Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding: Beyond the Headlines, the Facts Tell a Different Story
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

Perpetual Lifts Omni Bridgeway Stake to 15.4% After Months of Buying

Perpetual Limited has increased its holding in litigation funder Omni Bridgeway to 15.403%, according to a substantial holding notice lodged with the ASX, consolidating its position as one of the funder's largest institutional shareholders.

As reported by Kalkine Media, the Form 604 shows Perpetual and its related bodies corporate now control 44,613,540 ordinary shares carrying 15.403% of voting power in Omni Bridgeway, up from 41,291,970 shares and 14.256% at the time of the previous notice in April 2026. The change in relevant interest was recorded on September 18, and company secretary Sylvie Dimarco signed the notice on September 22.

The annexure to the filing sets out a two-stage pattern of trading by Perpetual Investment Management Limited between June 12 and September 18. Perpetual was a net seller through June and July, with disposals executed via custodians Citicorp Nominees and HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia). From late July onward the direction reversed, with purchases recorded on multiple dates including August 27 and 28 and across September 15 to 18, executed through both custodians.

The accumulation comes during a period of pronounced volatility for the ASX-listed funder. Omni Bridgeway reported record FY26 commitments and investment proceeds alongside a 89% fall in net profit, and was recently dropped from the S&P Global BMI index. A sizeable institutional shareholder adding to its position against that backdrop is a notable signal for a sector where public-market sentiment has lagged operational performance.

Omni Bridgeway has not commented on the change in Perpetual's holding.

Commercial

Funder’s 20% to 25% Cut Draws Scrutiny in Macquarie Shield Class Action

A funded class action filed against Macquarie Investment Management over the collapse of the Shield Master Fund is drawing criticism from within the Australian advice industry, with questions being raised over whether litigation funding is the right route for investors who have already been partially compensated.

As reported by ifa, the action was served on September 17 on behalf of Rachelle Dessent and roughly 2,800 account holders who lost superannuation in the Shield collapse. Gordon Legal, which is running the case, alleges investors have not been fully compensated despite the $321 million Macquarie paid out last year covering total amounts invested, after the firm admitted failures related to Shield. The claim seeks the growth those savings might have achieved had they remained invested elsewhere, together with damages for distress. Netwealth was served with draft documents for a separate potential class action on September 21.

Central to the criticism is the cost of the funded route. Save Our Super advocate Melinda Kee, who told ifa that Gordon Legal approached her last year and that she "wasn't interested," pointed to the firm's own disclosure that the litigation funder is entitled to between 20% and 25% of any settlement fund if the action succeeds, with legal costs also payable from the group's award subject to court approval.

Kee argued that pursuing claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is free and delivers compensation directly to investors. With average losses around $120,000, and lower for many Macquarie and Netwealth investors following the return of capital, she suggested many residual claims could fall within the $150,000 CSLR cap.

The case turns in part on so-called "but for" losses. Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino recently confirmed that only actual losses will be compensated through the CSLR from July 1, 2027.

Commercial

Court of Appeal Rules Clients Cannot Force Disclosure of Secret ATE Commissions

The Court of Appeal has ruled that former clients have no mechanism under the Solicitors Act to compel their solicitors to reveal commissions earned on after-the-event insurance, even while criticising firms that refuse to answer the question as behaving unwisely.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the judgment in Turner v Coupland Cavendish upheld a challenge brought by the solicitors and found there is no route through a Part 18 request for further information to force disclosure in a Solicitors Act costs assessment. Lady Justice Andrews, giving the lead judgment, said there was no "shortcut" for former clients seeking information about secret commissions on ATE premiums.

Andrews nonetheless made clear her discomfort with the position. As a fiduciary, she said, a solicitor ought to tell a client about any commission if asked, and where a firm refuses there appears to be no easy or cost-effective remedy. She described the solicitors' conduct as "unattractive," "unwise" and "unedifying," and acknowledged the unfairness of requiring a client to produce evidence that a commission was paid in order to obtain the evidence needed to prove it, when that evidence sits with the solicitor. She stopped short of proposing a fix, flagging it instead for those able to change the rules or the law.

The sums at stake in the underlying matter were modest. The ATE premium on the original personal injury claim was £245, with any commission likely to be no more than £25. Andrews observed that the principal beneficiaries of a successful challenge would be those who have built an industry out of challenging solicitors' costs. The claim was led by Leeds firm JG Solicitors.

At first instance, Costs Judge Rowley refused the Part 18 request. Mr Justice Sweeting reversed that decision in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has now restored the original position.