Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Louise Trayhurn of Legis Finance

March 2, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Louise Trayhurn of Legis Finance

Louise Trayhurn, Executive Director of Legis Finance, sat down with LFJ to discuss a broad range of industry topics, including Legis’ bespoke approach to managing client relationships, the various funding and insurance products her company offers, the growing trend of GCs and CFOs extracting more value out of their legal assets, and what trends she predicts for the future of the industry. Below are key takeaways from the conversation, which can be found in its entirety here. Q: How does Legis approach the issue of pricing transparency and consistency? A: At Legis, we share with the client, the law firm, and the funder all of the returns listed. It’s very transparent. Every party can see what’s going on. If they don’t like model scenarios…then we can adjust it. ‘Pivot’ is a word that’s used frequently in our office. We’ll constantly amend, adapt, and make changes here and there to try and get everybody comfortable. Q: In the US, contingency fees have long been used by lawyers to share risk with their clients. Can you explain the benefits of DBAs as opposed to conditional fee arrangements and the billable hour model? What has Legis specifically been doing to press for this transition to DBAs? A: We formed a working group for those interested in DBAs. The idea behind it was to…discuss the possibility of a standard damages-based agreement. I, having a background as a litigator, thought this was fairly ambitious. We got a whole group of litigators together, and as well as looking at the broader picture of a standard form document, we had a more urgent task, which was to work together to provide feedback to the team looking at amending the DBA regulations. Q: In the wake of COVID, we’re seeing a mindset shift that’s been talked about for years. What have you been noticing in terms of how GCs and CFOs are considering litigation finance? What do you see happening out there? A: GCs are sitting in their board rooms and they’re acting as cost centers. They take their seat and the first thing they’re asked is ‘okay, how much is legal spend going to be this month?’. There are numerous companies out there committed to spending a certain amount each month on their litigation. It’s just money going out the door, and it’s hard for those GCs to show their value other than reducing the amount of legal spend this month for the same results. Now, you can use litigation finance to generate revenue. Instead of being a drain on the company’s cash, you can in fact add; you can be a profit center, if you use your litigation assets to make money for the company instead of costing them money. You have funders willing to do the due diligence in an independent manner—I mean, we don’t get paid for picking bad cases—and GCs have in their hands a very powerful independent check on their cases, and that can help in all kinds of ways. Q: Broadly speaking, what predictions do you have in terms of the maturation of the Litigation Finance market. What can we expect this year and down the road? A: Certainly I’m going to say increased use of funding. And apart from that, there may well be a consolidation of existing funders, or funders standing behind funding. Increased use of different financial products to back funding—insurance or other entrants to the market. Or a secondary market of products available to funders to manage their own risk, and possibly a secondary market available to investors to package these litigation assets, standardize the documentation, and buy and sell risk. That should help open the marketplace for these institutions that want to create secondary markets.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

MWE Guide Outlines Compliance Priorities for Litigation Fund Managers

By John Freund |

Fund managers exploring or operating within the litigation finance space face a complex and often underappreciated regulatory landscape. A recent guide from McDermott Will & Emery provides a detailed roadmap for how litigation fund managers can navigate this evolving environment, with a particular focus on securities laws, fiduciary obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The memo serves as a primer on key legal considerations, especially for those managing funds in the United States or marketing to U.S. investors. It emphasizes that litigation finance funds may be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional investment vehicles. Managers must consider registration requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as exemptions, such as those for foreign private advisers or venture capital fund advisers. The authors also explore the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, cautioning that even non-traditional funds can be pulled into regulatory oversight if structured improperly.

Fiduciary duties take center stage in the memo’s discussion of fund governance. Managers are reminded that they owe duties of care and loyalty to their investors, which can become complicated in litigation finance where the fund’s interests may diverge from those of claimholders or legal counsel. Disclosure, consent mechanisms, and robust internal compliance protocols are strongly recommended to mitigate potential conflicts.

The guide also highlights the increasing focus by regulators and policymakers on transparency and ethical boundaries within the litigation finance industry. Fund managers are urged to prepare for heightened scrutiny and evolving disclosure expectations.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Op-Ed in The Hill Targets Foreign Investment in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

A growing chorus of voices is calling for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with a new op-ed warning that opaque capital is compromising the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system.

An opinion piece in The Hill by Lindsay Lewis and Phil Goldberg of the Progressive Policy Institute argues that American courtrooms are being quietly transformed into a financial marketplace, with hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, and other investors channeling billions into U.S. litigation. The authors highlight an alleged lack of disclosure, warning that litigation funders can influence or outright control high-value cases, often without the knowledge of courts, litigants, or the public.

The litigation funding industry has long cited a lack of evidence regarding such accusations, yet the pressure from industry critics persists. The article points to mass torts as a flashpoint for abuse, claiming funders are building lawsuits “too big to fail” by bankrolling advertising campaigns and scientific claims to pressure companies into mass settlements regardless of the merits.

The op-ed also echoes previously-made critiques around national security and economic concerns, citing recent reports of Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and Emirati-backed funds investing in U.S. litigation. These foreign entities, the authors argue, could use lawsuits to access sensitive corporate data or strategically target American companies, all while avoiding U.S. taxes on any litigation proceeds.

Lewis and Goldberg call for reforms mandating disclosure of litigation funders, establishing ethical walls between financiers and legal strategy, and regulating foreign involvement in U.S. lawsuits.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Increased Access to Justice for Claimants to Take on Powerful Organisations in Court

Ordinary people will have greater access to justice thanks to Government’s plans for legislation to help claimants receive the funding they need to take on powerful organisations in court.    

Since the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in 2023, claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a civil case against a well-resourced opponent.  

Third-party litigation funding allows people to bring complex legal cases against powerful organisations when they cannot afford the costs themselves. Under these arrangements, a funder pays for the legal case in exchange for a share of any compensation won.   

The PACCAR judgment, which classed these funding arrangements as “Damages Based Agreements”, made it harder to access to third-party funding and has resulted in a drop in collective action lawsuits. Today, the government is confirming that it will take action to remove this barrier to justice by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, protecting victims and claimants.   

Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said:  “The Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice. Without litigation funding, the Sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal would never have had their day in court. These are David vs Goliath cases, and this Government will ensure that ordinary people have the support they need to hold rich and powerful organisations to account. Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it."   

David Greene, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) said: “This announcement is good news for ordinary people seeking access to justice. However, whilst the government has recognised the urgent need to reverse PACCAR, the proposal to regulate litigation funding agreements as part of the proposed legislation is likely to add considerable delay. We therefore urge the government to introduce an urgent bill to reverse PACCAR, and that the thornier issue of what light touch regulation of litigation funding might look like be considered separately.”

The UK’s legal services industry is worth £42.6 billion a year to the economy, with a highly skilled workforce of 384,000.  

A new framework will ensure that agreements are fair and transparent, so that third-party litigation funding actually works for all those involved.  These changes follow a comprehensive and wide-ranging review by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), published earlier this year. The government will continue to consider the recommendations set out in the CJC review.