of a case, a key piece of information to have when designing different investment portfolios. But what about juries? How might a jury respond to a breach of contract case in California? Legal analytics platforms like Trellis have also integrated verdict data into their systems, amending their archives of state trial court records to also include information related to case outcomes and settlement awards. A litigation funder conducting due diligence on Underwood Ranches could quickly pull a random sample of agricultural-related breach of contract claims in California, identifying the value range of verdict and settlement amounts (median: $5,650,798; average $9,331,712) and the frequency of plaintiff verdicts (62.5 percent). Litigation funders no longer need to wonder how much a case might be worth. The numbers are there.

The Spiciest Pepper

“There is idiosyncratic risk in the court system that can’t be anticipated,” begins Eva Shang, the co-founder of Legalist. It is widely known that predicting the outcome of litigation can be a risky business. Yet, there is something to be said about the magic of big numbers. Whenever we feed our computers the (meta)data of thousands of cases, deviations get smoothed out and patterns begin to emerge. By shifting our thinking away from stories about individual lawsuits, we can redirect our attention towards that which is frequent, recurrent, predictable. As a case study, the story of sriracha opens the door to a more predictable world, a world where the outcomes of litigation don’t have to fluctuate the way that markets do, not because the courtroom is inherently less uncertain than a stock exchange, but because the magic of big numbers finds increasingly novel ways to make it that way.

By Nicole Clark

CEO and co-founder of Trellis | Business litigation and labor and employment attorney

Trellis is an AI-powered legal research and analytics platform that gives state court litigators a competitive advantage by making trial court rulings searchable, and providing insights into the patterns and tendencies of your opposing counsel, and your state court judges.

Trellis is pleased to offer LFJ members a complimentary 2 week free trial to its state trial court database.  Click here to access it today. 

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

On Thursday April 4th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives.” The panel discussion featured Bobby Curtis (BC), Principal at Cloverlay, Cesar Bello (CB), Partner at Corbin Capital, and Zachary Krug (ZK), Managing Director at NorthWall Capital. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

The following post was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. 

In litigation finance, especially in mass torts and class actions, trust and success hinge on unwavering ethical practice and legal compliance. For attorneys and financial professionals navigating this complex field, a steadfast commitment to upholding ethical standards is not just ideal—it’s imperative. This article delves into the crucial considerations that must guide the intricate relationship between legal funding and professional integrity.

The following article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

There has been a lot of discussion if Consumer legal funding is a loan and thereby creates debt for a consumer Consumer legal funding, sometimes called litigation funding or lawsuit funding, provides cash upfront to plaintiffs, to be used for household needs, which are involved in legal proceedings in exchange for a portion of the eventual settlement or judgment. It doesn’t create debt like a loan from a bank or credit card, these distinctions contribute to its classification as a unique financial product rather than a loan or debt.

Last week, Brown Rudnick hosted its third annual European Litigation Funding Conference, proving once again to be one of the premier gatherings of industry thought leaders and executives. The one-day event featured an agenda full of insightful discussions, as senior representatives from funders, law firms, insurers, and other industry firms, all provided their perspectives on the most pressing issues facing the European funding market. The conference served as a reminder of the growing interest in litigation finance, as the venue was packed with attendees and without an empty seat in sight at the start of proceedings.

The following article was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. 

In the competitive landscape of litigation, the strategic use of litigation financing has become a vital tool for law firms to manage cash flow, mitigate risk, and level the playing field. However, the infusion of external capital into the legal process brings forth intricate ethical considerations, particularly concerning client confidentiality.

On February 8th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled ‘Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024.’  The event featured Gian Kull, Senior Portfolio Manager at Omni Bridgeway, David Gallagher, Co-Founder of LitFund, Justin Brass, Co-CEO and Managing Director of JBSL, and Michael German, Co-Founder and CIO at Lex Ferenda. The event was moderated by Peter Petyt, founder of 4 Rivers.

The following is an article contributed by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital,

Executive Summary

• Gross v. Net return dispersion needs to be considered by investors & fund managers
• While present in many private equity classes, managers that can limit dispersion can attract more capital for a given return profile
• Wide dispersion prevents many institutional investors from considering investing in the asset class

The following is the second of a two-part series (Part 1 can be found here), contributed by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital,

Executive Summary

• Duration risk is one of the top risks in litigation finance
• Duration is impossible to determine, even for litigation experts
• Risk management tools are available and investors should make themselves aware of the tools and their costs prior to making their first investment
• Diversification is critical in litigation finance

The following article was contributed by Peter Petyt, CEO of 4 Rivers Services, a third-party funding advisory and legal project management firm.  

Peter is undertaking part-time doctoral research at the University of Westminster in London to explore how law firms can ensure that they are suitable for portfolio funding and how can funders best evaluate which law firms to support. In his thesis, he will be examining the different ethical and regulatory challenges in various jurisdictions and analyzing the characteristics of legal case types which make them suitable or unsuitable for inclusion in a funded portfolio. The research will complement the existing 4 Rivers know-how which has been developed to help law firms and claimants secure third-party funding.

The following article was contributed by Peter Petyt, CEO of 4 Rivers Services, a third-party funding advisory and legal project management firm.  

Peter is undertaking part-time doctoral research at the University of Westminster in London to explore how law firms can ensure that they are suitable for portfolio funding and how can funders best evaluate which law firms to support. In his thesis, he will be examining the different ethical and regulatory challenges in various jurisdictions and analyzing the characteristics of legal case types which make them suitable or unsuitable for inclusion in a funded portfolio. The research will complement the existing 4 Rivers know-how which has been developed to help law firms and claimants secure third-party funding.