Trending Now
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.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.