Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Recap of IMN’s Inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum

October 19, 2022

Recap of IMN’s Inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum

IMN’s inaugural International Litigation Finance Forum brought together a crowd of international thought-leaders from across the industry, showcasing perspectives from funders, lawyers, insurers and more across a packed day of content.

Following IMN’s successful New York conference, the London event demonstrated the growing reach and maturity of litigation funding, as topics covered everything from recent industry developments to the nuances of international arbitration and dispute resolution. At the core of the day’s discussion, the central themes of regulation, ESG and insurance were present throughout each session, with unique insights being shared by panelists.

The day began with a panel focused on the current state of litigation funding in Europe, where the topic of regulation took center-stage. Whilst most speakers agreed that the proposed reforms in the recently approved Voss Report were a step in the wrong direction for the industry, Deminor’s Erik Bomans offered a contrarian take on regulation, and highlighted that the very existence of this debate around regulation is a positive sign of the industry being taken seriously.

During the second panel on jurisdictional differences in Europe, this view was echoed by Clémence Lemétais of UGGC Avocats, who stated that it was promising that the EU parliament is raising the visibility of the industry, but that the draft resolution ‘shows a lack of knowledge’ about the industry itself. This was further reinforced in terms of individual country requirements by Koen Rutten of Finch Dispute Resolution, who argued that regulation has to be based on facts, and has to address a problem, which he does not see in the Nethlerlands.

A fireside chat with Rocco Pirozzolo of Harbour Underwriting gave the audience a detailed overview of the impact and evolving nature of ATE insurance on litigation funding. During this interview, Mr Pirozzolo highlighted the difference in approaches between insurers and funders when assessing cases, but further highlighted the need for collaboration between the two to deliver wider access to justice.

Two panels completed a busy morning of discussion, with the first providing insight into the evolving nature of funders’ approach to capitalization, and the second analyzing the best practice for those seeking funding. LCM’s Patrick Moloney honed in on the evolution of the industry having come from a place of being perceived as ‘the dark arts and then loan sharks’ to now being in a position where funders like LCM garner investment from public listing. Later, Ben Moss of Orchard Group, offered a detailed overview of how requests for funding should be best structured and highlighted the ‘holy trinity’ of ‘merits, budget and quantum’.

The afternoon saw a broadening of the range of discussions, kicking off with Tom Goodhead of Pogust Goodhead providing an insightful presentation on group litigation in the UK and the need for future reforms to enable growth. Another two panels brought a wealth of insights, with the topics of co-investing, diversification and the secondary market in the first, being followed by a wide-ranging discussion of the different types and applications of litigation insurance.

After a breakout meeting explored the best practices in talent development and growth for women in litigation finance, a trio of panels capped off the day’s agenda. In a wide-ranging discussion of innovative deal terms and structures, panelists from the likes of Brown Rudnick, Litigation Funding Advisers and Stifel, provided insight into everything from the effect of insurance on pricing to the increasingly technical and data-drive process of due-diligence.

Taking a more global approach for the penultimate panel, Alaco’s Nikos Asimakopoulos, skillfully guided the audience through a global look at enforcements and international arbitration. The panel of legal experts discussed an extensive range of topics, with Tatiana Sainati of Wiley Rein, spotlighting ESG as a primary driver in the increase in transnational disputes and particularly in the EU where ESG initiatives have taken hold.

In the final panel of the day, the topic focused in on the use of litigation funding by corporates and institutional investors. In an illuminating exchange, Woodsford’s Steven Friel played down claims by other funders that CFOs and other corporate executives primarily look to litigation funding for its ability to shift legal costs off the balance book. Instead, Friel and other panelists highlighted the need for funders to bring more than just capital to the table, and that true value could be brought through a funder’s insight, as well as its ability to manage the litigation process and reduce the non-financial resource burden on corporates.

Overall, IMN’s inaugural UK event displayed the incredible depth of the litigation funding industry and gave attendees a wealth of insights that will no doubt generate further discussion and debate among leaders. In a day of packed content, IMN’s roster of speakers and panelists provided both high-level overviews and detailed looks at the nuances of certain industry sub-sectors.

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article erroneously attributed the detailed overview of how funding requests should be structured to Rosemary Ioannou of Fortress Investment Group. The remark was made by Ben Moss of Orchard Group.  We regret the error. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.