Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways From LFJ’s Special Digital Event on Litigation Funding Advisory Firms

May 3, 2022

Key Takeaways From LFJ’s Special Digital Event on Litigation Funding Advisory Firms

LFJ’s latest digital event featured Litigation Finance advisors Rebecca Berrebi (Founder and CEO, Avenue 33, LLC), Peter Petyt (Co-Founder, 4 Rivers Legal), Andrew Langhoff (Founder and Managing Director, Red Bridges Advisors), and moderator Ed Truant (Founder, Slingshot Capital). The panel discussed how they navigate between funders, law firms and claimants, as well as the challenges they face in this market, and the numerous benefits they provide each counter-party. ET: Can you comment on some of the key changes you have seen in the litigation finance market since you got started?  RB: The number one biggest change is that there is so much more money out there than there used to be. In 2016, we rarely had competition on deals. There are so many funds out there that want to allocate capital. If you have a good case, or a portfolio of cases that has merit and a good chance of winning, there would be multiple funders out there looking to fund your case. That is primarily the change I have seen over the arch of my life in litigation finance.  PP: The change that I have seen over the last couple of years is the willingness and appetite for funders to provide capital in addition to what is necessary to run the case. What I have seen is the willingness and appetite for funders to provide working capital. That’s definitely been the development over the last couple of years.  ET: What do you believe is your greatest value add for your clients?  PP: It becomes clear that a very low amount of opportunities that are presented to funders are actually funded. It is in the low single digits. And I am very confident that I will achieve much better success rates than that. And I think it’s the approach that is the most important thing and value add here.  ET: Can you talk about your origination efforts and how you find opportunities? AL: I have been lucky over the last five years being a broker and intermediary, cases and opportunities have found me. What I have found is referral and repeat business is really the best part of the origination process for me. The trick is to find lawyers who are entrepreneurial, who are very open to litigation finance.  RB: I am a lawyer by background. I have a pretty strong network from my whole career working at law firms and funds. And I do try to educate the market the best way I can. Frankly, I get a lot of hits that way by being out in the market and talking in the media.  ET: When a client comes to you, what are they looking for?  PP: I think in the vast majority of cases, plaintiffs may have never used litigation finance before.  There is no doubt in my mind that law firms are the right people to go out and seek opportunities. I think we perform a valuable role here and I think plaintiffs know that. I think it is about managing processes, but adding value.  ET: What are some of the legal considerations as you take on a new client?  RB: You have to start thinking about confidentiality from the get-go. Disclosure with respect to privilege we have to be careful about. There are state-specific issues related to litigation finance that you have to be careful about, specific to disclosure.  ET: In terms of the intake, can you provide us an overview?  AL: I think it is far more effective to take all the information, organize it, mitigate any concerns and present it to the funder. Almost in a way that you are doing the funder’s work for them. Ideally, when I give them that memorandum, I know many funders will paste it into their investment committee memorandum. And that is that idea, I am trying to make it drop dead simple for them. Click here to listen to the entire episode. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.