Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: ESG in Litigation Funding

October 6, 2022

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: ESG in Litigation Funding

On Wednesday October 5th, LFJ hosted a panel discussion and audience Q&A covering various aspects of ESG within a litigation funding framework, including how funders consider ESG claims, how serious LPs are when it comes to ESG-related criteria, and the backlash swirling around the topic itself. Panelists included Andrew Saker (AS), CEO of Omni Bridgeway, Neil Purslow (NP), CEO of Therium Capital Management, and Alex Garnier (AG), Founding Partner and Portfolio Manager of North Wall Capital. The event was moderated by Ana Carolina Salomao, Partner at Pogust Goodhead. Below are some key takeaways from the digital event: How do you consider ESG being relevant to litigation funding? AS: It’s a truism that litigation funding provides access to justice. By definition it’s a social benefit. Litigation acts as a deterrent, and leads to environmental, social and governance improvement. So financing that through litigation funding assists with the achievement of various ESG goals. ESG can both be a goal to be achieved through litigation funding, and also internally to be used to identify risks internally, and to inform decision-making. How do your LPs consider ESG? Is ESG part of their mandates? Is it truly something that benefits your fundraising? AG: We at North Wall are launching the third vintage of our legal assets fund, having deployed the first two vintages. There is strong investor demand for ESG-compliant and ESG-focused litigation financing. The questions asked on ESG are the same as with litigation financing – we’re asked how we screen deals, how we incentivize counter-parties to continually improve on ESG. In our partnership with Pogust Goodhead, you have given us an undertaking to pursue only ESG-compliant cases (not that that was required, because that is the whole philosophy of the firm). But we have put that in place in documents in a non-litigation financing context. For example, when investing in e-commerce businesses, we have put in place interest rate ratchets linked to measurable goals such as environmental and social factors—achieving carbon neutrality, etc. And then actively seeking cases that meet ESG criteria as well. Cases around recompense for exploited workers is an example. I think investors are also concerned about people going too far the other way—about greenwashing, tokenism, at taking positions at the expense of returns and downside protection. Do you see that because you have an ESG awareness, you are able to access different investment pools than you otherwise would? Can you use it as leverage when fundraising? NP: From Therium’s perspective, we see that some of our LPs are very focused on ESG-compliant criteria. We’ve been reporting to them for years on ESG compliance in different ways and how we think about that in our asset class. But you have to be careful here about what ESG means in the context of this particular asset class. What we’re doing is very different vs. a private equity fund or something like that. So you have to answer investor concerns very specifically for our asset class. And you also have to be careful about making ESG claims in a way that makes sure they are properly understood to our audience (particularly if you are addressing a retail audience). There is a danger there, that we all need to be very cognizant of. How do managers and investors think about supporting a case that has strong ESG components to it, but doing so for a plaintiff that is non-ESG (for example, an Oil & Gas claimant)? AS: The perception of what ESG is, needs to be taken in context of that particular case. Supporting a coal company would not be considered an ESG strategy. But if that coal is being used to provide power and heat and electricity in the middle of winter to Ukraine, then yes it could be considered a socially important strategy. So it is a challenge. In some of our funds, that decision is taken away from us – our LPs have very strict no-go zones. That does assist us in identifying those claimants we’re able to support. In other funds, we have a great degree of discretion. Generally, we try to balance what we consider to be competing ESG requirements and objectives.   Will the International Legal Finance Association look to establish ESG criteria or metrics for the industry? NP: That’s a very interesting question. I am not aware of any discussion to do that yet. I think it’s extremely important how the industry engages with this topic. There is also another side to this—the greenwashing aspect. We need to be very careful that our industry is not representing itself to be something it is not. So there is a very strong case for a strong ESG narrative here. How ILFA engages with that in best practices has not yet been discussed. What are the particular challenges or hurdles which funders, law firms or claimants might face in environmental suits specifically, in addition to the usual financing criteria? AG: You tend to have very deep-pocketed defendants, which requires a level of stamina. You also tend to have a very wide group of claimants, because so many people have been affected by the environmental disasters in question. The flipside of that of course, is that the public relations impact of a defendant digging its heels in when they’ve done something of that sort means that a settlement is much more likely, as the liability and causation is much clearer than it is in other cases.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.