Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from IMN’s 2nd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum

On October 19th, IMN hosted its second Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, bringing together thought leaders from across the litigation finance industry and showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content.

Following on from the successful inaugural edition in 2022, this year’s event once again demonstrated the growing strength of the litigation funding market, both in the UK and across the globe. The agenda also managed to capture the broad diversity of perspectives within the industry, with lively discussion and debate across the panels and breakout sessions.

The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, which immediately demonstrated the changes in the regional market over the last 12 months. Whereas last year’s panel on this topic was dominated by discussion around the Voss Report and the looming prospect of further regulation, yesterday’s conversation was firmly focused on the increasing innovation in the market and an evolving landscape that has seen competing models of third-party financing develop.

Litica’s Ed Yell emphatically stated that “the growth in Europe over the last year has been spectacular”, and Iain McKenny from Profile Investment described the current state of play as a “hot bed for evolution.” A core element of the panel’s conversation revolved around the growing formation of a secondary market for litigation finance transactions, with JBSL’s co-founder Sarah Lieber summarising it aptly: “Secondary trading is the hallmark of a maturing asset class, it’s necessary to think about from the beginning of every funding deal.”

The second panel of the morning ventured into the economics of the market, looking at the different types of funder capitalization and the challenges faced by funders looking to raise capital in the turbulent market. The panellists explored the differences between the UK and US market, with Ted Farrell from Litigation Funding Advisers, highlighting the lack of portfolio funding deals in the UK and pointing out that “single case is always going to be super expensive.” Neil Purslow explained that from Therium’s perspective, portfolio deals in the UK “usually don’t work well and fail”, resulting in a pivot back towards single case funding.

The first of two panels focusing on the role of litigation insurance saw a wide-ranging discussion that covered everything from the type of cover available, to the increasingly varied ways that funders, law firms and insurers are collaborating on deals. On this topic, Robin Ganguly from Aon, stressed the need for funders and insurers “to work together to make the industry sustainable,” emphasising that “deals have to be attractive to everyone or deals won’t get done.” All the panelists agreed that those seeking insurers needed to be more proactive and prepared, with Tom Davey of Factor Risk Management putting it in clear terms: “Get insurance when it’s available, not three weeks before trial.”

Unsurprisingly, the following panel discussion on class actions and group litigation immediately turned to the subject of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Echoing similar sentiments from speakers earlier in the day, most of the panelists agreed that funders and law firms were taking a pragmatic approach and exploring a variety of alternative structures for funding agreements and working closely with clients to find an optimal solution. Brown Rudnick’s Elena Ray provided the clearest overview of the situation, saying that firms “are not seeing a negative impact on the litigation funding space, so the parties have adjusted well to the PACCAR judgement.”

Lara Melrose from Orchard Global described the UK’s group action market as “a very buoyant one” and noted that funders are benefitting from the courts’ flexible approach as demonstrated in recent decisions including the first amalgamation of claims in the CAT and the first application for a collective settlement. Alex Garnier of NorthWall Capital also pointed out that part of funders’ interest in class actions stems from the fact that “they’re not just fought in the courtroom they’re also fought in the court of public opinion”, thereby creating added pressure on large corporates to settle rather than “having their dirty laundry aired in court for months.”

After a break for lunch and networking, the agenda once again returned to the topic of insurance, but with this panel putting an added emphasis on the lawyers’ perspective. Prompted by the panel’s moderator, Rocco Pirozzolo, the lawyers on the panel discussed some of the difficulties and frustrations they’ve faced when looking to secure insurance for a case. HFW’s Nicola Gare turned the question on its head, instead pointing out some best practices, with a particular emphasis on those funders who are able to give a prompt decision and explain their reasoning. 

Meanwhile, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Insurance, and James Gowen-Smith from Miller, both said that it was important for all parties to remember it was a collaborative relationship and that it always worked best where there was adequate transparency, and where insurers were involved in the strategy discussions as early as possible.

The agenda turned from the present to the future in the next panel, with an insightful discussion around new models of delivering legal finance and how new technology, such as emerging AI tools, can be incorporated to fuel future growth. Nick Rolwes-Davis from Lexolent led the calls for more innovation and change in the funding process, arguing that the industry was “probably overdue a change” and that increased efficiency could be achieved by “using technology as a triage tool.” Ben Knowles of Clyde & Co. offered similar support for evolution within litigation funding, pointing out that from a law firm’s perspective, “if technology could improve that due diligence process, then hopefully more cases could be funded.”

In the penultimate session of the day, Louise Trayhurn from Legis Finance, and Carlos Ara Triadu from Cuatrecasas, led the room in an engaging and entertaining interactive session. Trayhurn turned the tables on the audience, seeking out the varying perspectives of lawyers and funders on the evolving relationship between funders and law firms. Whilst some attendees were more hesitant than others, the live Q&A format provided an excellent change of pace and allowed for a free-flowing discussion about the unique challenges and opportunities around the lawyer-funder dynamic.

For the final panel of the event, the focus shifted to developments in continental Europe and the ongoing implementation of the EU’s Directive on Representative Actions. The discussion, moderated by Joanna Curtis from Brown Rudnick, looked at the differing approaches to implementation across Europe, focusing on the panelist’s local jurisdictions of Germany, Ireland, and Spain. Whilst all the speakers agreed that the directive was a positive development overall, they also pointed out that in terms of enhancing access to litigation funding in Europe, it may not produce significant changes. Elaine Whiteford from Wilkie Farr & Gallagher highlighted that there are still “a number of critical issues that the initiative doesn’t address for funders” in Europe, with the use of funding still primarily limited by each country’s national laws on its permissibility.

Overall, IMN’s second UK event managed to provide an insightful exploration of the litigation funding industry and provided attendees with a comprehensive view of the market, bolstered by insights from stellar thought leaders. Across a busy day of content, the forum offered a platform for a variety of perspectives, generating debates and discussions that will no doubt continue long after the event.

LFJ looks forward to seeing how IMN continues to build on the success of the 2023 forum in the future.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.