Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.