Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Regulatory Issues Special Features

Price Control to Ensure the Affordability of Litigation Finance?

December 1, 2021

Price Control to Ensure the Affordability of Litigation Finance?

The following post was contributed by Guido Demarco, Director & Head of Legal Assets of Stonward. In March 2021, the European Parliamentary Research Service published a study on Responsible Private Funding of Litigation. This study was later supplemented by a draft report prepared by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs in June 2021. Both documents, the study, and the draft report, contain certain recommendations to regulate litigation funding and criticize the economic costs that these funds impose on their clients by referring to them as “excessive”, “unfair” and “abusive”. Specifically, on the issue of fees, the study suggests setting a 30% cap on funders’ rates of return, while the draft report recommends that LF agreements should be invalid if they foresee a benefit for the claimant equal to or less than 60% (unless exceptional circumstances apply). In other words, a cap of 40%. While this might be viewed as a logical measure to make litigation finance more affordable, what needs to be considered is that the funders’ expected return is simply a consequence of the risks and costs that arise from litigation, not the other way round. The costs Let us take the case of a foreign national, ‘Citizen Kane,’ who makes an investment in the energy sector in Ruritania[1]. Let us imagine that a bilateral treaty between Mr. Kane’s country of nationality and Ruritania protects Citizen Kane’s investment. The Republic of Ruritania suddenly indirectly expropriates Mr. Kane’s business without due compensation. To claim damages, Mr. Kane will start an arbitration through the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The total cost of the dispute will depend on the complexity and the duration of the case, including the number of pleadings, experts, hearings, and the time incurred by the attorneys. Only the first advance to ICSID can be circa $150,000. If Citizen Kane estimates damages of $30 million, the costs of such a dispute could easily amount to $3 million or more. In investor-state arbitration, the mean costs for investors are about $6.4m and the median figure is $3.8m. The mean tribunal costs in ICSID arbitrations is $958,000 and the median $745,000.[2] Therefore, after years suffering arbitrary measures and pursuing fruitless disputes in local courts, Citizen Kane will now have to invest an additional circa $3 million to file a claim for damages with a completely uncertain outcome. Even if Citizen Kane wins, Ruritania may not be willing to follow the award voluntarily, and he will have to incur more expenses to enforce the judgment. The risks Aware of the prohibitive costs of litigation, Ruritania may play the long game, unnecessarily prolonging the dispute to financially drain the claimant while expecting a future administration will be in office to foot the bill down the road. This might be challenging even for a financially healthy company, as litigation costs are often considered an expense on the profit and loss statement and therefore CFOs are increasingly looking for alternatives to preserve working capital for the company’s main activity. How long will the proceeding take? What will be the final amount of the damages awarded? Will the other party voluntarily follow the award? What if, in the end, I lose? These questions have no exact answers because the answers depend on third parties, including how a judge or tribunal interprets the law and the facts of case, as well as the performance of experts and lawyers in pursuing the claim. The litigation budget and estimated damages will play a key role in the investment decision, together with the merits of the case, liquidity, and reputation of the respondent, as well as the reputation of the law firm chosen by the client. Analyzing the risk is not easy, considering the latest figures that show that investors prevail in only 47% of cases, and that the median amount of damages claimed vis a vis damages awarded is 36%. However, the main factor in determining risk is the structure of non-recourse litigation finance loans. This is not just a typical loan, but a mechanism to transfer risk. It is normal that the greater the risk assumed by the funder, the higher the return expected. Conclusion Limiting a funder’s expected return will not reduce financing costs for clients, and therefore will fail to make litigation more affordable, which is the aim of the EU’s regulation proposal. Funders will not grant funding if they perceive the risk/reward of a case is not worth the given circumstances. However, a cap on the return could have a direct effect on the number of cases taken up by funders – which is already low – since there will be cases in which the combination of factors described above will not make the investment worthwhile, considering the risk tradeoff. Unfortunately, there is a cost floor shared by both large and small cases, and complex claims like Citizen Kane’s expropriation case would be made all the more challenging to finance. A cap could therefore limit Mr. Kane’s litigation options. Should funders charge any profiteering fee? No, but a cap to the fees may not be the solution. In the end, the direct beneficiaries of the proposed regulation could end up being certain states such as Ruritania, which act as defendants in arbitration or judicial cases, rather than the individuals that the EU is attempting to protect. Ironically, states finance their legal firepower with taxes, the same taxes that Citizen Kane has paid for years to the Republic of Ruritania. [1]  Ruritania is a fictional country used as a setting for novels by Anthony Hope, such as The Prisoner of Zenda (1894). Jurists specialising in international law and private international law use Ruritania when describing a hypothetical case illustrating some legal point. [2] 2021 Empirical Study: Costs, Damages and Duration in Investor-State Arbitration, British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Allen & Overy, available at: Costs, damages and duration in investor-state arbitration – Allen & Overy.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.