Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s  Virtual Town Hall: PACCAR Revisited

By John Freund |

On Thursday August 15th, LFJ hosted a Virtual Town Hall titled ‘PACCAR Revisited.’ The live event revisited the PACCAR decision one year later and explored what the future holds for legal funding in the UK and beyond.

Panelists included Ben Knowles (BK), Chair International Arbitration at Clyde & Co LLP, Robert Marven (RM), Barrister at 4 New Square, Nicholas Marler (NM), Head of Technical Underwriting at Litica Ltd, and Neil Purslow (NP), Founder and Chief Investment Officer, Therium Capital Management Limited. The panel discussion was moderated by Tets Ishikawa, Managing Director of LionFish Litigation Finance Limited.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

We don’t hear much from insurers in regard to the PACCAR issue. Nicholas, from an insurer’s perspective, what are your thoughts?

NM: The ATE insurers’ odyssey through the world of PACCAR is in some ways quite different from that of a litigation funder. At first bluff, you might think that PACCAR doesn’t have anything to do with insurers because it has to do with litigation funding agreements, and you’d never catch an insurer signing an LFA, so what’s the problem?

If you scratch a little deeper though, the reality is quite different. If you as an insurer, insure a funder, and the funder gives an adverse costs indemnity to the claimant, then all of a sudden, the insurer’s contractual fortunes are tied to the funders. If the LFA is unenforceable, then not only can the insurer not collect its contingent premium if there’s a success, but the coverage provided to the funder has vanished–this is because the LFA is unenforceable.

We actually had this exact experience play out. An opportunistic claimant sought to cut the funder out, because it felt emboldened to do so as a result of the PACCAR decision. When they were informed that doing so would void their insurance, which was to their benefit, they magically found the goodwill necessary to resolve things with their funder and an amicable solution was quickly found.

You’ve touched on enforceability. Given how central that is to the heart of the PACCAR issue, Robert, can you share some insights and perspectives on this corse issue?

RM: There are essentially two views on the concept of enforceability. One is that it essentially says there isn’t anything wrong with the contract, just that it can’t be enforced. There is another view which says that the contract is unenforceable, that it is an illegal contract. I don’t agree with that. It seems this is one of the paradoxes of PACCAR, it seems to have rendered unenforceable funding agreements that were perfectly legal under common law.

A lack of enforceability is important to understand as a two-way street. It means the funder cannot enforce, and it also means the claimant cannot enforce. And this is the key to understanding why things have been put right in cases that are still ongoing. A claimant who says to a funder ‘I don’t have to pay you anymore,’ well, a funder could say to the same token, ‘I don’t have to fund your case anymore.’ And we have seen cases that have been over or very nearly over, where the claimants think they don’t need the funder anymore and saying ‘thank you very much, I needed the funding but I don’t have to pay you.’ Or ‘I did pay you, but I want the money back.’

This is where it’s important to remember that enforceability is a two-way street. If all sides want to continue to carry on, then everyone has an incentive in fixing the problem. It’s only where those interests converge that seem to have led to a significant litigation dispute.

Ben, from your perspective, how do you think this affects the UKs standing as a legal jurisdiction?

BK: PACCAR created a mess, and it was an expensive mess, irrespective of where we’re going to end up. There’s been a lot of lawyer’s time figuring out what PACCAR means and where we’re going to go. The PACCAR fix, as I call it, would have cleared things up to some extend. But the absence of that means some of this uncertainty will continue. And uncertainty means additional costs.

We have these various appeals on the funding agreements out there at the moment. I would expect that in some of these cases, there will be appeals that go to the Court of Appeals, and potentially, all the way up to the Supreme Court. My feeling is, when there’s a case to be funded, lawyers will find a way to get that case funded. Although I’d imagine there will be a risk premium attached to that funding, not least because everybody will be getting their funding agreements checked, double-checked and triple-checked. And you may have lawyers who disagree on what’s permissible, and that leads to additional costs at the start of the case.

This session is about PACCAR, but we’d be remiss not to talk about the CJC, given how the two issues merge. Neil, you’re on the consultation group for the CJC review. Are there any insights you’re able to share?

NP: There’s now a working party reporting up to the CJC. We’re expecting an interim report from that working party to come out in late summer or early autumn, and there will be a consultation, and then the final report in the middle of next year. So we’ve put on quite a tight timeline.

From an industry perspective, this review is welcome, unless you’re opposed to the idea of talking about regulation, which I don’t think the industry is. This is a sensible organizational group that is considering these points in a proper and thoughtful way. I would encourage people to get behind the work that ILFA and ALFA are doing here, and I’d also encourage funders to get involved in the consultation phase as well. It’s very important that the CJC are thinking about these points with a full and proper understanding of how funding actually works, so they can understand the impact.

I think it’s also important that the industry makes sure that the review takes place in a proper context, and by ‘proper context’ I mean that there is an understanding that funding does have benefits. So the review should look at how good responsible funding can be encouraged and those benefits can be maximized, rather than looking at funding as a suspicious thing that needs to be controlled and is just a risk. I think there is a very positive message for funding that needs to be emphasized, and I think the CJC needs to look at it through this positive lens, and I’m confident that they will.

To view the entire digital event, click here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

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.