Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners
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

MWE Guide Outlines Compliance Priorities for Litigation Fund Managers

By John Freund |

Fund managers exploring or operating within the litigation finance space face a complex and often underappreciated regulatory landscape. A recent guide from McDermott Will & Emery provides a detailed roadmap for how litigation fund managers can navigate this evolving environment, with a particular focus on securities laws, fiduciary obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The memo serves as a primer on key legal considerations, especially for those managing funds in the United States or marketing to U.S. investors. It emphasizes that litigation finance funds may be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional investment vehicles. Managers must consider registration requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as exemptions, such as those for foreign private advisers or venture capital fund advisers. The authors also explore the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, cautioning that even non-traditional funds can be pulled into regulatory oversight if structured improperly.

Fiduciary duties take center stage in the memo’s discussion of fund governance. Managers are reminded that they owe duties of care and loyalty to their investors, which can become complicated in litigation finance where the fund’s interests may diverge from those of claimholders or legal counsel. Disclosure, consent mechanisms, and robust internal compliance protocols are strongly recommended to mitigate potential conflicts.

The guide also highlights the increasing focus by regulators and policymakers on transparency and ethical boundaries within the litigation finance industry. Fund managers are urged to prepare for heightened scrutiny and evolving disclosure expectations.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Op-Ed in The Hill Targets Foreign Investment in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

A growing chorus of voices is calling for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with a new op-ed warning that opaque capital is compromising the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system.

An opinion piece in The Hill by Lindsay Lewis and Phil Goldberg of the Progressive Policy Institute argues that American courtrooms are being quietly transformed into a financial marketplace, with hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, and other investors channeling billions into U.S. litigation. The authors highlight an alleged lack of disclosure, warning that litigation funders can influence or outright control high-value cases, often without the knowledge of courts, litigants, or the public.

The litigation funding industry has long cited a lack of evidence regarding such accusations, yet the pressure from industry critics persists. The article points to mass torts as a flashpoint for abuse, claiming funders are building lawsuits “too big to fail” by bankrolling advertising campaigns and scientific claims to pressure companies into mass settlements regardless of the merits.

The op-ed also echoes previously-made critiques around national security and economic concerns, citing recent reports of Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and Emirati-backed funds investing in U.S. litigation. These foreign entities, the authors argue, could use lawsuits to access sensitive corporate data or strategically target American companies, all while avoiding U.S. taxes on any litigation proceeds.

Lewis and Goldberg call for reforms mandating disclosure of litigation funders, establishing ethical walls between financiers and legal strategy, and regulating foreign involvement in U.S. lawsuits.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Increased Access to Justice for Claimants to Take on Powerful Organisations in Court

Ordinary people will have greater access to justice thanks to Government’s plans for legislation to help claimants receive the funding they need to take on powerful organisations in court.    

Since the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in 2023, claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a civil case against a well-resourced opponent.  

Third-party litigation funding allows people to bring complex legal cases against powerful organisations when they cannot afford the costs themselves. Under these arrangements, a funder pays for the legal case in exchange for a share of any compensation won.   

The PACCAR judgment, which classed these funding arrangements as “Damages Based Agreements”, made it harder to access to third-party funding and has resulted in a drop in collective action lawsuits. Today, the government is confirming that it will take action to remove this barrier to justice by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, protecting victims and claimants.   

Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said:  “The Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice. Without litigation funding, the Sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal would never have had their day in court. These are David vs Goliath cases, and this Government will ensure that ordinary people have the support they need to hold rich and powerful organisations to account. Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it."   

David Greene, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) said: “This announcement is good news for ordinary people seeking access to justice. However, whilst the government has recognised the urgent need to reverse PACCAR, the proposal to regulate litigation funding agreements as part of the proposed legislation is likely to add considerable delay. We therefore urge the government to introduce an urgent bill to reverse PACCAR, and that the thornier issue of what light touch regulation of litigation funding might look like be considered separately.”

The UK’s legal services industry is worth £42.6 billion a year to the economy, with a highly skilled workforce of 384,000.  

A new framework will ensure that agreements are fair and transparent, so that third-party litigation funding actually works for all those involved.  These changes follow a comprehensive and wide-ranging review by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), published earlier this year. The government will continue to consider the recommendations set out in the CJC review.