Trending Now
  • La financiación de las acciones colectivas en el punto de mira
  • Funding of collective actions under the spotlight
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

Inside India’s Insolvency Regime

By John Freund |

A new joint study by the Insolvency Law Academy and Burford Capital sheds light on how legal finance is gaining traction as a strategic tool in the India's insolvency processes. By enabling distressed entities and professionals to monetize contingent assets without exhausting limited estate resources, legal finance has the power to enhance liquidity and improve recovery outcomes for creditors.

An article by Burford Capital unveils how legal finance-backed structures can convert contingent claims into tangible value, supporting corporate continuity and delivering stronger creditor returns. The study highlights India’s unique factors: abundant untapped recoveries from avoidance claims and disputed receivables, widespread capital shortages faced by insolvency professionals, and the need for prompt liquidity solutions. It also references real-world case studies showcasing how legal finance facilitated strategic wins for firms like Hindustan Construction Company and Patel Engineering.

On the regulatory front, judicial rulings—such as in Tomorrow Sales v. SBS Holdings (2023)—have explicitly recognized the legitimacy of legal finance in India’s litigation ecosystem. Meanwhile, updates to the IBC now permit the assignment of “not readily reali[z]able assets” during liquidation, laying groundwork for integrating legal finance into the insolvency framework. Nonetheless, the regulatory landscape—including aspects of FEMA compliance and fund repatriation—remains cautiously permissive.

Emerging operational structures include direct estate financing, SPV‑based claim ring‑fencing, and creditor assignments for immediate value. The report urges a “light‑touch” regulatory approach, alongside the development of codes of conduct and educational efforts to arm insolvency professionals and creditors with the know‑how to deploy legal finance effectively.

Looking ahead, as India’s insolvency infrastructure matures, legal finance is poised to play a central role—unlocking value in distressed assets, bridging funding gaps, and aligning with global best practices.

Commercial Deals

Burford’s Law-Firm Investment Plan Draws Fire

By John Freund |

Burford Capital’s new push to take minority stakes in U.S. law firms is already meeting resistance from tort-reform advocates and insurer-aligned groups, who argue the structure could blur loyalties inside the attorney-client relationship. The plan, described by Burford’s chief development officer Travis Lenkner as “strategic minority investments” to help firms scale, would rely on managed service organizations (MSOs) that house back-office assets while leaving legal work to a lawyer-owned entity. Supporters cast it as a lawyer-friendly alternative to private equity; skeptics see a back-door end-run around state bars’ bans on non-lawyer ownership.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that critics, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute’s William Large, warn MSO-style deals could tilt decision-making toward investors focused on “big verdicts,” threatening firm independence and client interests. Only Arizona permits direct non-lawyer ownership today, and while Utah and Washington, D.C., have loosened rules at the margins, most states still enforce bright-line prohibitions.

The debate has sharpened as disclosure and licensing regimes proliferate: at least 16 states now require some level of third-party funding transparency. The Insurance Journal piece also notes a recent Texas Bar ethics opinion that green-lights MSOs for law-firm services under narrow conditions, though it doesn’t answer the broader question of outside investors’ influence. For its part, Burford says it understands the ethical guardrails and intends to be a passive investor focused on firm growth and operational support.

For the legal finance industry, the MSO path signals a pivotal test. If bars and courts accept these structures, capital could flow directly into firm operations—potentially accelerating portfolio origination, technology spend, and fee-earner leverage. If regulators balk, expect renewed calls for explicit rulemaking on ownership, disclosure, and control—alongside creative alternatives (credit facilities, revenue shares, and hybrid portfolios) to replicate MSO-like benefits without the governance controversy.

Case Developments Commercial

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.