Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

EU Stakeholder Survey Aims to Inform Litigation Finance Policy

By Tom Webster |
September 4, 2024

EU Stakeholder Survey Aims to Inform Litigation Finance Policy

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

An EU stakeholder survey is gathering practical information on the operation of third-party funding across the European Union. The study, ‘Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) in the European Union’, was given an extended deadline of 3 September 2024.

Conducted by Civic Consulting and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), the research will help the European Commission analyse the legal framework and practical operation of litigation funding in the EU and make policy decisions in the area.

The survey seeks views from stakeholders with experience of third-party funding, including funders, lawyers, consumer organisations, other businesses, public authorities, members of the judiciary and others. As well as questions seeking to discover the extent of funding activity in each EU jurisdiction and typical levels of investment, it also asks for views on both positive and negative effects of litigation funding.

In relation to positive effects, the survey asks a number of questions including whether respondents have observed that current litigation funding practices lead to better access to the courts for parties who could not litigate without funding; whether there is a deterrent effect on companies that serve consumer markets due to the threat of mass claims relating to unsafe products or unfair practices; and whether respondents have seen a filtering effect on claims as those with a low chance of success will not be funded.

In relation to negative effects, questions include whether respondents have observed conflicts of interest; undue influence on decisions such as settlements and appeals; and the funding of frivolous claims.

The EU survey is just one of a number of projects currently examining the litigation funding sector. Also focusing on the EU market, the European Law Institute is undertaking a substantial research project with the aim of establishing a set of principles to identify the issues that should be taken into account when entering into litigation funding agreements.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Legal Services Board recently published a report on litigation funding in England and Wales (https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-review-of-litigation-funding.pdf), and the Civil Justice Council has embarked on a wide-reaching review of the sector (https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/cjc/current-work/third-party-funding/) which will include recommendations in relation to the future regulation of the industry.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial

Burford’s Q2 Profits Surge on New Capital

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has delivered its strongest quarterly performance in two years, buoyed by a swelling pipeline of high-value disputes and a fresh infusion of investor cash.

A press release in PR Newswire reveals that the New York- and London-listed funder more than doubled revenue and profitability in the three months to 30 June 2025. CEO Christopher Bogart credited “very substantial levels of new business” for the uptick, noting that demand for non-recourse financing remains “as strong as we’ve ever seen.”

The stellar quarter follows a lightning-quick, two-day debt offering in July that raised $500 million—capital Burford says will be deployed across a growing roster of commercial litigations, international arbitrations, and asset-recovery campaigns. Management also highlighted significant progress in portfolio rotations, underscoring the firm’s ability to monetise older positions while writing new ones at scale. Investors will get a deeper dive when Burford hosts its earnings call today at 9 a.m. EDT.

Burford’s results arrive amid heightened regulatory chatter in Washington and Westminster, yet the numbers suggest the industry’s largest player is unfazed—for now—by talk of disclosure mandates and tax levies. The firm emphasised that its legal-finance, risk-management and asset-recovery businesses remain uncorrelated to broader markets, a pitch that continues to resonate with pension funds and endowments hunting for alternative yield.

For litigation-finance insiders, Burford’s capital-raising prowess and improving margins could have ripple effects: rival funders may face stiffer competition for marquee cases, while law-firm partners might leverage the firm’s deeper pockets to negotiate richer portfolio deals.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Ruling Strengthens Class-Action Funders

By John Freund |

Australia’s litigation-funding industry just received the judicial certainty it has craved.

Clayton Utz reports that the High Court, in Kain v R&B Investments [2025] HCA 26, unanimously held that the Federal Court may impose common-fund orders (CFOs) or funding-equalisation orders at settlement or judgment—ensuring all class members, not just those who signed funding agreements, contribute to a funder’s commission.

The Court reaffirmed Brewster’s bar on early-stage CFOs but found late-stage CFOs fall within the “just” powers of ss 33V(2) and 33Z(1)(g) of the Federal Court Act. Crucially, the bench rejected “solicitor common-fund orders,” ruling that any CFO benefiting plaintiff firms would contravene the national ban on contingency fees outside Victoria.

For funders, the decision cements the enforceability of commissions in nationwide class actions and removes a major pricing risk that had lingered since Brewster. For plaintiff firms, however, the ruling slams the door on a hoped-for new revenue channel.

The Court’s reasoning—tying funding commissions to equitable cost-sharing rather than contingency returns—will likely embolden funders to back larger opt-out claims, knowing a CFO safety-net is available at settlement. Meanwhile, plaintiff firms may redouble lobbying efforts for contingency-fee reform, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, to reclaim ground lost in today’s judgment. Whether lawmakers move on that front will shape Australia’s funding market in the years ahead.

Case Developments Commercial

Locke Capital Backs Sarama in US $120 Million ICSID Claim Against Burkina Faso

By John Freund |

A junior gold explorer is turning to third-party capital to fight what it calls the expropriation of a multi-million-ounce deposit.

According to a press release on ACCESS Newswire, ASX- and TSX-listed Sarama Resources has drawn down a four-year, US $4.4 million non-recourse facility from specialist funder Locke Capital II LLC. The proceeds will pay Boies Schiller Flexner’s fees and expert costs in Sarama’s arbitration against Burkina Faso at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Sarama alleges the government retroactively revoked its Tankoro 2 exploration permit in 2023, halting development of the flagship Sanutura project. An arbitral tribunal chaired by Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg held its first procedural hearing on 25 July; Sarama’s memorial is due 31 October, and the company is seeking no less than US $120 million in damages.

Under the Litigation Funding Agreement, Locke’s recourse is limited to arbitration proceeds and the ownership chain of Sanutura; Sarama’s other assets remain ring-fenced. Repayment occurs only on a successful award or settlement, with Locke’s return calculated on a multiple-of-invested-capital basis and adjusted for timing.

The deal underscores the continued appetite of specialist funders for investor-state claims, particularly in the mining sector where treaty protections offer a clear legal framework and potential nine-figure payouts.