Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Town Hall on How Litigation Funders Should Respond to the UK Supreme Court Ruling

August 11, 2023

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Town Hall on How Litigation Funders Should Respond to the UK Supreme Court Ruling

Wednesday, August 9th, LFJ hosted a panel of UK-based litigation funding experts who discussed the recent UK Supreme Court decision, and the potential impacts on the funding industry. The expert panel included: Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Neil Johnstone (NJ), Barrister at King’s Bench Chambers, and Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director at LionFish. The panel was moderated by Peter Petyt (PP), Founder and CEO of 4 Rivers Services. PP: How does this ruling impact the enforceability of LFAs in current, ongoing cases?  And what about LFAs from previously funded and concluded cases?   NRD:  It has a pretty big impact.  First of all, the existing arrangements between clients and litigation funders are going to come under scrutiny, because the lawyers acting for clients are going to have to review their positions. This is not a decision which is making new law, this is a statement of existing law as it has always been, so that review will have to be dealt in the light of the decision. The bigger impact is going to be on concluded cases. That may cause some difficulties. I’m already hearing that there are ongoing discussions on matters that have already concluded, where an agreement that provided for a percentage to be paid to the funder is now being discussed as to whether it should have been paid. That is going to be a distraction, it is going to be an ongoing issue, and I suspect that there will be opportunistic attempts on the part of defendants, in terms of challenging existing litigation funding agreements. So how that concludes, one can only guess, but the reality is, it’s a distraction and disruption, and will be an ongoing issue. PP: Tets, you’re running a fund. You’ve concluded agreements, you’ve got ongoing agreements. How are you proposing to deal with all of this?  TI: Ultimately we are in the business of funding litigation cases, so the world goes on. We can’t stop doing it just on the basis of what may be a speculative risk. What we’re trying to understand here, is the key risks we have. In terms of our book, we don’t have any percentage share of the awards, in relation to proceedings in the CAT. So we’re safe in that regard. But in terms of enforceability, there are some agreements that we’ve had to refute. But obviously, that’s a commercial conversation, and the reality is, people are generally appreciative that they’ve got funding, not ungrateful, so there’s a lot of cooperation. I agree with Nick that generally speaking, the ongoing cases and cases going forward are more manageable. The big distraction will be the concluded cases. My position is slightly more nuanced than Nick’s, in that I think it is a distraction, but I think it’s going to be far less of a risk, partly because the reality is that a lot of funding agreements are entered into in the first place with the purpose of helping claimants that are impecunious. If the claimants have got damages out of it, they are certainly very grateful. Granted, there are some who may not have gotten as much as they wanted because of funding arrangements. But there is the fact that they’ve gone through a very long litigation process. If it was all about money, then some might very well pursue that course of action. But the reality is, most will think twice about going after a funder, and if they do, the chances are that they’ll probably need funding anyway. So if they have to go back to funders, only funders with no interest or claims or willingness to back the industry in the UK would fund those claims. So I think it’s more of a distraction than a real risk. PP: Do you see any consolidation or direct impacts on the consolidation piece, from this judgement?  NJ: I suspect there will be anyway. This comes at a time that is difficult for all funders given the larger macro-environment. This comes at unfortunate timing. However, the hardest knives are forged in the hottest fires. I do think you will see not just consolidation within the industry, but funders looking at where they can best add value, such as portfolio funding or other strategies, so they have a proper niche within the market. Overall, it’s not terminal for the industry by any stretch. It is a bump in the road that is inherent in any growing industry. But I do think that regulatory clarity would help the industry a lot. There is a lot of useful ammunition for ILFA in Lady Rose’s dissenting judgement and in previous judicial comments making well-worded judicial criticism of the legislative patchwork we have in the UK. And I think there could be a very good argument to put forth to a government that I hope could be sympathetic to wishing this industry continues. London is a legal and financial capital of the world, and this industry sits at that nexus. So long term, there is nothing to particularly worry about. To listen to the full panel discussion, please click here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.