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

New research shows companies with large claims recover more and preserve budgets by using legal finance as part of their class action opt out strategies

September 13, 2022

New research shows companies with large claims recover more and preserve budgets by using legal finance as part of their class action opt out strategies

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research demonstrating the value of legal finance for companies with valuable commercial class action claims. In recent years, Burford has seen an increasing number of major corporations choosing to opt out of class action lawsuits to pursue high value claims individually and has commissioned independent research to examine the trend in greater depth.

Although companies are currently still more likely to remain in the class than they are to opt out, the research reveals that their reasons for doing so are economic—and solvable with legal finance, which de-risks the choice to opt out and provides a clear benefit to corporations with high value claims. As most legal finance is non-recourse, companies can receive risk-free funding to pursue meritorious claims as individual plaintiffs, as well as to accelerate the often-significant value represented by pending claims.

Given the results of the research, Burford expects the trend toward opt outs will continue, with major companies choosing to rethink their opt out strategies with legal finance.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “Burford’s independent research on commercial class actions demonstrates the clear benefit that legal finance provides to companies with significant claims. If you’re a GC and you have a claim that’s big enough to merit opting out, you should, because you’ll recover more, and you can do so without budget implications by using legal finance capital. Further, your competitors who are already using legal finance are opting out three times more often. As a former GC, I recognize the importance of maintaining control and maximizing returns in litigation, and Burford works with many GCs to use legal finance to reduce risk, maintain greater control and enhance the likelihood of achieving greater recoveries.”

Key findings from the research include:

  • Use of legal finance correlates to opting out.
    • Use of legal finance is 3x likelier among companies that mostly/always opt out vs. companies that mostly/always remain in the class, and 2x likelier than all companies.
  • Companies’ top reasons for opting out are maintaining control and maximizing return.
    • The #1 reason large company GCs opt out is their fiduciary duty to maximize recoveries to their company.
  • Companies’ top reasons to stay in the class are economic.
    • Not being able to justify the cost of pursuing an opt out claim (64%) and not having the budget to do so (61%) are the top 2 reasons companies remain in the class.
    • Legal finance ameliorates both cost and budget constraints.
  • GCs say the availability of legal finance would impact their opt out strategy.
    • 1 of 2 (52%) say that while they have not used legal finance, its availability would positively impact the decision to opt out. 

The Report on Class Action Recoveries can be downloaded on Burford’s website, where full results are also available. The research report was conducted in June 2022 by GLG via an online survey, with responses from 150 US GCs, heads of litigation and other senior in-house lawyers responsible for their companies’ commercial litigation.

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 it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Sydney and Hong Kong.

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

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.