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

Commentary Argues Funding Disclosure Bills Would Weaken Small-Business Patent Enforcement

A new opinion piece defends third-party litigation funding as a precondition for small businesses and independent inventors being able to enforce their intellectual property rights, and argues that pending federal disclosure legislation would undercut them.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, the commentary is written by Kristen Osenga, chief policy counselor of the Inventors Defense Alliance and a professor of law at the University of Richmond School of Law. She frames funding as an access-to-justice question for the innovation economy rather than a question of litigation volume.

The piece points to two measures now before Congress: Representative Darrell Issa's Litigation Transparency Act and Senator Thom Tillis's Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act. Osenga argues that mandatory disclosure of funding arrangements would hand well-resourced defendants insight into a plaintiff's financial position and litigation strategy, giving them a means to outlast smaller opponents rather than resolve the merits.

Her economic case rests on the role small firms play in US innovation. Small businesses account for roughly 45% of US GDP, and smaller companies produce approximately 50% more patents per employee than large companies. Without outside capital, she contends, those inventors face infringement by parties who can afford to litigate indefinitely.

The commentary likens litigation funding to the contingency fee arrangement, a long-accepted mechanism for shifting cost risk away from claimants who cannot bear it. "The right to sue is only valuable if you can afford to exercise it," Osenga writes, casting the disclosure debate as one over who retains practical access to the courts.

Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Asks High Court to Rule Client Committee Cannot Remove It From Mariana Dam Case

Pogust Goodhead has escalated its dispute over control of the multi-billion-pound Mariana dam group action against BHP, taking the matter to the High Court rather than accepting the claimant committee's decision to change firms.

As reported by Legal Futures, the firm has applied for declarations that the committee had no contractual authority to terminate its retainer, no authority to direct a change in legal representation, and no authority to prevent it from instructing Quinn Emanuel for the damages phase of the claim.

The committee, made up of 17 members whose identities are confidential, decided in early September to move the claim to Bailey Glasser International, a joint venture between a firm run by former Pogust Goodhead staff and the US firm Bailey & Glasser. Pogust Goodhead had announced in June that it would instruct Quinn Emanuel on damages.

In a statement, the firm said that clients "are being encouraged to walk away from an established litigation structure on the representation that they can simply move to another firm with no material consequences."

The timing raises the stakes considerably. A damages trial listed for 22 weeks is only months away, and the underlying claim has been built on an extensively financed litigation structure whose economics depend on the identity of the firm carrying it to trial. The application asks the court to determine, in effect, who holds the contractual right to control the running of one of the largest group actions in the English courts, and on what terms a claimant committee can override the arrangements that funded it.

Commercial

Burford-Affiliated Investor Pursues $109M Claim Against Alberta Law Firm Over 2018 Funding Agreement

A Delaware investment vehicle closely affiliated with Burford Capital is pursuing a debt claim of roughly $109 million against Alberta lawyer Jeffrey Rath and his firm, Rath & Company, alleging default on a litigation funding agreement first entered into in 2018.

As reported by Global News, Diriba Investments LLC claims the firm defaulted two years ago on financing tied to First Nations and COVID-19 litigation, with the outstanding balance now standing at approximately $108.8 million plus interest and costs. Diriba acts as agent for co-funder Western Springs Investments LP, also a Delaware entity. A 2023 amendment expanded the agreement's scope to cover all claimant-side work at the firm, including First Nations treaty claims and litigation over COVID-19 restrictions.

The alleged breaches include failure to provide monthly reports, failure to keep the funders informed, failure to report or remit proceeds, non-disclosure of client terminations, and the granting of competing security to a separate Delaware entity, Vance SPV LLC. Diriba issued a default notice in November 2024 and, in late July 2026, served a formal demand alongside a notice of intention to enforce security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act describing the firm as an "insolvent person."

The supporting affidavit was sworn by Paul Mysliwiec, Burford Capital's deputy general counsel, acting as Diriba's authorized representative. Burford did not respond to requests for comment, and Diriba's Calgary counsel declined to comment.

The claim runs alongside separate actions by the Tallcree and Sturgeon Lake First Nations alleging misappropriation of trust funds, a Mareva injunction freezing $8.5 million, and a court-appointed receiver. Diriba is seeking an expanded receivership mandate at a September 14 hearing in Calgary. The allegations have not been proven in court, and Rath denies wrongdoing.