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.

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Commercial

FCA Attacks Consumer Group Over Funding in £9.1bn Car Finance Battle

The Financial Conduct Authority has turned on a consumer campaign group in the escalating fight over Britain's £9.1 billion motor-finance redress scheme, questioning how the organization is funded and its ties to the law firm representing it.

As reported by The Guardian, the regulator has urged judges to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Consumer Voice, arguing the group failed to give "a full and frank explanation" of its own interest and that of its solicitors, Courmacs Legal. In court filings, the FCA suggested Consumer Voice had not been honest about its business model or its relationship with Courmacs, and had not disclosed details of its funding arrangements.

Consumer Voice contends the FCA's compensation scheme will low-ball victims of mis-sold car loans, who face an average payout of roughly £829 per agreement — higher than the £695 the regulator floated in its earlier consultation, but still, the group argues, well short of fair value. Lenders including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander, and the finance arms of Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz are on the hook for the £9.1 billion the FCA expects the scheme to cost.

The clash places the funding and structure of claims-side campaign groups squarely in the regulator's sights, echoing a wider debate over transparency in third-party-backed consumer litigation. With millions of drivers due payouts this year, the dispute over who speaks for claimants — and who pays for that advocacy — is likely to intensify.

Commercial

Treasury Rejects Longo’s Warning Over ASIC’s Depleted Litigation War Chest

Australia's Treasury has brushed aside warnings from former corporate regulator chair Joe Longo that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is running short of the money it needs to fund major enforcement litigation, insisting the watchdog is adequately resourced.

As reported by Capital Brief, Treasury said there were no funding concerns around ASIC, despite Longo's plea in May for an urgent top-up at the close of what he described as the regulator's most successful year in court. Longo had warned a parliamentary committee that ASIC's Enforcement Special Account — the reserve built to absorb the costs of large, complex cases — was on track to fall to its minimum viable level by 30 June 2026.

"Absent replenishment, this will impede ASIC's ability to maintain its current enforcement program," Longo cautioned, adding that without additional funding the regulator might have to scale back or defer cases that would otherwise proceed. The account is designed to let ASIC pursue resource-intensive matters against well-funded corporate defendants without straining its operating budget.

The exchange spotlights a tension increasingly familiar to litigation-finance observers: even a public enforcement agency depends on a dedicated pool of case capital to sustain high-stakes litigation, and the adequacy of that pool shapes which matters get pursued. Treasury's rejection of Longo's alarm leaves unresolved how ASIC will bankroll its most ambitious cases as the special account approaches the floor he flagged.

Commercial

Meru’s Withdrawal Highlights the Case for Litigation Funding in India

The decision by cab aggregator Meru to abandon its long-running competition appeal against Ola and Uber has become an unlikely rallying point for advocates of third-party litigation funding in India, illustrating how the absence of outside capital can force even well-founded claims to be dropped.

As reported by Moneycontrol, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal permitted Meru Travel Solutions to withdraw its appeal challenging a 2018 Competition Commission of India order that had closed its antitrust complaint at the preliminary stage. The tribunal noted that Meru's operations and revenues had deteriorated to the point that continuing the litigation was no longer viable.

The commentary argues that Meru's exit is less a verdict on the merits than a reflection of a financing gap. Had third-party funding been readily available, the analysis contends, a cash-strapped litigant might have pressed on rather than surrender a claim it could no longer afford to pursue.

India permits third-party funding — no statute expressly prohibits it, and agreements are governed largely by the Indian Contract Act and Bar Council conduct rules — but the market remains thinly developed and lightly regulated. As commercial courts gain stronger procedural powers under 2026 reforms and high-value technology, energy, and infrastructure disputes proliferate, general counsel and chief financial officers are increasingly weighing outside capital as a strategic tool. Meru's withdrawal, the piece suggests, is a case study in the cost of leaving that tool underused.