Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Susanna Taylor

October 16, 2023

Member Spotlight: Susanna Taylor

Susanna Taylor is Head of Investments – APAC, for Litigation Capital Management (LCM). Susanna leads LCM’s team of Investment Managers in Australia and Singapore and is responsible for overseeing the sourcing, due diligence and management of LCM’s investment activities across the APAC region. Susanna is a highly experienced and skilled operator being active in the litigation funding industry since 2014 when she joined LCM. Since that time Susanna has been responsible for sourcing, underwriting and managing a large and diverse portfolio of dispute projects consisting of commercial disputes, class actions, insolvency claims and international arbitration. Susanna sits on LCM’s investment committees for both APAC and EMEA and is intimately involved in the operational aspects of LCM’s business, taking part in regulatory and compliance and capital raising activities, investor relations and the expansion of LCM to new jurisdictions. Prior to joining LCM in 2014, Susanna was a litigation specialist with Norton Rose Fulbright in Sydney where her practice canvassed class actions, financial institutions disputes, contentious regulatory work (including work for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and corporate disputes. Before joining Norton Rose Fulbright, Susanna practised in London for UK firm Hammonds Suddards Edge where her focus was on construction litigation. Susanna’s Chambers and Partners profile describes her as “one of the top operators in the industry,” and as “an extremely impressive litigation funder with a strong ability to cut to the commercial reality of claims.” Company Name & Description:  LCM specialises in providing bespoke dispute finance solutions to facilitate the pursuit and successful recovery of funds from legal claims, while protecting our clients from the downside risk associated with disputes. Founded in 1998, LCM is one of Australia’s most experienced and successful disputes finance companies. LCM has completed over 260 cases and has assisted hundreds of companies and individuals in achieving significant recoveries from claims that, without LCM, may not have been pursued due to the associated costs and risks. All of LCM’s Investment Managers are former litigators with the level of experience required to facilitate successful outcomes in disputes. LCM’s team is highly skilled in the assessment of claims and in providing strategic assistance throughout the process of determining the dispute. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. LCM’s capability stems from being a pioneer of the industry with more than 25 years of disputes finance experience. LCM is listed on AIM (at the London Stock Exchange), trading under the ticker LIT. Company Website https://lcmfinance.com/ Year Founded: 1998 Headquarters: Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne Area of Focus: Arbitration, Insolvency Claims, Commercial Claims, Class Actions Member Quote: “Disputes finance is a risk management tool which allows a variety of claimants from small to large to leverage their dispute assets in order to transfer the costs and risk of a dispute to a third party funder.  Being involved in structuring these finance solutions and sitting alongside claimants to assist them to reach a successful outcome makes this a very rewarding industry to be a part of“.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

ISO Approves New Litigation Funding Disclosure Endorsement

By John Freund |

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

Case Developments Commercial

Innsworth Penalized for Challenge to Mastercard Settlement

By John Freund |

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Dismisses RTA‑Client Case

By John Freund |

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.