Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.