Trending Now
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

Trucking Group Presses Case Against Hidden Funding in Crash Lawsuits

The trucking industry is intensifying its scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, arguing that undisclosed outside capital is distorting the economics of truck-crash lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business.

As reported by Land Line Media, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that outside investors — sometimes including foreign entities — are bankrolling crash litigation without transparency, prolonging cases, inflating damages, and leaving plaintiffs with modest returns while funders capture the larger share of any recovery. In some instances, the group warns, foreign government involvement raises national-security questions.

The article frames the issue against a wave of state-level legislation. Ohio has enacted disclosure requirements and barred foreign participation outright, with Rep. Meredith Craig declaring that "foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens and businesses by investing in our courts." North Carolina has gone further, imposing an outright ban on third-party funding backed by fines of up to $50,000, while New Hampshire has prohibited financing by foreign governments and designated adversarial nations. Michigan has approved disclosure and registration requirements and banned foreign entities and incentive payments to attorneys and medical professionals.

Industry voices echo the theme: Tom Balzer of the Ohio Trucking Association argues that such funding "incentivizes frivolous claims, prolongs litigation, and inflates damages." Together, the measures reflect a coordinated push to bring litigation finance in trucking cases into public view — and a signal that transportation is becoming a central front in the national funding-transparency debate.

Commercial

Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Charts Diverging Rules for Litigation Funding

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a multibillion-dollar force across major legal markets, yet the rules governing it remain strikingly inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next, according to a new cross-jurisdictional analysis.

As reported by JD Supra, the review — authored by Arthur Coviello, Colin Dunn, and Mark Selwyn of WilmerHale — examines third-party funding across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court. It notes that funders now manage billions in assets, with an estimated 20% committed to patent litigation, and that the U.S. leads but no longer dominates a market with established industries in the U.K., Germany, and China.

The authors highlight a sharp regulatory divergence. The United States has built a patchwork of state and federal measures, including disclosure requirements, while the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have largely declined to adopt comprehensive rules despite voicing similar concerns about conflicts of interest, funder control, and foreign influence.

The analysis catalogs recent developments: at least five bills pending in Congress addressing transparency and national-security concerns, the lingering effects of the U.K.'s 2023 PACCAR decision and the Civil Justice Council's call for "light touch" regulation, the European Commission's November 2025 decision not to adopt proposed funding rules, and the International Trade Commission's recent disclosure proposal. Without mandatory disclosure, the authors argue, judges and parties cannot reliably assess who holds a stake in a case or where potential conflicts may lie.

Commercial

Funding Collapse Ends Musical-Instrument Collective Action, Triggering £1.5M in Costs

A proposed UK collective action against five musical-instrument manufacturers has collapsed after its litigation funding fell through, leaving the proposed class representative facing roughly £1.5 million in costs.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the withdrawal of five collective proceedings brought by proposed class representative Elisabetta Sciallis against Fender, Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Casio. The claims followed a Competition and Markets Authority finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' freedom to set prices online.

Ms Sciallis had initially pointed to a funding agreement with North Wall Capital, first set at £6.5 million and later increased to £18 million as more claims were filed. Negotiations between the funder and her firm, Pogust Goodhead, ceased in early 2023, but the tribunal found that the funder's departure was not clearly disclosed until shortly before a March 2026 case management conference — at which point the firm confirmed the North Wall agreement had never materialised and that some 25 alternative funders had been approached without success.

The tribunal, which was critical of how the funding position had been communicated, ordered indemnity costs from April 2023 onward, including £608,000 summarily assessed for three defendants and interim orders of £850,000 for two others. Ms Sciallis withdrew all five proceedings ahead of a June 2026 hearing that would have examined the funding. The case underscores how quickly a collapse in third-party backing can unwind even a well-advanced collective claim.