Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.