Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

By Drew Hathaway |

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
Case Developments Commercial

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?

Case Developments Commercial

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.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

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.