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

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

By John Freund |
December 16, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There’s been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what’s good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn’t say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift – if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that – and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don’t think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that’s right. What’s interesting is, there hasn’t been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we’re seeing a lot of that. We’re also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We’ve seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we’ve seen those deals – especially the ones that happened before Covid – there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you’re debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we’ve seen a shift away more to – I won’t say single cases – but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We’ve also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We’re seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We’re just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

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.