Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Chris Janish, CEO, Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding

Erasmus’ Litigation Investment Innovation Library 

Erasmus’ Litigation Investment Innovation Library 

Erasmus Law Review hosts white papers from 10 of Europe’s top legal finance scholars. The library highlights major developments and barriers to litigation financiers.  Litigation Finance Journal’s compilation of the Erasmus legal investment library’s LF-based white papers includes a diverse library of subject matter, including regulatory issues in Australia, European litigation funding, and the role of BTE and ATE insurance.  The Erasmus library provides some dense material, yet these deep-dives can provide industry stakeholders with the opportunity to explore niche segments of the market not typically covered in more mainstream publications.

Commercial

View All

UK Lenders Ask Court of Appeal to Dismantle Group Motor Finance Case

By John Freund |

Several UK car finance providers urged the Court of Appeal on Wednesday to overturn a ruling that allows more than 5,000 customers to bring claims against them collectively, seeking to force the claimants to pursue individual actions instead. The hearing marks a pivotal test for the viability of group motor finance litigation in the UK, and by extension for the funders backing it.

As reported by Law360, the lenders argue that the claims are too varied to be managed as a single group proceeding and should be split into individual cases. The ruling under appeal had cleared the way for the 5,000-plus claimants to advance collectively — a structure that dramatically reduces per-claimant costs and is essential to the economics of funded mass motor finance litigation.

The appeal comes as the motor finance sector confronts one of the largest consumer redress exposures in recent UK history. The FCA's £9.1 billion motor finance redress scheme, confirmed earlier this month, addresses commission-linked mis-selling through a regulatory remediation channel — but parallel group litigation has continued to progress in the courts, with claimant firms pursuing damages arguments that extend beyond the FCA's redress framework.

For litigation funders, the Court of Appeal's decision will have direct implications for how mass motor finance claims can be structured, financed, and resolved. A ruling in favor of the lenders would splinter what is currently a single, fundable group proceeding into thousands of standalone actions — a structure that would be economically unworkable for most claimants and would effectively channel recoveries into the FCA scheme. A ruling upholding the group structure would cement the UK courts as a viable second track for motor finance claims running in parallel with regulatory redress.

The judgment is expected to be closely watched by funders, defendant lenders, and claimant firms involved in the wider generation of UK group consumer actions taking shape in the motor finance, data protection, and competition spaces.

Eskariam Secures €50 Million Credit Facility from Victory Park Capital to Expand Complex Damages Litigation

By John Freund |

Spanish litigation boutique Eskariam has secured a €50 million senior secured credit facility from U.S.-based Victory Park Capital, providing fresh capital to finance the firm's pipeline of complex damages and commercial disputes.

As reported by Iberian Lawyer, the facility underscores growing investor appetite for deploying private credit into litigation-intensive law firms in continental Europe, where the market for third-party capital has lagged the U.K. and the United States but is maturing rapidly.

Eskariam was founded to pursue large-scale damages claims, including cartel follow-on actions, competition cases, and high-value commercial disputes. The firm intends to use the facility to underwrite case costs, including expert fees and long-tail disbursements, while pursuing an expanding portfolio of multi-party claims on behalf of corporate clients.

Victory Park Capital, a Chicago-headquartered alternative asset manager with more than $10 billion in assets under management, has become an increasingly visible lender to specialty finance businesses, including law firm credit and litigation finance platforms. The Eskariam transaction reflects VPC's continued push into European legal assets, where credit facilities to claimant-side firms are emerging as a preferred structure for institutional investors seeking exposure to litigation returns without taking direct case risk.

The deal arrives against the backdrop of a European Commission weighing regulatory guardrails for third-party litigation funding, even as funders and law firms deepen the capital structures underpinning cross-border damages claims.

Federal Judges Weigh the Future of Third-Party Litigation Funding Inside Their Courtrooms

By John Freund |

Federal trial judges are openly grappling with how third-party litigation funding is reshaping the litigation they oversee, even as the formal rules governing disclosure remain unsettled.

As reported by Law.com, district court judges have acknowledged that funded claims are now routine features of complex commercial dockets, with funding arrangements shaping case strategy, settlement posture, and litigation duration. Several jurists emphasized that rules of disclosure have not caught up to the economic realities already present in their courtrooms.

The remarks underscore a growing divide between the federal judiciary's operational experience with litigation funding and the slower-moving rule-making process. The Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules advanced a TPLF transparency proposal earlier this month, but broad federal disclosure remains a meaningful distance from adoption. In the meantime, individual judges are using existing case-management authority to probe funding arrangements where conflicts, control, or settlement dynamics come into question.

For commercial funders, the discussion highlights the importance of maintaining clean documentation and control boundaries between funded parties and their investors. Disclosure-adjacent questions — including whether funders exercise veto rights, participate in settlement decisions, or receive litigation work product — are increasingly the subject of ad hoc scrutiny from the bench.

The conversation also signals that judges are unlikely to wait for national rule-making before addressing TPLF-related issues that affect their cases, reinforcing the patchwork regulatory environment in which commercial funders currently operate.