Trending Now
  • Rowling Foundation Offers to Fund NHS Single-Sex Space Challenges
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not Third-Party Litigation Financing, ARC Argues
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

Rowling Foundation Offers to Fund NHS Single-Sex Space Challenges

Author J.K. Rowling has offered to underwrite legal challenges brought by NHS patients and staff over single-sex facilities policy, in a privately funded intervention arriving days after new equality guidance took effect in the UK.

As reported by PinkNews, the offer followed an announcement by the Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust that trans women could continue to use women-only wards, changing rooms and toilets in line with their gender identity. Rowling directed anyone seeking support to her foundation, writing that "should any female patient or member of staff require funding to fight this assault on their legal rights, apply to jkrwf.org."

The offer, made on 8 August, follows guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that came into force on 5 August recommending that single-sex facilities be allocated according to sex recorded at birth. EHRC guidance is not itself binding law, and the resulting gap between the Commission's recommendations and individual trusts' operational policies is what any litigation would test.

For the funding sector, the arrangement sits outside the commercial model. Rowling's foundation is not seeking a return, and the funding is philanthropic rather than an investment in claim proceeds. That distinction matters to the regulatory debate: disclosure regimes advancing in the UK and elsewhere are generally aimed at financiers holding an economic interest in the outcome, and campaign-driven backing raises questions those frameworks were not designed to address.

The case also illustrates how litigation funding has become a mechanism for pursuing contested policy questions. Where a claimant lacks the resources to challenge an institutional policy, outside capital determines whether the question reaches a court at all — a dynamic increasingly visible on both sides of politically charged disputes.

No claim has yet been filed.

Commercial

ATA Chairman Presses Congress for Litigation Funding Disclosure

The chairman of the American Trucking Associations has called on Congress to require disclosure of third-party litigation funding in civil cases, arguing that undisclosed outside financing distorts claims against motor carriers.

As reported by Transport Topics, the argument was set out by Greg Hodgen, chief executive of Groendyke Transport and chairman of the ATA, who described a system in which investors are "pouring money into civil litigation not to advance justice, but to maximize their own payouts."

Hodgen's case rests on the structure of the trucking industry itself. More than 90% of motor carriers operate 10 trucks or fewer, leaving the majority of the sector without the reserves to absorb prolonged litigation. Where a large carrier can weather an extended case, a small operator faces settlement pressure that has little to do with the merits of the claim.

The remedy he proposes stops short of prohibition. Hodgen urged passage of the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding From Abuse Act, which would compel disclosure of outside financial interests in a case while leaving the practice of funding intact. That framing places the argument alongside a broader wave of transparency measures advancing in state legislatures and before federal rulemaking bodies, rather than with proposals seeking to restrict funding outright.

Industry advocates counter that funding enables claimants who could not otherwise pursue meritorious cases, and that mandatory disclosure risks exposing litigation strategy to better-resourced defendants. The disagreement over disclosure has become the central fault line in the regulatory debate, with both sides now largely conceding that funding itself is a permanent feature of the litigation landscape.

The trucking sector's continued prominence in that debate reflects its position as one of the most frequently litigated industries in the country.

Commercial

Burford Reins In Large-Deal Appetite as It Eyes Law Firm Investment

Burford Capital has pulled back from the very largest commitments in its pipeline and cut roughly $10 million in annual compensation costs, as the funder recalibrates following the reversal of the YPF judgment earlier this year.

As reported by Non-Billable, the company reported a break-even second quarter, its first results since a $2.4 billion write-down in March tied to the appellate reversal of the $16 billion award against Argentina. The restructuring reduced management costs across a workforce of roughly 160 employees.

Chief Executive Chris Bogart characterized the changes as a deliberate narrowing rather than a retreat, telling the publication the firm had "somewhat reduced our willingness to take on some very large, but only moderately profitable deals." He described the compensation restructuring as "a one-off" rather than the beginning of repeated reductions.

The shift points toward a portfolio weighted less heavily to single outsized positions. Concentration risk has been the recurring critique of Burford's model, and the YPF reversal supplied the clearest illustration yet of how one matter can move a balance sheet. Screening for profitability rather than headline size addresses that exposure directly, though it also constrains the upside that made such positions attractive.

At the same time, Burford is examining investment in law firms seeking outside capital, an area opening up as alternative business structures and managed services organizations give firms routes to external investment that were previously unavailable. The funder has continued to deploy capital elsewhere, including a £5 billion UK class action against Google.

For a sector that has spent the year absorbing the consequences of the YPF reversal, Burford's positioning offers an early signal of how the largest players intend to balance scale against risk.