Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Digital Event: Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024

February 12, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJs Digital Event: Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024

On February 8th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled ‘Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024.’  The event featured Gian Kull, Senior Portfolio Manager at Omni Bridgeway, David Gallagher, Co-Founder of LitFund, Justin Brass, Co-CEO and Managing Director of JBSL, and Michael German, Co-Founder and CIO at Lex Ferenda. The event was moderated by Peter Petyt, founder of 4 Rivers. The discussion covered a range of topics pertinent to the litigation funding space. Below are some key takeaways from the event: Which areas are you particularly interested in investing in over this coming year?  MG: There is a supposition that this industry will continue to grow in 2024. All of the indicators suggest that the industry will continue to grow–nearly all of the funders are funding bankruptcy-related cases, and three quarters are funding patent cases. Those are areas of interest to us, and I think that will continue to make sense, given the types of commercial cases they are – complex cases that require significant amounts of attorney time and defendant time,  and yield significant costs to the litigaiton. JB: We’re going to see a continued expansion into the mass arbitration space. That is something that has been coming up with more frequency. Mass torts has been staying quite busy. And where we see a lot of potential is with the evolution of the secondary market. There are a lot of funders coming up with maturing cases, and it makes sense for those funders to redeploy that capital into other opportunities – not necessarily exit that case – but just sell a minority stake or a portion of it. We that in traditional fixed income classes, so we think that is going to continue in the funding market as well. Are you seeing any kind of appetite to invest in jurisdictions you haven’t previously invest in? Have some jurisdictions matured to the point where you now will give them a serious look?  GK: That’s a hard question to ask Omni Bridgeway as a whole, because we try to be in a lot of places. But from my own experience in Europe, we’ve gotten quite comfortable in the Netherlands, we have a very large investment in Portugal. Spain is next on the list. Italy is after that. The jurisdiction I’ve been most disappointed in – aside from the UK with the regulatory issues there – is Germany. For such a large economy, from a commercial collective redress perspective that is a dead end. As we move through Europe, I’ll be watching the regulatory regimes and how those are tested over the coming years. Are you seeing many requests for monetization of judgements or awards, or is that not an area that you are particularly interested in?  DG: We’re especially interested in that, largely because my partners have spent a lot of their careers making those types of investments. And just speaking from my own experience, that has always been an important part of the market, and continues to be an important part of the market. I think the availability of judgement preservation insurance makes funding more available and appropriate both on the funder’s side and the client’s side. In my view, it’s very interesting to see the number of people in the market moving into the insurance space. In my view quite a surprising number – it’s certainly indicative of a trend. LFJ just announced today that Ignite has launched a capital protection insurance resource. So there are a lot of interesting things happening here. Is it still early days for this space, because there are a lot of people moving into it with interest?  MG: I share the sentiment of having a general level of surprise with how many folks from the litigation finance industry insurance has drawn. From the Lex Ferenda perspective, insurance has proven to be a very expensive option, that ultimately my clients and I don’t feel is worth the cost. But the vast majority of our investments – from an insurer’s perspective – are probably the least good fit, so that’s probably why it’s reflecting in the price. JB: I think the insurance aspect of litigation finance is here to stay. There will be growing pains along the way. I think even as recently as last week, there were disclosures in the Affordable Care Act fee dispute where the law firm got an insurance policy related to its fee award. What was interesting there, was the law firm was seeking disclosure about the policy, and in essence how it worked. So not only is it new and here to stay, we’re seeing it become public. The risk to early-stage cases is the pricing can be expensive, but what will happen over time, is like anything else, the insurers will be tracking the progress on those cases, and as funders come back as repeat customers, they’ll be looking at you and factoring that relationship into their pricing, just like how a bank factors that into a credit score. I think the best path forward is figuring out how to work together and create a level of transparency and trust, because it’s not going away. For the full recording of the event, click here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.