Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

LFJ Member Leverages Informal Introductory Services to Finance ESG Claim

August 17, 2023

LFJ Member Leverages Informal Introductory Services to Finance ESG Claim

Litigation Finance Journal is well-regarded as the leading publication covering the global legal funding sector, but what is perhaps less-well known is that LFJ also serves as a digital hub for industry stakeholders to connect, via our informal introductory services. A recent example illustrates the impact that LFJs access to the global funding community can have, as Brazilian attorney and activist Daniel Cavalcante leveraged our introductory services to raise funding for a claim on behalf of Indigenous communities in the Amazon.  In a post by No Impunity on LinkedIn, the impact litigation funding platform announced that it would be collaborating with Daniel Cavalcante, a lawyer who has been fighting for the rights of indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon. No Impunity stated that it would be funding a lawsuit “that directly benefits indigenous communities, taking real steps towards justice”, highlighting the synergy between Cavalcante’s goals and their mission to finance litigation that fights back against climate and human rights abuses by corporations. Yanis Lunetta, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of No Impunity, praised LFJ’s global network of litigation funding stakeholders: “Through LFJ’s network, No Impunity was introduced to Daniel Cavalcante. This connection proved transformative, enabling grassroots fundraising for an ESG claim. Daniel’s commitment, backed by No Impunity and combined with the trust LFJ instilled, illustrates a dynamic synergy in financing legal action to achieve corporate accountability.” Aurelia Le Frapper, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of No Impunity, added: “Litigation Finance Journal played a key role in our mission to democratize impact litigation. They had an essential part in connecting us directly with Daniel Calvalcante, representing Brazilian communities facing substantial socio-environmental harms.This connection paved the way for No Impunity to fund the investigation phase of this legal process. As we prepare for our public launch event at UCL on 25 September to present our platform and start fundraising for this first case, we express our gratitude to LFJ for its essential contribution in advancing impactful legal initiatives.” In his own post on LinkedIn, Cavalcante expressed his excitement for the collaboration with No Impunity, saying that “the recognition of my work as a lawyer, representing different associations and tribes, is a source of inspiration to continue facing socio-environmental challenges.” As LFJ reported back in February, Cavalcante has been actively campaigning for support from funders and law firms to support lawsuits against large international corporations harming the people and the environment of the Amazon.  No Impunity stated that it would reveal the details of the case on August 25, and encouraged any interested parties to get in touch.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.