Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding: Beyond the Headlines, the Facts Tell a Different Story
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |
October 1, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled “Spotlight on Insurance.” The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren’t able to do that as a first-time manager, but it’s something we’d like to explore in the future. We’re currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to ‘yes.’

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I’m seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It’s very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders – an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn’t go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn’t be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you’ve got a policy with an insurer and you’re invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder– all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you’re not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you’re not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you’ll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the ‘divide and rule game’ with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we’ve been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) – things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won’t be insurable in the US. But we’re seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that’s where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we’ve been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Perpetual Lifts Omni Bridgeway Stake to 15.4% After Months of Buying

Perpetual Limited has increased its holding in litigation funder Omni Bridgeway to 15.403%, according to a substantial holding notice lodged with the ASX, consolidating its position as one of the funder's largest institutional shareholders.

As reported by Kalkine Media, the Form 604 shows Perpetual and its related bodies corporate now control 44,613,540 ordinary shares carrying 15.403% of voting power in Omni Bridgeway, up from 41,291,970 shares and 14.256% at the time of the previous notice in April 2026. The change in relevant interest was recorded on September 18, and company secretary Sylvie Dimarco signed the notice on September 22.

The annexure to the filing sets out a two-stage pattern of trading by Perpetual Investment Management Limited between June 12 and September 18. Perpetual was a net seller through June and July, with disposals executed via custodians Citicorp Nominees and HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia). From late July onward the direction reversed, with purchases recorded on multiple dates including August 27 and 28 and across September 15 to 18, executed through both custodians.

The accumulation comes during a period of pronounced volatility for the ASX-listed funder. Omni Bridgeway reported record FY26 commitments and investment proceeds alongside a 89% fall in net profit, and was recently dropped from the S&P Global BMI index. A sizeable institutional shareholder adding to its position against that backdrop is a notable signal for a sector where public-market sentiment has lagged operational performance.

Omni Bridgeway has not commented on the change in Perpetual's holding.

Commercial

Funder’s 20% to 25% Cut Draws Scrutiny in Macquarie Shield Class Action

A funded class action filed against Macquarie Investment Management over the collapse of the Shield Master Fund is drawing criticism from within the Australian advice industry, with questions being raised over whether litigation funding is the right route for investors who have already been partially compensated.

As reported by ifa, the action was served on September 17 on behalf of Rachelle Dessent and roughly 2,800 account holders who lost superannuation in the Shield collapse. Gordon Legal, which is running the case, alleges investors have not been fully compensated despite the $321 million Macquarie paid out last year covering total amounts invested, after the firm admitted failures related to Shield. The claim seeks the growth those savings might have achieved had they remained invested elsewhere, together with damages for distress. Netwealth was served with draft documents for a separate potential class action on September 21.

Central to the criticism is the cost of the funded route. Save Our Super advocate Melinda Kee, who told ifa that Gordon Legal approached her last year and that she "wasn't interested," pointed to the firm's own disclosure that the litigation funder is entitled to between 20% and 25% of any settlement fund if the action succeeds, with legal costs also payable from the group's award subject to court approval.

Kee argued that pursuing claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is free and delivers compensation directly to investors. With average losses around $120,000, and lower for many Macquarie and Netwealth investors following the return of capital, she suggested many residual claims could fall within the $150,000 CSLR cap.

The case turns in part on so-called "but for" losses. Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino recently confirmed that only actual losses will be compensated through the CSLR from July 1, 2027.

Commercial

Court of Appeal Rules Clients Cannot Force Disclosure of Secret ATE Commissions

The Court of Appeal has ruled that former clients have no mechanism under the Solicitors Act to compel their solicitors to reveal commissions earned on after-the-event insurance, even while criticising firms that refuse to answer the question as behaving unwisely.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the judgment in Turner v Coupland Cavendish upheld a challenge brought by the solicitors and found there is no route through a Part 18 request for further information to force disclosure in a Solicitors Act costs assessment. Lady Justice Andrews, giving the lead judgment, said there was no "shortcut" for former clients seeking information about secret commissions on ATE premiums.

Andrews nonetheless made clear her discomfort with the position. As a fiduciary, she said, a solicitor ought to tell a client about any commission if asked, and where a firm refuses there appears to be no easy or cost-effective remedy. She described the solicitors' conduct as "unattractive," "unwise" and "unedifying," and acknowledged the unfairness of requiring a client to produce evidence that a commission was paid in order to obtain the evidence needed to prove it, when that evidence sits with the solicitor. She stopped short of proposing a fix, flagging it instead for those able to change the rules or the law.

The sums at stake in the underlying matter were modest. The ATE premium on the original personal injury claim was £245, with any commission likely to be no more than £25. Andrews observed that the principal beneficiaries of a successful challenge would be those who have built an industry out of challenging solicitors' costs. The claim was led by Leeds firm JG Solicitors.

At first instance, Costs Judge Rowley refused the Part 18 request. Mr Justice Sweeting reversed that decision in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has now restored the original position.