Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

September 19, 2023

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

Gian Marco Solas, Ph.D.2, is a qualified lawyer and academic, and currently serves as the Lead Expert at the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre and in private practice, where he advises on the application of physics models in (antitrust) litigation and market & investment modeling worldwide. With over a decade’s experience working with law firms and litigation funders, where he has inter alia built and managed the (then) largest European collective redress initiative (the Italian truck cartel initiative), Dr. Solas has published a number of papers on litigation funding and is the author of Third Party Funding: Law, Economics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and the forthcoming ‘De Lege et Amore – Theory of Interrelation & Sustainability (Escargot, 2023) about the interrelation of the laws of physics and human laws in the economy. In his latest analysis about the litigation funding market, Dr. Solas looks at three previous historical litigation funding cycles that have similarly and quickly appeared and disappeared in specific spatio-temporal dimensions (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Middle-Ages England), to then conclude – on the basis of recent and publicly available evidence – that the same ‘destiny’ appears to be repeating in the modern global cycle. This analysis on the one hand suggests to reject the non realistic view that litigation funding would be an uncorrelated asset class, which view ultimately is backfiring and making capital raises more difficult. While, on the other, to learn from its cyclicality and correlation to the economy to understand how and where to evolve. That is a fund individual choice that can be summed up, as matter of principle, to either transform into (or merge with) a proper asset manager (managing litigious and not litigious assets and / or classes thereof) or into a law firm (or special type thereof, with funds, technology, etc.) making profit both upfront and on a contingency / conditional or other basis. Such move would also potentially remove the need for discussions and implementation of sector-specific regulation of litigation funding while, from a more economic point of view, potentially allow to mitigate the risks physiologically linked to portfolios of unsecured debt in an economic downturn. In Dr. Solas’ view, it is therefore pivotal for the specialist litigation funding industry to embrace legal science and work on their “legal finance ‘beta’ strategy” to potentially move from the tail of the ending “debt cycle” to the head of the new “codified cycle”. This move should be designed to allow litigation funders to reach a realistic equilibrium between high-risk-high-reward investments with lower but steady and more secure income streams. Thus, freeing them from the evidently too tight and inefficient financial model that – together with regulatory pressure and other challenges – appear to be strangling the industry at this stage. In fact, many litigation funders are already part of larger and / or balanced conglomerates, while many others are not. All or most of them, however, seem to be still attached to the now surpassed view of a commoditized economy, that not only fails to capture the real value of legal claims, but also ‘weighs’ heavily on all asset managers in terms of compliance and legal costs. Most modern technology and legal science allows not just to analyze and factor the weight of the law in rational decision making, but also to enlarge the scope of viable legal claims and to codify any legal asset, therefore making them more economically valuable. Litigation funders’ higher familiarity and experience with the law compared to other asset managers could prove to be the distinguishing skill and make them not just sustainable – but also thrive – in the “new” codified economic reality. In addition to the books and articles mentioned above, further data for the above analysis can be found in the following forthcoming publications:
  • Physics as model for the law? Sustainability of the litigation finance business model (Journal of Law, Market and Innovation, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU. Regulatory challenges (Theoretical Inquiries on Law, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU (E. Elgar, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, E. D’Alessandro, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding and Sustainability considerations (E. Elgar, Research Handbook on Investment and Sustainable Development, 2024, co-ed Annie Lesperance and Dana McGrath)

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Chariot Claims Raises $10M Series A to Scale Mass Consumer Arbitration Claims

Chariot Claims has closed a $10 million Series A round to expand a platform that sources and pre-qualifies consumer claims for mass arbitration, bringing total funding to $15.7 million.

As reported by LawNext, the round was led by Silverton Partners, with general partner Mike Dodd participating, alongside Indicator Ventures, Lightbank, Neon Fund, ZVC, Rosecliff, Alumni Ventures, FJ Labs, Graph Ventures and Vermilion. The company previously raised a $3.6 million seed round led by Indicator Ventures in April 2025.

Founded in 2023 as ClaimClam and rebranded in 2025, the company is led by chief executive Zim Hang. It generates more than 200,000 pre-qualified claims a month across roughly 80 active corporate cases. Chariot Claims is not a law firm.

The business is built on a participation gap. Only about 4% of harmed consumers file claims, and the company reports that its users recover an average of roughly $460, compared with the $32 average identified in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of class action distributions.

Proceeds will fund investment in artificial intelligence and expansion into children's data privacy, financial privacy and healthcare privacy claims, as well as defences against corporate retaliation. The company has more than doubled its headcount.

The raise reflects continued investor appetite for claim aggregation infrastructure, which sits adjacent to litigation finance and increasingly competes with it for the same consumer-facing claim volume.

Commercial

Rugby Concussion Litigation Survives Collapse After Funder Covers £1.5m Costs Order

The long-running rugby concussion group litigation has been pulled back from collapse after an eleventh-hour £1.5m payment satisfied a court-ordered costs liability owed to World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, commercial litigation funder Asertis remained in place after the claimants changed law firms, meaning the costs order could be met. Had the payment not been made, the claims of roughly 1,000 former players would have been at risk.

The payment follows a reprieve granted in August, when Senior Master Jeremy Cook handed down a 13,500-word judgment granting relief from sanction in principle after Richard Boardman's Rylands Garth was replaced by KP Law. The claims of Phil Vickery and Steve Thompson had previously been ruled strike-out-worthy. Defendants had sought more than £2.8m in total, with Rugby Union costs assessed at £2.5m across World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU, and 60% ordered on an interim basis.

The litigation is not out of danger. Some 377 claimants still face automatic dismissal unless medical records are provided by the end of the month.

The episode is a clear illustration of a funder's role beyond case capital. Where a claimant group incurs an adverse costs order mid-proceeding, the funder's willingness to stand behind it determines whether the litigation continues at all. Asertis's decision to remain committed through a change of solicitor preserved a case begun in 2022.

Commercial

UFC Fighters Resist Discovery Into Who Is Funding Their Wage-Fixing Case

Mixed martial arts fighters suing the UFC over alleged wage suppression are pushing back against the organisation's effort to obtain information about the litigation funding behind their case, characterising the request as a distraction from the merits of the antitrust claims.

As reported by Law360, the fighters' opposition follows the UFC's move earlier this month to press a Nevada federal judge to pull back the curtain on who is financing the proceedings. The dispute arises in Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al, No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The October 15 report was written by Alex Lawson.

The case was filed in June 2021 by Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway against Zuffa and Endeavor Group Holdings, and covers fighters competing from 2017 onward. It is the successor to Le v. Zuffa, which settled for $375 million covering bouts between December 2010 and June 2017 and received final approval from Judge Richard F. Boulware in February 2025 without any accompanying changes to the UFC's business practices.

Funding discovery has become a standard defence tactic in large antitrust and class proceedings, and the fighters' objection tracks arguments made by claimants elsewhere: that the identity of a funder is irrelevant to liability. The case has already generated other discovery friction, including a sanctions motion in February over alleged evidence destruction.