Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event on Australia: The Evolution of a Litigation Finance Market

Litigation Finance News
June 17, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event on Australia: The Evolution of a Litigation Finance Market

Litigation Finance News
On Tuesday June 15th, LFJ hosted a special digital event on Australia: The Evolution of a Litigation Finance Market. Moderator Ed Truant (ET), founder of Slingshot Capital, helmed a panel discussion  that covered a broad range of issues facing the Australian market. Panelists included Andrew Saker (AS), CEO of Omni Bridgeway, Stuart Price (SP), CEO of CASL, and Patrick Moloney (PM), CEO of Litigation Capital Management.  Below are some key takeaways from the event:  ET: From my perspective, and I have diligenced many managers on a global basis, the Australian fund managers seem to be the most successful and consistently performing fund managers in the world, can you offer any insight as to why that may be the case?  PM: The fact that the panelists here today have been around since the inception of the industry in Australia, it’s given us a long time to think long and hard about not only how we originate these opportunities for investment, but how we undertake the due diligence process, and how we manage those processes. AS: There’s a combination of factors. It’s partly to do with the strength of the legal system here in Australia, involving a sophisticated judiciary. As a second point, there’s historically been limited competition. As a consequence, litigation funders could afford to be more choosy—and cases were generally of higher quality. ET: Another difference in the Australian market is the concept of contingent fees for law firms. Can you comment about why that really doesn’t exist in the Australian market? Is that changing, and what effect may that have? SP: Contingency fees were introduced in 2020 in Victoria, where law firms were able to receive a return/reward of the settlement proceeds. This has really expanded the litigation funding market—providing different forms of litigation funding for plaintiffs—that should be a positive outcome. PM: There’s a strongly held perception in Australia that there’s a conflict of interest between lawyers participating, and having their fees tied to the outcome of a particular dispute resolution. I think that’s one of the reasons Australia has resisted the contingency fee type of charging that has been prevalent for many years in places like the US. ET: Do you find that people consider Australia a market leader in Litigation Finance in terms of innovation? Have you seen examples of Australian innovation cross-pollinating to other jurisdictions? PM: I’m not sure that Australia really has led a tremendous amount of innovation in our industry. Our greatest innovation is in taking this industry and turning it into a business. AS: Australia has been innovative in the evolution of the business, and its coupling with the conducive class action regime we have here in Australia. There are some very good minds around the world within our organization and elsewhere that are taking this industry in new directions. It’s still very much in its infancy, and the next steps for its evolution are going to be interesting and exciting to see. ET: As your business grew, what changes did you witness in terms of regulatory, legislative, etc. And how did those changes affect the market? AS: I’m a recent newcomer to the industry. I’ve been with Omni Bridgeway now for six years. During that period, we’ve seen the growth of the industry and its continued adoption outside the traditional uses of litigation funding. So that’s one of the more significant changes we’ve seen—adoption by corporates, for exploring ways to mitigate legal risk. The other significant issue is the growth of regulation and the industry of criticism that seems to be evolving toward litigation finance, which all started from a very noble social access to justice limb. I think it continues to have those characteristics. But for whatever reason, an ear has been gained for those who are critical of the industry—which will lead to a reassessment of how the industry is regulated and run. PM: I’ve been involved in this industry directly now for 18 years. The greatest shift I’ve observed has been that shift between those who use litigation finance for necessity to those who use it through choice. People who need finances in order to continue their dispute or go through the arbitral process. And the maturing of our industry has now brought it to larger corporates who use litigation finance as an incredibly efficient capital source to run their portfolio disputes and manage risk, and to also bring in an efficient way of managing disputes through to their conclusion. ET: Looking forward, in the insolvency market, there’s an expected tsunami of insolvency claims post-COVID, yet Australia as a country appears to have managed the economic impact perhaps better than the rest of the world. Is the tsunami coming? SP: Australia has done remarkably well on a global scale. Its economy is strong and it seems to have weathered the impact of COVID very well. I’ve been speaking with a number of insolvency practitioners, and they do not expect a tsunami. They certainly don’t expect a large wave—but out of any crisis will always come bad behavior and some insolvencies. So for people who are committed to the insolvency market, when you’re there consistently, you’ll have a relatively consistent stream of opportunities. There is unlikely to be a tsunami—but as ever there will be corporate misbehavior, which can lead to insolvencies.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It

A new research brief from litigation finance and insurance provider Certum Group finds that corporate legal departments are broadly aware of litigation risk transfer products but almost never use them, a gap the firm describes as "the next frontier in corporate litigation strategy."

According to the brief published by Certum Group, which surveyed 44 General Counsel and in-house litigation attorneys, roughly 70% of respondents are familiar with litigation funding but have never used it, while only about 6% have. The brief was authored by Kevin Skrzysowski, a Director at Certum Group, whose litigation funding team also includes Director William Marra, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk.

The survey characterises in-house litigation risk as operational rather than existential. Employment and intellectual property disputes drew the highest concern levels, while roughly two-thirds of respondents reported no concern at all about antitrust or mass tort exposure. Decision-making was consistent across defensive and affirmative matters, with likelihood of success (~84%) and cost to pursue (~74%) the most frequently cited factors.

On affirmative claims, respondents said they would be more likely to proceed if cost and risk could be shifted to an insurer (~62%), a contingent-fee firm (~49%) or through claim monetisation (~46%). A litigation funder ranked lowest at ~28%. Looking forward, however, roughly 51% said they would consider litigation funding, ahead of capital protection insurance (~43%) and claim monetisation (~41%), with about 30% ruling out all such products.

Cost certainty (~51%) and budget constraints (~46%) were the leading drivers of interest. Among the small group that has used litigation funding, two-thirds reported satisfaction with the decision.

Commercial

UPC Orders €200,000 Security After Finding Patent Claimant Had Pledged Its Assets to a Funder

The Unified Patent Court has ordered a newly formed patent claimant to post €200,000 in security for costs after concluding that the entity was economically assetless because its patents, licences and future income had all been pledged to its litigation funder.

As reported by Mishcon de Reya, the Hamburg Local Division reached that finding in *Nixu v Infoblox* (UPC_CFI_360/2026). Nixu, a US-domiciled claimant, was incorporated in March 2025 and acquired the patent in suit weeks later. The court declined to treat US domicile as a ground for security in itself, holding that "a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs" and noting that US courts recognise European judgments.

What did justify security was the claimant's financial structure. Under a Patent Security Agreement, all patents, licences and future income were pledged to the funder, and part of the purchase price remained unpaid. The court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on discretionary support from its funder.

The same update reports a second security decision. In *La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques* (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal upheld a €75,000 order against an SME claimant, confirming that "a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs." The court distinguished fee reductions and cost ceilings available to SMEs from the security regime under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, which contains no SME carve-out. Security was set at roughly 60% of the applicable €112,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

Together the decisions suggest the UPC will look through corporate form to the funding arrangement itself when assessing whether a claimant can meet an adverse costs award.

Commercial

Demotech Urges Insurers to Break Out Litigated Claims, Citing Funded Claim Generation

Insurance rating agency Demotech has called for a structural change to the way property and casualty insurers report loss costs, arguing that the current composite format masks the effect of technology-driven claim generation that is sometimes financed by third-party litigation funders.

As reported by PR Newswire, Joseph L. Petrelli, president and co-founder of Demotech, said the firm's 2022 review of failed carriers pointed to litigation as the decisive factor. "In 2022, our postmortem of failed carriers identified new, annual litigation as the proximate cause of what destroyed them," Petrelli said.

The argument turns on an assumption built into loss cost reporting decades ago. Petrelli noted that until the mid-1980s advisory organisations published rates and premiums for insurers to adopt or deviate from, and that "an implicit assumption underlying the original loss cost format was that an equilibrium existed in the relative claim frequency between claims reported and settled with policyholders, and claims litigated and negotiated with plaintiff firms."

Demotech's position is that the equilibrium no longer holds. Its research concluded that industrial-scale increases in litigated claims were achieved through technology, online marketing and advertising, "sometimes financed through third-party litigation funding." Petrelli also pointed to alternative business structures, managed services organisations and what he described as other mutations in the legal profession that "may circumvent the disclosure of third-party litigation funding."

The proposed remedy is to trifurcate loss cost data, disaggregating a single composite figure into claims closed without payment, litigated claims and non-litigated claims, each weighted by its own frequency. Demotech contends that the added granularity would allow insurers and regulators to price the litigated portion of a book directly rather than absorbing it into a blended average.