Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Maximizing Claimant Success: Harnessing the Synergy of Litigation Funding and Litigation Insurance

“The emergence of legal insurance products has been a game changer in allowing both clients and law firms to lock in judgments, ring fence potentially deleterious outcomes, and provide for certainty where uncertainty used to be the rule.”

– Ross Weiner, Legal Director at Certum Group 

Uncertainties abound in today’s complex legal landscape, leaving individuals and businesses vulnerable to the high costs associated with legal disputes. A pair of innovative solutions–litigation funding and litigation insurance–have emerged as powerful tools that, when utilized in tandem, can offer peace of mind to those involved in legal proceedings.

In this article, we delve into the benefits inherent in synergizing these two forms of financial assistance, exploring the various types of litigation insurance, the individuals and entities that benefit from these products, and the numerous advantages they bring to the table. 

Types of Litigation Insurance Products

Below are popular forms of litigation insurance: 

  • After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance: ATE insurance policies are designed to protect litigants against the opposing side’s costs and expenses, should the claimants fail to win their case. It is typically purchased by plaintiffs, though some insurers do issue ATE insurance to defendants. These policies typically cover adverse costs, including the opponent’s legal fees and disbursements. ATE insurance is purchased after the event which prompts the claim, but before the legal proceeding initiates (the closer to the start of the proceeding, typically the more expensive ATE insurance becomes). As ATE insurance protects against an adverse costs award, it is not applicable in the United States, which does not have a cost-shifting regime in place (except in extremely rare circumstances). 
  • Before-the-Event (BTE) Insurance: BTE insurance, also known as legal expense insurance, offers coverage for potential legal costs before a dispute arises. This product provides coverage for legal expenses in various scenarios, such as personal injury claims or contract disputes. 
  • Judgement Preservation Insurance (JPI): JPI is exactly as it sounds–insurance that protects a claim or group of claims which have already received judgements. JPI is very straightforward, and essentially meant to be a math problem: If your judgment is X, and you receive Y, the insurer will cover the difference or a portion thereof. As such, documentation is minimal, with fraudulent activity being the primary exclusion inserted into the agreement.  According to Stephen Kyriacou, Jr., Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon: “Judgment preservation insurance can be used for more than simply mitigating appellate risk. Judgment holders have used it to accelerate the recognition of judgment-related gains in their earnings, to monetize judgments while appeals are still pending, and even to convert more expensive unsecured debt into less expensive debt secured by the policy, since the policy effectively guarantees a minimum recovery so long as there is no collection or enforcement risk associated with the judgment.”
  • Litigation Funding Insurance: Litigation funding insurance is a specialized form of coverage designed to protect litigation funders, who provide financial support to claimants in exchange for a share of the proceeds, if the case is successful. This insurance safeguards funders against the risk of losing their investment in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. It provides critical protection against adverse cost orders and helps to minimize the financial risks associated with funding litigation. Stephen Kyriacou explains: “It has been a years-long challenge persuading certain insurers to consider insuring litigation finance-related risks, but we’ve seen recently that insurers have become much more willing to consider high-quality risks from funders when all parties work together to creatively structure coverage and properly align interests and incentives. As more insurers continue to come around to the idea of insuring funders over the coming years, the litigation and contingent risk insurance market will continue to grow, and even more value-creating solutions will become available to litigation finance firms.”
  • Portfolio Insurance: Portfolio insurance, also known as litigation risk portfolio insurance, is a comprehensive solution that covers multiple litigation cases within a portfolio. This type of insurance allows law firms, corporations, or litigation finance companies to spread the risk across a range of cases, reducing their exposure to any individual matter. Portfolio insurance offers cost predictability and stability, enabling stakeholders to manage their litigation risks more effectively and allocate resources strategically.

There have been other ancillary uses of insurance, such as when one firm looks to purchase the docket of another firm’s cases, or to insure a portfolio of IPs that have an associated value. As the Insurance and Litigation Funding industries continue to become intertwined, expect more bespoke products to emerge.  

Users of Litigation Insurance Products

There are three typical users of litigation insurance products: 

  • Individual Litigants: Individuals involved in legal disputes, such as personal injury claims or family law matters, can benefit from litigation insurance products. ATE and BTE insurance provide financial protection, enabling individuals who seek justice without the fear of exorbitant legal expenses.
  • Businesses and Corporations: Litigation can pose significant financial risks for businesses and corporations, diverting resources from core operations. Litigation insurance products help shield companies from the potentially crippling costs associated with commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, or intellectual property conflicts.
  • Law Firms: Law firms can also benefit from litigation insurance products. By offering these products to their clients, law firms enhance their value proposition, differentiate themselves in the market, and provide an additional layer of protection to their clients.

Benefits of Litigation Insurance Products

The benefits of utilizing litigation insurance are clear-cut: 

  • Cost Mitigation: Litigation insurance products alleviate the financial burden associated with legal disputes. They cover legal costs, including solicitor fees, expert witness expenses, court fees, and opponent’s costs, reducing the financial risks for litigants and providing access to justice for those who might not have the means otherwise.
  • Risk Management: Litigation is inherently uncertain, with outcomes dependent on various factors. Litigation insurance acts as a risk management tool, providing litigants with the confidence to pursue their case knowing that their financial interests are protected. It enables litigants to make informed decisions based on the merits of their case rather than financial constraints. 
  • Enhanced Negotiation Power: Litigation insurance empowers litigants during settlement negotiations. With insurance coverage in place, litigants can approach negotiations from a position of strength, knowing that they have the financial resources to endure protracted litigation. This can lead to more favorable settlement outcomes and increased bargaining power.
  • Access to Justice: Perhaps one of the most significant benefits of litigation insurance is its role in ensuring access to justice for individuals and businesses. By removing financial barriers, these products level the playing field and enable litigants to pursue their legal rights, even against well-funded opponents.

Litigation funders understand the ‘access to justice’ problem quite well. Litigation insurance further contributes to the democratization of our legal system by ensuring that even if the claim is unsuccessful, claimants are protected from the potentially crippling costs of litigation. This assurance encourages claimants who may be otherwise deterred by the financial risks associated with litigation to pursue their claims with confidence. Consequently, the collective impact of litigation funding and insurance is an increased participation of claimants, a broader range of cases being pursued, and a more inclusive legal system.

As Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33 points out, “The increased availability of insurance has enhanced the options available to claimants and law firms when it comes to protecting the downside of litigation. Only time will tell whether or not the litigation-focused products offerings will remain cost-effective additives to litigation finance.”

Litigation Funding & Litigation Insurance

Litigation insurance products have emerged as valuable tools in the legal landscape, offering financial protection and peace of mind to those navigating the complexities of litigation. Whether individuals seeking justice, businesses guarding against commercial risks, or law firms enhancing their service offerings, litigation insurance provides a range of benefits. 

Similarly, litigation funding affords plaintiffs the opportunity to see their case to fruition, when there might otherwise be no avenue for remuneration. By combining litigation funding and litigation insurance, claimants gain access to a tailored financial solution that meets their specific needs. Each claim has unique financial requirements, and the flexibility of these tools allows claimants to structure a financial package that aligns with their case’s dynamics. This synergy offers claimants the freedom to allocate capital as required, covering legal costs, expert fees, and other case-related expenses while safeguarding against the risk of adverse costs.

As the demand for these products continues to grow, they will mature into an integral part of the litigation landscape, empowering litigants and transforming the dynamics of legal proceedings for years to come. According to Boris Ziser, Partner and Co-Head of Finance and Derivatives at Schulte Roth and Zabel: “The growth of insurance products for the litigation funding space can be a real game changer, impacting not only the cost of capital, but expanding the universe of investors able to add this sector to their portfolios.”

By integrating these two solutions, claimants can significantly enhance their prospects for success while reducing financial risks. This harmonious approach not only levels the playing field between claimants and well-resourced opponents, but also promotes a fairer and more accessible legal system.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Patents & Trade Secrets

By John Freund |

On Thursday, April 17th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key stakeholders in the legal funding for patents and trade secrets markets. The panel featured Anup Misra (AM), Managing Director of IP at Curiam, Robin Davis (RD), Director at Fortress Investment Group, Erick Robinson (ER), Partner and Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice Group at Brown Rudnick, and Scott Davis (SD), Partner at Klarquist Sparkman. The panel was moderated by Salumeh Loesch (SL), Founder at Loesch Patents, LLC.

Below are key takeaways from the panel discussion:

Do you feel like in the litigation world generally, that there is a greater interest in trade secret enforcement and litigation just because of the difficulties with patent enforcement? Do you feel like there's a growing interest from the funder's perspective to fund trade secret cases?

AM: I think every funder is going to be a little bit different on how interested they are in trade secrets litigation. Just to be perfectly candid, for example, Curium has not typically been as interested in this because collectively in our practices and in funding, we haven't had the best experiences with trade secret cases. Other funders, though, probably love trade secret cases.

Now, that's not to say we won't do them. And we certainly see more of them. And we're certainly seeing a lot more sort of combo trade secret / patent litigation, which I think is extremely interesting for funders. And if you can manage that, it really puts your case on the upper shelf of what funders are going to consider.

I want to get a sense of how we should consider the multijurisdictional approach in the patent context and how this applies when you're seeking funding?

RD: Obviously, if you have patents in multiple jurisdictions, the US, Europe, beyond, that is a real asset and obviously something you should be bringing to the attention of a litigation funder if you're seeking investment in your case. The key is going to be to make sure that whatever international strategy you're considering is one that takes advantage of the various strengths and differences between different forums around the world.

For instance, many people have always enjoyed filing in the US because there's the potential for large damages awards. However, US district court litigation, especially with the advent of stays for IPRs, can be slow depending on where you're litigating. There are faster forums in other parts of the world; Germany has long been considered a favorite in that regard. And with the advent of the UPC, the Unified Patent Court, which is now in many of the EU member states, this gives you both a faster timeline to a resolution and a much bigger market now that you've got multiple EU member states that are all able to be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that [PTAB rule changes], in terms of the changes to the types of cases that may potentially arise in both patent litigation and patent litigation funding.

SD: Discretionary denials are increasing. Just in our own practice, we've seen a dramatic change very quickly on that. And I think that's going to continue as a trend for some time, at least until folks filing petitions figure it out as far as what the rules are and as far as what the standards are and what factors are weighed most heavily in the analysis in order to basically present the best argument they can to keep their petition on track.

Certainly in the short term, discretionary denial is a real thing and it's surging. So there's an opportunity to take advantage of that while the rules shake out and both litigants and the board are trying to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Do you have any tips for how companies can protect their trade secrets but still obtain litigation funding?

ER: My first advice to companies is to have a trade secret management system. That can be as complicated as having an entire software suite. That can be as simple as having a spreadsheet that has trade secret, date, who came up with it, and additional details.

That actually feeds into the real answer, which is you need to know what the trade secret is. Once you know what the trade secret is, things get easier. And that's easier said than done. I've been in cases where nobody really knew what the trade secret was until throttle, which is what makes it crazy. The good news is that damages are a lot more flexible, for instance, in the patent world; you can get actual losses, you can get unjust enrichment, you can get reasonable royalty, you can get punitive damages. There's just a much broader system of damages.

To view the entire discussion, please click here.

Case Developments Commercial

£5 Billion Opt-Out Claim Brought Against Google over Anti-Competitive Behaviour

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last week, Google is the target of a €900 million claim brought against the technology giant in the Netherlands over its alleged anti-competitive behaviour. However, that is not the only lawsuit being brought against the company over such allegations, with a new claim being filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in the UK.

An announcement from Geradin Partners highlights the filing of a new claim brought against Google before the CAT over allegations that the company abused its market dominance to increase prices for Google Ads and harm competitors in the search advertising market. The claim, which has an estimated value of £5 billion, is being brought on behalf of UK-based advertisers who have allegedly suffered losses because of Google’s anti-competitive behaviour. The lawsuit is to represent UK businesses who purchased advertising space on Google search spaces since 1 January 2011.

The opt-out competition damages claim is being brought by Or Brook Class Representative Limited, with Dr Or Brook acting as the proposed class representative. Dr Brook is a competition law expert, currently holding the position of Associate Professor of Competition Law and Policy at the School of Law at the University of Leeds. She is supported by a legal team led by Geradin Partners, with funding for the proceedings being provided by Burford Capital.

Dr Or Brook, provided the following comment on the lawsuit: “Today, UK businesses and organisations, big or small, have almost no choice but to use Google ads to advertise their products and services. Regulators around the world have described Google as a monopoly and securing a spot on Google’s top pages is essential for visibility. Google has been leveraging its dominance in the general search and search advertising market to overcharge advertisers.”

Damien Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, emphasised that “this is the first claim of its kind in the UK that seeks redress for the harm caused specifically to businesses who have been forced to pay inflated prices for advertising space on Google pages.”

The full announcement from Geradin Partners can be read here.

Announcements Commercial Deals

New Burford Capital Research Reveals Significant Opportunities for Businesses Through Patent Monetization

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new research on patent monetization, a means for businesses with significant intellectual property to generate revenue from patent assets through licensing, direct enforcement and corporate divestitures. With high research and development costs, long development timelines and intense IP competition, CFOs and GCs are faced with the challenge of seeking greater value from their companies' patent portfolios without diverting capital from core business operations. Moreover, converting underutilized intellectual property into liquid assets enables companies to fuel ongoing innovation and drive future growth.

Despite substantial investments in securing and maintaining patents, many companies fall short in leveraging their intellectual property—resulting in missed financial opportunities and ongoing costs that could otherwise be offset through monetization. This research shows companies shifting to a more proactive stance toward patent monetization as they face mounting economic pressures, rising costs of maintaining large patent portfolios and headline-generating enforcements and divestitures by major brands that increase acceptance. Nearly 70% of in-house lawyers say their organizations are more likely to monetize patents today than a decade ago, and 73% report that patent monetization revenue has grown over the last 10 years.

"Patent monetization remains a significantly underutilized asset for many businesses," said Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital. "Companies frequently hold valuable patents that require substantial investment to enforce, incurring significant expense—risk we routinely finance for clients. In today's climate of intensifying global competition and rapidly evolving IP enforcement landscapes, legal finance empowers companies to strengthen their patent monetization strategies and take a more proactive, value-driven approach to IP management."

"Companies have a significant opportunity to unlock value from their intellectual property," said Katharine Wolanyk, Managing Director at Burford Capital and head of its intellectual property and patent litigation finance division. "In conversations with CFOs and general counsel across industries, we frequently hear that patent portfolios are viewed as cost centers rather than assets, and this research substantiates that assertion. Legal finance offers a powerful solution by transforming underutilized IP assets into a source of liquidity that can fuel business priorities and allow companies to continue the essential cycle of innovation."

Key findings from the study include:

  • Companies are missing revenue opportunities: Even as patent monetization is increasing, 79% of in-house lawyers say that more than a quarter of their patent portfolio is underutilized. The costs of maintaining patents without monetization include lost revenue, delayed market entry and reduced market share.
  • Revenue generated by patent monetization is growing: 73% of in-house lawyers report that revenue from patent monetization has increased over the last 10 years and 69% of in-house lawyers say their organizations have become more likely to monetize patents in the past decade.
  • Divestiture is a fast-growing monetization strategy: 71% of in-house lawyers have already divested patents or are actively exploring divestiture options.
  • Clients can de-risk direct enforcement with finance: 72% of law firm lawyers cite the high cost of litigation as a deterrent to clients pursuing meritorious patent claims.
  • Legal finance plays a growing role in patent monetization: 59% of law firm lawyers say clients use legal finance for patent monetization; 51% of in-house lawyers say they are actively planning or exploring the use of legal finance to support patent enforcement and monetization going forward.
  • Global patent monetization is active: The US remains the top market for patent monetization due to strong enforcement mechanisms. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is driving change in Europe, with 74% of in-house lawyers expecting increased enforcement in the region.

This research, commissioned by Burford and conducted by GLG, captures insights from 300 in-house IP counsel and law firm partners involved in patent litigation in North America, Europe and Asia.

The research report can be downloaded on Burford's website.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery, and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and works with companies and law firms around the world from its global network of offices.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.