Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Rocco Pirozzolo, Managing Director and Director of Underwriting, Harbour Underwriting Limited

By John Freund |

Rocco has been the underwriting director of Harbour Underwriting Limited since its incorporation and is also its managing director. He is a solicitor who has spent over two decades developing and providing insurance for a wide variety of legal disputes brought around the world. Apart from being a seasoned underwriter, he has also been a director in the investment team of Harbour Litigation Funding and so has vast experience of complex litigation risks.

Rocco is one of the leading figures in the dispute resolution community. Since 2003, he has served on numerous forums and Working Parties of the Civil Justice Council, a statutory body responsible for overseeing and modernising the civil justice system. He has also been the Chair of The Association of British Insurers’ Legal Expenses Committee.

Rocco is named in Band 1 as a Leading Individual in the Litigation Insurance Underwriters UK section ofChambers and Partners Litigation Support guide 2024 and also included in Lawdragon’s 2024 list of the 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance.

He is the general editor ofThe Law Society’s Litigation Funding Handbook and the author of several of its chapters, including that on dispute insurance. He is also the co-author of the chapter on legal expenses insurance in the practitioners’ textbookFriston on Costs.

Cases insured by Rocco include:

  • various class actions (including securities claims) brought around the world, including in the UK, Australia and Canada
  • professional negligence claims, including against lawyers, auditors and surveyors, such as in Levicom International Holdings BV v Linklaters (a firm) [2010] EWCA Civ 494
  • intellectual property claims, such as Bentley 1962 Limited & Brandlogic Limited v Bentley Motors Limited [2019] EWHC 2925
  • group actions, including environmental claims such as Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312.

Rocco has been instructed over the years as an expert on dispute insurance, including by The Law Society in its intervention in a landmark case heard before the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC50.

Company Name and Description:    Harbour Underwriting Ltd

Company Website: https://harbourunderwriting.com

Year Founded:  2016

Headquarters:  4th Floor, 8 Waterloo Place, London England, SW1Y 4BE

Area of Focus:  Commercial dispute insurance

Member Quote: Litigation funders are sophisticated users of commercial dispute insurance. Even though they may well be confident of the prospects of the case they are funding succeeding, they know only too well how disputes can unexpectedly and inexplicably ‘take a turn’ for the worst and so they value having commercial dispute insurance in place from the outset.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.