Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.