Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event–Litigation Funding in 2022: What to Expect

Litigation Finance News
February 17, 2022

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event–Litigation Funding in 2022: What to Expect

Litigation Finance News

This past Tuesday, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a panel discussion and Q&A with a global swathe of litigation funding experts. The subject was key trends facing the industry in 2022, and the panel did not disappoint by delivering in-depth responses across a broad array of subjects.

The event was moderated by Peter Petyt (PP), Co-Founder of 4 Rivers Services. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of Lionfish in the UK, Stuart Price (SP), Co-Founder of CASL in Australia, and Molly Pease (MP), Managing Director of Curiam Capital in the US.

Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:

PP: Stuart, I’d like to get your view on this: Is there an ideal portfolio that a funder might invest in, in terms of the numbers of cases, the types of cases, the size of cases?

SP: I think that’s an interesting question, Peter. I come at it from a first principles perspective and it’s portfolio theory 101, so we’ve got to salute a problem within the law firm that they’re looking to solve, and we’re trying to tailor a solution for them. I think ultimately portfolio theory says you need diversification…you need to have the ability that you can spread the risk across multiple cases, so really depending on the nature of what the problem is, you may structure a portfolio to be thematic…and when I say thematic, it might have an insolvency or flavor or class action securities flavor because that’s a problem that you’re trying to solve. But really, the art and design and pinning together of portfolio funding is probably understanding what the problem is, and I think starting from that you need to have the diversity across a number of cases. I’d look and see on a portfolio, you certainly shouldn’t have more than ten percent in one case. I think logically that follows that you have to have at least ten cases then, that concentration and manage properly. But I think that defining the ideal portfolio is a very difficult component because you’ve got to start at first principles. I think the duration is important to consider, long and short, and dated assets, jurisdiction and common issues that may arise when you get a contagion risk in particular cases. You’ve got to consider the return profile and ideally you want to mix those factors all together and ensure that you’ve got the diversification, ensure that you’ve got an appropriate funding source to actually meet what the client ultimately is wanting, and put that all together and deliver something that’s tailored, I really push back against us as litigation funders defining what the product law firms or corporates want. We should listen to what their problems are, and tailor something to their requirements.

PP: Molly, obviously Curiam has been around for a while now, and I’m assuming you’re seeing an increase in uptake on portfolio funding from law firms, more inquiries, more interesting opportunities being presented to you?

MP: Yes, it’s definitely become more prominent than it was four years ago when we started. I really think there is not an ideal portfolio. I think it’s so dependent on the circumstances and there are so many different ways to do it, that can all work out well for all the parties involved. You could have a portfolio that is a collection of cases all for one claimant, and maybe they have one case that’s very very strong and very likely to succeed, and has significant enough damages to be able to cover a number of other cases, or are maybe a little bit more of a long shot or have more binary risk or whatever it is. So they may see some benefit in being able to pursue all of the cases, and maybe have the handful of cases that aren’t as strong free ride a little bit off the really strong case. So that could be an instance where you have a small portfolio, but it might make a lot of sense in that context, versus the other end of the spectrum where you could have a law firm trying to pool together a number of different cases for different clients across different practice areas that really have quite a bit of diversification. And that’s probably a little bit more work to figure out the appropriate pricing on that. But I think it’s certainly doable, and I think at every point in between there are portfolios that make sense. So I agree with Stuart, that you just have to understand the situation, what the law firm and the clients are trying to accomplish. I think there’s almost a portfolio that makes sense of all different types. So it’s very broad and I think there’s a lot to consider.

PP: Yes, I can see that there isn’t necessarily an ideal portfolio, you need to look at each one as a separate entity. Tets, I was wondering what your views were, being someone from the investment banking background on pricing for portfolio funding? Clearly, if you can get it right, the costs of capital for portfolio funding structure should be significantly better than just looking at single case funding. Shouldn’t it?

TI: Absolutely. I mean I started in fixed income but I was actually doing credit portfolios and that’s just heavily involved in a lot of the early days of the credit indexes, which are now part of the standard credit benchmarks. When we were constructing those portfolios, we were saying basically a combination of both the principles of 101, of keeping it diverse but also at the same time having to be relevant to the actual market that you want, which in this case is the client base. In terms of pricing, of course diversification is always going to work, but I don’t think diversification necessarily means looking through different types of cases. What you have to also factor in, is also the alignment of interest and the areas of expertise that the law firm has. So you can have a firm that’s specialized in one type of law, the diversification comes just from the cases themselves because each case is so sufficiently different that the fact that they’re in the same area of law doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re correlated. And that in itself brings down pricing. But what does also help bring down pricing at least on an academic level, and whether this translates to another market is another matter, but on an academic level when you have diversification and you have strong skills which back it up and an alignment of interest by the people running the claims, then absolutely pricing should be reduced to reflect those risk mitigants.

PP: What we want in the market are well-funded, well-capitalized, well-run funds. And certainly, there’s been some issues recently. In the UK, Affinity went into administration, Augusta had to shed half of its staff, move to other premises, restructure its lending agreement with lenders. Vannin got subsumed into Fortress, so clearly there were some business model issues, probably has something to do with working capital during the time it takes for cases to resolve. Stuart, I don’t know what your view is on this, but I would have thought there’s a need for consolidation at some point, amongst the funder market, what’s your view?

SP: Consolidation in the traditional sense of funders or businesses—I think is probably not likely. I think you’ll have a bit of exits from the industry. You will have groups of people leaving one funder and joining or establishing another funder. So I think you will have an aggregation and consolidation, but not in the traditional sense of a mergers and acquisitions approach. I don’t think that necessarily is the nature of this market—unless you’re getting together two very large funders or two very established funders, and taking a global view on the market.

PP: We’ll see. I think you’re right that there will be movement between funders, there’ll be split-off groups and I think there might be some traditional, good old fashioned M&A at some point. But it’s an evolving market so we’ll see. 

Let’s move onto blockchain crowdfunding platforms—do you as panelists see this as being an interesting way of raising money for you funds?  

TI: We don’t actually manage money, so we don’t really think about raising capital. As a business model, I think it’s a slightly different business model to be raising money. So I don’t have a particular view on that. Having said that, I don’t really understand blockchain. That’s not to say ‘therefore it’s bad.’ Just that I don’t have the intellectual capacity or the ability to understand it as things stand. But yeah, it’s certainly been very successful in other markets at raising capital. And if it means raising cheaper capital and it means raising and passing some of that benefit onto the end users of litigation, then I don’t think that can be anything but a good thing.

LFJ will be hosting more panel discussions with audience Q&As throughout the year. Please stay tuned for information on future events.

Commercial

View All
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Court Approves Final Settlements in Car Delivery Charges Class Action

By John Freund |

Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.