Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.