Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

How Our Top-5 Articles of 2021 Foretell What’s Coming in 2022

January 6, 2022

How Our Top-5 Articles of 2021 Foretell What’s Coming in 2022

Litigation Finance has enjoyed another year of growth and innovation, as we enter a shocking third year of the COVID pandemic. New funds have arisen, affording more potential claimants an opportunity to experience their day in court. New entrants are emerging in the funding space, innovative investment opportunities are popping up in the form of ILOs on the blockchain, and prominent examples of the benefits of legal funding are arising with increasing frequency. Each of our top-5 most popular articles in the last year illustrate an industry trend we think is worth keeping an eye on. These trends also offer clues as to what we can expect in the coming year. Below are the top-5 articles from 2021:  #5) Litigation Finance and Patent Litigation—Fast Friends 2021 Trend: One thing we’ve learned about third-party litigation funding is that once clients and plaintiffs get a taste of it, they recommend it highly. This leads to explosive growth in specific sectors. In this contributed post, Slingshot Capital founder Ed Truant explains that in 2021, Patent and IP litigation went from a relatively uncommon investment to one that is highly sought out. Some of this can be attributed to the pandemic and the investor rush toward uncorrelated assets. But some of the popularity of IP litigation investment stems from the possibility of awards in the multi-millions. As funders sharpen their due diligence skills and use new tech to predict case outcomes, the likelihood of sourcing meritorious patent cases grows. From the article: “It used to be the case that patent litigation was viewed negatively by the litigation funding community…Then about two years ago, I noticed an increase in the number of patent cases being brought to the attention of funders, and in the number of funders marketing that they are interested in providing financing to patent cases.” What does this mean for 2022? If/when COVID restrictions are lifted and life slowly returns to normal, we’ll likely see similar growth in other sectors. We know that when law firms and clients have a good experience with funders, word gets around. The expectation is that Litigation Finance will improve in recognition and accessibility. As a largely self-regulating industry, third-party legal funding continues to position itself as a public good. We have every reason to believe that will continue in 2022 #4) Litigation Finance Basics 2021 Trend: The popularity of this article, originally published in 2017, reveals interesting things about the business of legal funding. Legal professionals and many types of investors are taking an increased interest in litigation funding. It also underscores that this widespread curiosity about the industry is leading people to investigate it from its humble beginnings to its current role as a public good. From the article: “We don’t all have the same access to the legal system. Those with money have more access than those without. Litigation finance allows claimants without money to have the kind of access to justice that those with money currently enjoy. Obviously, that threatens some, but for the rest of us, litigation finance should be celebrated as a means of achieving equality of opportunity when it comes to preserving our legal rights.” What does this mean for 2022? We predict more of the same, probably on an even grander scale. As regulations become more welcoming to funders, investors are taking greater notice of the practice. Now that regulations are relaxing around non-lawyer ownership of legal firms, the potential for lawyer/funder co-ownership of firms has earned the interest of many prominent investment firms. Jurisdictions around the world are relaxing champerty and maintenance restrictions and creating an environment more welcoming to third-party funding for an array of legal matters. This includes arbitration, patent and IP litigation, and claims enforcement. The popularity of a back-to-basics piece like this one, demonstrates that more people in more industries are curious about what litigation funding can do for them. #3) The Impressive Growth of Commercial Litigation Finance 2021 Trend: Our third entry is another Ed Truant piece illustrating an interest in Litigation Finance from people outside the legal field. In this piece, however, emphasis is placed on the addressable market for litigation funding. This tells us that financial experts are looking toward third-party funding as a future investment. From the article: “I think it is important for all stakeholders to understand the size of an industry, so investors can determine whether it has the scale and growth attributes necessary to justify a long-term approach to investing in the sector.” What does this mean for 2022? We predict that hedge funds and private equity firms will continue to flock to the litigation funding sector. This may happen at an even faster clip, as certain types of litigation rise to prominence in the coming year. Breach of contract, insurance litigation, and issues of employer responsibility as related to COVID precautions are expected to flood court dockets in 2022. This amid an effort to catch up on the backlog of cases caused by court delays and closures.  More litigation means more opportunity for investors to avail themselves of the benefits of TPLF as an uncorrelated asset. #2) Investor Caveats in the Commercial LitFin Asset Class 2021 Trend: As an increasing number of investors seek out litigation funding, the pitfalls associated with this type of investment aren’t as well known. Ed Truant of Slingshot Capital, shows up again on our list, as he explains how investors can better understand this asset class. Matters of tail risk, gross vs net returns, portfolio valuation, and deployment risks are all areas investors will want to be familiar with. After all, just because an asset is uncorrelated, does not mean it is free from risk. From the article: “The asset class presents a unique opportunity to add an asset that has true non-correlation, along with inherent ESG attributes. This makes litigation finance a very attractive asset class. However, an investor needs to do their homework prior to executing an investment.”  What does this mean for 2022? The emphasis on ESG investing bodes well for the future. Litigation Finance’s commitment to investing in environmental, social justice, and governance litigation shines a light on the fact that LitFin investments can be simultaneously lucrative, and a net gain for society. #1) Bank Cartel Claims Europe Announces $12 Million Funding Round 2021 Trend: The popularity of this article is an affirmation of the growth and expansion of Litigation Finance in the EU market. The piece details three antitrust cases in which the fund will deploy cash. The banks are accused of engaging in cartel behavior—one of the most serious types of antitrust charges. This type of piece serves to illustrate how litigation funding helps fight corruption and works toward the public good. It also shows us that fundraising capital is out there for experienced funders with proven track records. From the article: “In these three cases, for example, the pension and hedge funds that lost millions of dollars…can effectively claim their damages through actions before a national court. …in most cases, the remaining question to be decided is the amount of damages. This makes antitrust litigation very attractive for investors.” What does this mean for 2022? We think this means even greater global expansion for Litigation Finance. While funding still has its naysayers, the global mood toward third-party legal funding is largely positive. As the practice casts a progressively wider net—most of those who have used litigation funding to pursue their litigation report being satisfied with the results. Legal funding is already growing in India, Singapore, Germany, South Africa, and China. There’s no reason to think expansion of the industry will not continue in 2022.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.