Trending Now
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
Commercial

Trucking Group Presses Case Against Hidden Funding in Crash Lawsuits

The trucking industry is intensifying its scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, arguing that undisclosed outside capital is distorting the economics of truck-crash lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business.

As reported by Land Line Media, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that outside investors — sometimes including foreign entities — are bankrolling crash litigation without transparency, prolonging cases, inflating damages, and leaving plaintiffs with modest returns while funders capture the larger share of any recovery. In some instances, the group warns, foreign government involvement raises national-security questions.

The article frames the issue against a wave of state-level legislation. Ohio has enacted disclosure requirements and barred foreign participation outright, with Rep. Meredith Craig declaring that "foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens and businesses by investing in our courts." North Carolina has gone further, imposing an outright ban on third-party funding backed by fines of up to $50,000, while New Hampshire has prohibited financing by foreign governments and designated adversarial nations. Michigan has approved disclosure and registration requirements and banned foreign entities and incentive payments to attorneys and medical professionals.

Industry voices echo the theme: Tom Balzer of the Ohio Trucking Association argues that such funding "incentivizes frivolous claims, prolongs litigation, and inflates damages." Together, the measures reflect a coordinated push to bring litigation finance in trucking cases into public view — and a signal that transportation is becoming a central front in the national funding-transparency debate.

Commercial

Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Charts Diverging Rules for Litigation Funding

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a multibillion-dollar force across major legal markets, yet the rules governing it remain strikingly inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next, according to a new cross-jurisdictional analysis.

As reported by JD Supra, the review — authored by Arthur Coviello, Colin Dunn, and Mark Selwyn of WilmerHale — examines third-party funding across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court. It notes that funders now manage billions in assets, with an estimated 20% committed to patent litigation, and that the U.S. leads but no longer dominates a market with established industries in the U.K., Germany, and China.

The authors highlight a sharp regulatory divergence. The United States has built a patchwork of state and federal measures, including disclosure requirements, while the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have largely declined to adopt comprehensive rules despite voicing similar concerns about conflicts of interest, funder control, and foreign influence.

The analysis catalogs recent developments: at least five bills pending in Congress addressing transparency and national-security concerns, the lingering effects of the U.K.'s 2023 PACCAR decision and the Civil Justice Council's call for "light touch" regulation, the European Commission's November 2025 decision not to adopt proposed funding rules, and the International Trade Commission's recent disclosure proposal. Without mandatory disclosure, the authors argue, judges and parties cannot reliably assess who holds a stake in a case or where potential conflicts may lie.

Commercial

Funding Collapse Ends Musical-Instrument Collective Action, Triggering £1.5M in Costs

A proposed UK collective action against five musical-instrument manufacturers has collapsed after its litigation funding fell through, leaving the proposed class representative facing roughly £1.5 million in costs.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the withdrawal of five collective proceedings brought by proposed class representative Elisabetta Sciallis against Fender, Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Casio. The claims followed a Competition and Markets Authority finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' freedom to set prices online.

Ms Sciallis had initially pointed to a funding agreement with North Wall Capital, first set at £6.5 million and later increased to £18 million as more claims were filed. Negotiations between the funder and her firm, Pogust Goodhead, ceased in early 2023, but the tribunal found that the funder's departure was not clearly disclosed until shortly before a March 2026 case management conference — at which point the firm confirmed the North Wall agreement had never materialised and that some 25 alternative funders had been approached without success.

The tribunal, which was critical of how the funding position had been communicated, ordered indemnity costs from April 2023 onward, including £608,000 summarily assessed for three defendants and interim orders of £850,000 for two others. Ms Sciallis withdrew all five proceedings ahead of a June 2026 hearing that would have examined the funding. The case underscores how quickly a collapse in third-party backing can unwind even a well-advanced collective claim.