Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

The following was contributed by Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

The recent and well documented attacks by activist short-seller Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have brought litigation finance into the limelight. Whilst largely focussed on Burford’s accounting methods and corporate governance, the hedge fund’s accusations have raised concerns around the practices and legitimacy of the industry more broadly.

One key question raised is around whether funders should even be listed on a public market. More pointedly, why can companies with questionable governance practices, an unpredictable revenue forecast, and operating in an industry with limited access to a secondary market against which claims can be evaluated, be listed?

A lot of this is down to varying levels of understanding around Burford’s accounting practices, and indeed those of the wider industry. It is important to recognise that while there are many companies operating in the growing litigation finance space, they do not all do the same thing, or account the same way and shouldn’t all be tarred with the same brush.

Fair value accounting – adopted by Burford and others under IFRS 9, is not an evil. But the application of it does matter. There are differing ways of adopting fair value accounting and how it is used is ultimately a management team decision. The accounting treatment for litigation projects varies across the industry and some approaches are more reliant on subjective judgement by management teams than others.

For a clear representation, fair value numbers should always be given alongside historical cash accounting figures, so investors and counterparties are able to see the underlying performance of the business. It is vital that funders are fully transparent and have numbers that can be easily verified and valued externally.

In practice, this entails the development of a fair value accounting method that can be scrutinised and tested by external parties. This probably results in lower valuations than management may have reached alone. But ultimately, as we’ve seen over the past fortnight, it is prudent to be cautious and conservative. The importance of disclosure to shareholders and clients cannot be underestimated.

Subject to the right application of fair value accounting, there are several significant advantages to being listed – relating to transparency, regulation and access to capital – that make it a highly appropriate model for funders.

Being listed on any stock exchange ensures a level of regulation and transparency that the private markets do not. We say this with some authority having been listed on both a main market (the Australian Securities Exchange) and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”). Our experience has been that there is little difference in standards and accountability between the two. As a constituent of a public market, there is pressure to ensure that standards of corporate governance are upheld. Natural checks exist to hold companies to account in the form of selling investors, analysts publishing negative research, and, at the most extreme level, activists or short sellers publicly targeting companies.

What’s difficult is that there is no formal regulation of the litigation finance sector, although its introduction in multiple jurisdictions is inevitable in time. It is hard to predict what form it will take, but I have no doubt that respectable funders will welcome it when it arrives, and we should do.

In the meantime, our listed status provides a platform through which we can continue to meet regulatory standards. This is particularly important for firms like LCM looking to fund corporate portfolio transactions. Naturally, sophisticated corporates have stringent KYC protocols, and being listed demonstrates a level of oversight and transparency around where your capital is coming from, often in stark contrast to some.

Furthermore, litigation finance is capital-intensive by its very nature and being listed provides funders with access to public sources of capital in the equity and bond markets. Equity raises provide funders with permanent capital to invest from the balance sheet, thereby avoiding any potential liquidity mismatches that might occur with some alternative fund structures. It also means investors of all types (from institutions to individuals) can gain access to the asset class’s attractive, uncorrelated returns.

There will be a failure in this industry soon. This will be in large part due to the use of contingent revenues to hide loss positions, as well as funders being over reliant on one part of the market, such as single case investments. This is clearly not a sustainable business model and further illustrates the need for the considered use of fair value accounting.

Recent events have been no help to the ongoing education process around the benefits of legal finance generally. It is a rude awakening that the practices of one business in our industry have raised so many questions around the governance and reporting of its peers. It will take time for the jitters to settle. In the meantime, the regulatory oversight that being a listed company provides should be seen as a positive.

Nick Rowles-Davies is Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) and leads the company’s EMEA operations.

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.