Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner of Ignitis
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023

On January 25, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023. The hour-long panel discussion and audience Q&A was live-streamed on LinkedIn, and featured expert speakers including William Farrell, Jr. (WF), Co-Founder, Managing Director and General Counsel of Longford Capital, Laina Hammond (LH), Co-Founder, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer of Validity Finance, and Louis Young (LY), Co-Founder and CEO of Augusta Ventures. The discussion was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

The discussion spanned a broad spectrum of key issues facing the litigation funding industry in 2023. Below are some key takeaways from the event:

RB: How does your underwriting change, given the varied risks across different legal sectors? Do you have different IRR requirements for different case types or jurisdictions?  

LH: At various points in time in our process, we are going to be assessing the risk of total loss. Antitrust, treaty arbitration, patent cases are riskier. When we’re calculating expected risk of loss, we take into account the various factors that make a case more risky—jurisdiction, collectability, other factors that dictate the IRR range. That is how we tie the risk factor to IRR, so the returns reflect the risk commensurate for any situation.

WF: At Longford, our underwriting process remains the same across all legal sectors.  But risk assessment is unique across opportunities.  We look at 50 different characteristics for risk assessment.  At Longford, and I imagine the same is true at funders like Validity and Augusta, there is a very strong demand for our financing, so we are able to pick only the most meritorious cases, rather than pricing risk for a range of cases.

LY: We have a very controlled process in our underwriting, and it’s conducted in a very stock-standard framework. But that framework is a continual iterative process. Our underwriting changes as we resolve cases through wins and losses, where you learn things that you didn’t know in underwriting. If we had to build a portfolio like we did for our first portfolio, which was 60-70 investments with $200MM invested—if that took us three years to build at the time, it would take us four or five years now, given the fact that we’ve learned so many other things as we’ve invested. Changes in financial modeling have become far more complex and nuanced as to the particular cases, so the outcomes and scenarios that we run now are far more detailed.

RB: The last prolonged recession helped jumpstart the litigation funding industry in the US. If we do have a prolonged recession, what do you see as the prospects for the industry this time around? Can we expect the same growth post-recession? 

LH: I think it’s tricky to accurately predict the impact of recessions on specialty industries like Litigation Finance, especially when the recession arises out of complicated geopolitical factors. That said, it’s entirely likely that a recession provides a boost for demand.  Legal services will always be in demand, and the cost of legal disputes is going to continue to rise. In tough economic conditions, companies might be pushed to consider litigation finance as an alternative to the self-funding that they historically use for their litigation. This could also lead to an infusion of capital into the market, as investors look for ways to diversify into alternative assets that are uncorrelated to the broader market.

LY: I don’t know if the last recession did jump start the industry. I remember one of the first trips I did across the U.S. – this was around 2014 or so. And there were a whole set of law firms who didn’t know about litigation funding, so they were taking on the risk themselves—they were in effect acting as litigation funders. I think what really spurred litigation funding was the entrepreneurial bent of these law firms, who said to themselves ‘ok we’ve been taking this risk on for our clients, and here is a way we can de-risk ourselves.’ It was that mindset, and it happened so quick. In 2014, I introduced myself, and it was like, ‘Nice to meet you, here’s the door.’ Then two years later, it was happening. You just had very savvy, sophisticated people within the law firms who saw litigation funding for what it was, and they’ve become champions of it. And those same law firms are championing litigation funding even more now, and that will spur the industry forward.

RB: What insurance products look most interesting right now, and are there any you’d like to see in the future?

WF: Over the past two years, the insurance industry seems to have identified our industry as a new and attractive source of business for the insurance industry. There are significant synergies and similarities between litigation finance investments and insurance products, and for the moment, insurance markets seem to be most comfortable placing insurance on judgement preservation, and that is because they perceive cases at that stage of the lifecycle to be more easily understood, evaluated, and priced. But other products are popping up every day—insurance wrappers, which can be around an entire fund, or offer judgement preservation or principal protection, or they could be more bespoke and wrapped around particular subsets of investments.

Offering insurance products for individual investors within a fund, uniquely designed for that particular investor’s risk tolerances is on the horizon, and will be made available to investors and funds in our industry. At the end of the day, the costs of these products will be most important in determining whether the Litigation Finance industry will be able to find a way to work with the insurance industry. The cost of these products will be taken directly from the returns that might otherwise be achieved without insurance, and the evaluation of these costs against the risk that is being protected against, is what will determine whether insurance becomes a meaningful part of our business.

RB: What are your thoughts on the 60 Minutes piece, and the resulting publicity for the industry? Is this a net-positive—all publicity is good publicity, or would the industry benefit from being more under-the-radar, as there might be a mainstream outcry over a single bad actor that could malign the entire industry?

WF: The Litigation Finance industry has made great strides over the past 10 years, particularly when it comes to awareness and acceptance of our offerings among all of the effected constituencies. Litigation Finance also levels the economic playing field, to where disputes among companies are resolved on the merits, rather than on the financial wherewithal and strengths/weaknesses of the litigants. So it’s good for the legal system. I think that the more awareness we can achieve, the more acceptance and more use we will see. I am opposed to flying under the radar—I like the idea that the more that people know about our industry, the more they will see that we are doing good, because we are helping people access justice which might not otherwise be there for them.

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.