Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Early-Stage Funding (ESF): Bridging the Gap in Litigation Finance

By Drew Hathaway |
March 25, 2025

Early-Stage Funding (ESF): Bridging the Gap in Litigation Finance

The following was contributed by Drew Hathaway, Founding Partner of Ignitis

Litigation funding has become a powerful tool for leveling the playing field in legal disputes, particularly in large-scale collective redress and mass litigation. However, traditional litigation funding models generally focus on established claims, leaving many meritorious cases stranded without the resources to move forward. ESF changes that dynamic, ensuring that strong claims don’t fail due to a lack of early investment.

What is Early-Stage Funding (ESF)?

ESF is a litigation seed funding model designed to provide capital before a case is mature enough for traditional funders. Unlike standard litigation finance, which typically invests after a case has been filed and is well-developed, ESF supports cases at their most critical early phase—covering investigation, legal groundwork, expert reports, and strategic planning.

For many high-stakes claims this early-stage investment is the difference between a case moving forward or being abandoned due to financial constraints.

How Can ESF Be Used?

ESF can be used in various ways. Some examples are:

  • Case Investigation & Viability Assessments: Financing expert reports, forensic analysis, and economic modeling to strengthen claims.
  • Initial Legal Work: Supporting law firms in preparing legal arguments, securing lead claimants, and initiating regulatory engagement.
  • Claimant Outreach & Bookbuilding: Funding the early-stage efforts to build a robust claimant pool in opt-in and opt-out actions.
  • Litigation Structuring & Strategy: Ensuring that the case is structured in a way that will later attract traditional (Round B) litigation funders.

Who Benefits from ESF?

ESF benefits injured parties, law firms, and traditional litigation funders in the following ways:

Claimants: Claimants generally do not have the means to finance their own litigation. For individuals or businesses harmed by corporate misconduct, access to ESF means:

  • Non-recourse capital to get the claim off the ground (meaning the ESF only needs to be paid back if the case is fully funded). 
  • The case moves forward faster, without waiting for full-scale funding.
  • Access to top-tier legal representation capable of success against well-resourced defendants.
  • The claims are properly developed and strategically executed, increasing their chances of success.

Law Firms: Law firms working on large-scale litigation often struggle with taking on the full risk and high costs of early-stage case development. This stage generally takes significant work, bookended with long timelines to securing Round B funding before capital begins to be deployed. For law firms, access to ESF means:

  • They have immediate access to capital to help with law firm cash flows.
  • They no longer must take on full risk for their time and upfront resources needed to secure funding.
  • They can focus their attention on developing the best legal arguments possible rather than worrying about their up-front time commitment.
  • They have a better developed case to present to Round B funders, making it more efficient to secure full funding.

Round B Funders (Traditional Litigation Funders): Frequently Round B Funders are presented with cases that they believe are simply too early for investment. Traditional litigation funders benefit from ESF because:

  • They receive well-developed cases that have already passed viability assessments.
  • They have immediate access to expert reports and legal opinions to better analyze the case and risks.
  • The risk of investment is reduced, since much of the groundwork has been completed and expert opinions are available.
  • Their duration risk is significantly reduced because ESF has been deployed to jump start the case and litigation is ready to commence. 

Conclusion

As litigation finance evolves, ESF is emerging as an essential tool for claimants, law firms and funders alike. By enabling early-stage legal work and de-risking high-potential claims, ESF ensures that justice is not delayed or denied due to financial constraints.

If you are exploring funding options for an early-stage case, ESF could be the solution to unlocking its full potential. 

About the Author

Drew Hathaway is a Founding Partner of Ignitis, where he leads case development, business strategy, and litigation funding initiatives. A U.S.-trained class action lawyer, Drew brings nearly two decades of experience navigating complex, high-stakes disputes and has built a reputation for advancing impactful litigation across borders.

After beginning his career defending medical malpractice cases, Drew transitioned to the plaintiff side in 2016, where he later became a key figure in the growth of international collective redress. He played a central role in launching and scaling European collective actions, helping to secure and deploy over €100 million in funding for cases aimed at holding multinational corporations accountable. Drew has helped millions of Europeans gain access to justice.

Drew’s expertise spans the full lifecycle of cross-border collective litigation—from claim foundation setup and funding structures to jurisdictional strategy, cost and tax modeling, and claims management. His comparative knowledge of U.S. and European systems allows him to operate effectively at the intersection of law and finance, where he regularly collaborates with leading law firms, economists, litigation funders, and academic experts.

He is a frequent speaker on international collective redress and litigation finance and is deeply committed to expanding access to justice for individuals and consumers harmed by systemic corporate misconduct.

He earned his B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his J.D. from Campbell University School of Law, where he was a National Moot Court Team member, Order of Old Kivett inductee, and editor of the Campbell Law Observer.

Drew is admitted to practice law in North Carolina, multiple U.S. federal and appellate courts, and in England and Wales.

About the author

Drew Hathaway

Drew Hathaway

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.