Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

LF Dealmakers Panel: The Great Debate: Trust and Transparency in Litigation Finance

September 27, 2023

LF Dealmakers Panel: The Great Debate: Trust and Transparency in Litigation Finance

The day’s featured panel included a discussion around ethical challenges and conflicts of interest, impacts on attorney-client relationships, developing a regulatory framework, and balancing the benefits vs. the risks of litigation funding. The panel consisted of Nathan Morris, SVP of Legal Reform Advocacy at the U.S. Chamber of Legal Reform, Charles Schmerler, Head of Litigation Finance at Pretium Partners, Lucian Pera, Partner at Adams and Reese, and Maya Steinitz, Professor of Law at Boston University. The panel was moderated by Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker,Poe, Adams and Bernstein, LLP. This unique panel was structured as a pair of debates (back-to-back), followed by an open forum involving panelists and audience questions. The first debate was centered around the question of ‘what is litigation finance?’ Essentially, what constitutes third-party financing, what are the key components that make up a litigation funder, and how should we define the practice? Some key takeaways from this part of the discussion:
  • Insurance carriers haven’t been classified as third-party funders, but essentially that is what they are doing
  • A secured bank loan to a law firm is not what we talk about when we talk about litigation funding. So, financing a litigator is not necessarily litigation finance. Litigation funders offer financing related to the litigation, making them an interested party in the litigation., in contrast to a disinterested bank
  • Law firms acting on the contingency model can indeed be classified as litigation funders
  • Litigation funding doesn’t even have to be for profit. Famously, Peter Thiel funded Hulk Hogan’s litigation against Gawker, and it is unclear if there was any profit participation on Thiel’s part, though his likely motivation was revenge (or perhaps justice) after Gawker previously outed him as gay
  • Context matters, especially when we consider how we define litigation finance for the purpose of regulation
The question then came: Is a legal defense fund a litigation funder? It files briefs, and somebody must pay to have those briefs filed. So should their donors be identified? This question led to a robust debate between moderator Michael Kelley and Charles Schmerler over whether the Chamber of Commerce should be classified as a litigation funder. After all, the Chamber accepts donations and then uses its capital to file claims—so would donors to the Chamber be considered litigation funders? Schmerler noted that causal litigation is different from commercial litigation—especially from a public policy perspective. So conflating them under the semantic of ‘litigation funding’ isn’t as useful, even if they can each be technically classified as litigation funding. That robust discussion gave way to the second debate, which focused on disclosure, and control and conflicts in litigation finance transactions. Kelley asked Nathan Morris why he supports disclosure in litigation funding matters. Morris feels that the purpose of disclosure is to understand the nature of the involvement of the funder, and such disclosures should be made, just as they are made in the case of insurance. It’s important to gauge a funder’s measure of influence, the structures and contours of their arrangement with the plaintiff, and how that might impact case decision. Maya Steinitz added that disclosure requires a nuanced analysis, in that impact litigation is different from commercial litigation, which is different from class actions. So identifying a clear line for disclosure leads to conflicting views, because people are responding to the idea of disclosure in different scenarios. Steinitz believes in a balancing test—what is in the best interests of the public, considering variables such as the type of litigation and motive of litigation? We shouldn’t draw a general rule on disclosure, but rather have a bespoke response based on several factors. Other panelists disagreed, believing that ‘disclosure is a solution in search of a problem,’ and that ultimately it will serve no benefit, as it is essentially impossible to determine how much control a litigation funder has over a claim, or whether the law firm in question is in dire need of capital and must therefore cede control to the funder. Morris’ position remains that disclosure is necessary, and insists his views are not predicated on the desire to see the industry regulated out of existence, but rather to protect the public interest. The open forum portion led to some interesting discussion points, including:
  • Whether law firms in a funded claim have abdicated their independence to litigation funders
  • How ethics rules regulate litigation funders and funding agreements
  • Whether disclosure of the existence of funding can even identify any control issues in the case
  • The prospect of litigation being funded for purely financial (as opposed to meritorious) reasons
In the end, this was a very unique structure for a panel discussion, which led to a passionate and spirited debate by the panelists, as well as a thorough degree of engagement from the audience.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial

Harris Pogust Joins Bryant Park Capital as Senior Advisor

By John Freund |

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) a leading middle market investment bank and market leader in the litigation finance sector, is pleased to announce that Harris Pogust has joined the firm as a Senior Advisor.  Harris (Mr. Pogust) is one of the best known and prominent attorneys in the mass tort and class action fields, he was the founding partner and Chairman of Pogust Goodhead worldwide until early 2024 and is currently working with Trial Lawyers for a Better Tomorrow, a charity Harris founded, to help children reach their educational potential all over the world.  Harris’ life work has been to deliver justice for those who have been damaged or injured through the negligence or bad faith of others.

“We are thrilled to have Harris as part of our team.  His knowledge, experience and relationships in the litigation finance sector are of great value to Bryant Park and our clients.  As the litigation finance world becomes more competitive, complex and challenging, having an expert like Harris on our team is invaluable,” said Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park.

Harris’ efforts, in conjunction with Bryant Park will focus on assisting law firms and funders in developing strategies to more efficiently fund their operations and cases and assist them in establishing the right relationships for future growth.  Harris commented, “I have been fortunate to have been a practicing attorney and partner in law firms for over 35 years focused on building and growing a worldwide book of business in the class action/mass tort field.  That required significant capital and throughout my career I have raised over $1 billion for my firms.  I have learned what works and what doesn’t.  I have seen both the risks and rewards in this industry.  I look forward to being able to work with law firms and funders to assist them in putting the right strategies in place with Bryant Park and bringing capital and liquidity to help them grow and flourish.”

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing capital raising, M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise and a diversified, well-founded breadth of experience in a number of sectors, including specialty finance & financial services. BPC has raised various forms of credit, growth equity, and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. Our professionals have completed more than 400 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $30 billion.

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

20 Legal Firms and Groups Calling on UK Government for Urgent Legislation to Reverse PACCAR

Despite a government-commissioned independent review recommending priority standalone legislation to reverse PACCAR, the Government has failed to act, the letter to the Lord Chancellor says.

“As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of ‘following the evidence’.

“The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants.

“We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.”

The letter follows earlier calls on the Government from claimants to reverse PACCAR urgently, including from Sir Alan Bates , truck hauliers and the lead claimant in a mass action case against six water suppliers for alleged customer overcharging.

This comes amid a drop off in collective proceeding cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal this year according to Solomonic, as reported in the Financial Times this morning (link). 

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said:

“We’ve been warning successive governments for more than two years about the potential impact this uncertainty will have on consumers and small businesses’ ability to access justice.

“These figures show that stark reality. Meritorious claims are going unfunded, alleged wrongdoers are unchallenged and competition - one of the great drivers of growth - is not being enforced.

“The Government must act before this small trickle of cases dries up altogether.”

Martyn Day, co-founder of Leigh Day and co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) which signed the letter, said: 

“This issue has created a great deal of uncertainty that is blocking access to justice for ordinary people taking on powerful corporations accused of wrongdoing. 

“The system simply cannot work without litigation funding, and this is a timely reminder to government to fix this issue, and urgently.”

In July 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in the PACCAR judgment that litigation finance agreements were unenforceable unless they met the requirements of Damages-Based Agreements, rendering many ongoing cases invalid and causing delays in the pursuit of justice for millions of claimants. 

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) concluded its comprehensive review of the funding sector four months ago, after the Government had promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the review was complete. The CJC’s review urged priority standalone legislation to reverse the damaging effects of PACCAR. Yet, despite earlier promises, the Government has said the review would merely “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”. 

The letter highlights how the Government’s continued inaction contradicts the Prime Minister's own commitment to "following the evidence”.

The signatories, representing firms including Mishcon de Reya, Stewarts, Freeths, and Scott+Scott UK, highlight the “pivotal role” of group actions. They call on the Government to “act swiftly” to adopt the CJC’s recommendation to reverse PACCAR to protect the reputation of the UK’s justice system. The firms also include those who have provided legal representation for Sir Alan Bates, hauliers ripped off by truck manufacturers (link), and leaseholders fighting secret insurance charges (link).

Since the ruling, crucial investment into the UK economy is rapidly being lost. Litigation funders like Burford Capital are taking their funds elsewhere, with CEO Chris Bogart, stating his firm has begun ‘migrating some dispute resolution away from London’, following PACCAR. 

Litigation funding enables claimants with limited means to access justice, enabling landmark cases including those brought by the subpostmasters, retail workers, and small business owners, to hold multinational corporations accused of serious wrongdoing to account, while promoting fair, competitive markets and securing investment into the UK.

--

Below is the letter to the Lord Chancellor, in its entirety:

Rt Hon David Lammy MP
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Dear Lord Chancellor,

Congratulations on your new role as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. While we recognise the many challenges you'll face stepping into this role, we wanted to highlight a critical issue that is undermining access to justice and stifling investment in the UK's legal system. But it's an issue with a quick and simple fix.

Group actions in the UK play a pivotal role in enabling individuals to come together to bring claims against those accused of wrongdoing - often multinational corporations with significant resources. It has helped claimants like the subpostmasters, shopworkers, retail investors, and small business owners access justice.

The regime is underpinned by claimants’ abilities to access finance - often through litigation funding where funders provide financial backing for an agreed return of any settlement. However, as you know, the future of this mechanism and the regime is under threat thanks to the disruptive effects of the 2023 PACCAR judgment, and subsequent challenges to the enforceability of funding arrangements.

Claimants with limited means are struggling to access funding to bring their cases, and investment from funders is draining away from the UK legal system.

The Government promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the Civil Justice Council’s review had concluded. 

The CJC reported back 4 months ago with a thorough and nuanced perspective on the funding sector. As members of the legal community, we are sympathetic to sensible reforms and are reassured that the Government is considering these carefully. 

But one unequivocal and pressing recommendation from the CJC was for urgent standalone legislation to reverse the effects of PACCAR to end the uncertainty damaging access to justice. Disappointingly, the Government has so far failed to hear that call, saying only that the review would “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”, despite its previous promises.

As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of “following the evidence”. The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants. 

We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.

Signed

The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).
Stewarts
Group Actions & Competition, Stephenson Harwood
Scott+Scott UK LLP
Backhouse Jones
Freeths 
Humphries Kerstetter LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Velitor Law
Milberg London LLP
Fladgate LLP
Geradin Partners
Harcus Parker
Tim Constable, Bates Wells
Phi Finney McDonald
Keidan Harrison LLP
Asserson
Leigh Day
Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP
KP Law

Commercial People Moves

Shai Silverman Departs CAC Specialty, Joins Litica as U.S. Head of Underwriting

By John Freund |

After four years helping to build CAC Specialty’s contingent risk insurance practice from the ground up, Shai Silverman is departing the firm to join litigation risk insurer Litica as its Head of Underwriting – U.S.

In a LinkedIn post, Silverman reflected on his time at CAC, where he joined in the early days of the firm’s efforts to turn contingent risk insurance into a mainstream product. Alongside colleagues Andrew Mutter, Michael B. Wakefield, and David Barnes, Silverman helped develop insurance solutions for a wide array of legal risks, crafted bespoke products for hundreds of clients, and played a key role in launching the first-ever contingent risk insurance conference.

Silverman now moves to Litica, a UK-headquartered specialist insurer focused on litigation and contingent risks, to lead its U.S. underwriting function. His move signals not just a personal transition but also the growing transatlantic ambitions of insurers operating in this once-niche corner of legal risk.

Silverman’s departure marks a broader inflection point for contingent risk insurance—a sector now poised for significant expansion. As underwriting talent like Silverman shifts into leadership roles at specialist firms, questions emerge around how traditional insurers will respond, and whether contingent risk insurance will continue its trajectory toward becoming a standard risk-transfer tool for litigation and arbitration.