Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

October 20, 2023

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
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.