Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial

How Litigation Funding is Impacting the Broader Legal Market

January 29, 2019

How Litigation Funding is Impacting the Broader Legal Market

Ever since its arrival on the stage in the early 1990s in Australia, litigation funding has managed to impact the broader legal climate in which it participates (in early 90s Australis, that was the insolvency market, today in Australia, the UK and America, that is nearly every legal sector). Take class actions, for example. Litigation funding has been proven to increase the rate of settlements  in class actions by 21%. Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University compiled data leading up to July 2017, which showed that funded parties in class actions are 69% likely to settle, whereas unfunded parties are only 48% likely to settle. According to an ICGN report shared on LinkedIn, litigation funding has had a significant impact on various sectors of the legal market. First and foremost is the non-U.S. Securities market. Ever since the Supreme Court’s seminal 2010 ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which found that U.S. securities law applies only to stocks purchased on domestic exchanges, foreign securities investors have been ramping up legal activity across the globe. The growth of litigation funding has (not coincidentally) coincided with this surge in shareholder class actions, as funders can not only help finance claims, but can actually engage with law firms in the laborious process of building claims and sourcing claimants in the first place. This is clearly a major boon to non-U.S. law firms, which are often prevented from working on contingency the way their U.S. counterparts can. And funders have indeed been capitalizing on this opportunity, as it has been estimated that upwards of 50% of all new class action claims in Australia are funded claims. Of course, international arbitration is also seeing a spike in funded claims, with the formal acceptance of third party funding by both Hong Kong and Singapore last year. Arbitration is often a costly exercise, and typically lodged against extremely well-capitalized defendants. Litigation funders level the playing field for global enterprises seeking access to justice. All told, the various impacts of funding are only just beginning to be recognized, as the industry is still in its infancy – or perhaps its mere ‘toddler’ years. There is still plenty of maturation down the road ahead for litigation funding, and if the past few years are any indication, we’re likely to see the wider legal market change drastically as a result.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.