Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Drew Hathaway

Drew Hathaway

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.