Practical Law

In years to come, March 2023 may come to be remembered as the month that came closest to replaying the systemic carnage of September 2008. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) triggered broader concerns given its venture capital and start-up focused client base – perhaps better contextualised when one considers about 5% of VC … Continue reading Is litigation funding uncorrelated or just less correlated? →

Nothing ever moves quickly in litigation. Of course, it’s complex, technical and necessarily procedural with challenging timetabling demands placed on the judiciary but there are other factors too. Legal services rely on monetising time through hourly rates that discourages efficiency. Other times, the judiciary can be slow on its own admission, for example in Bilta v … Continue reading Arbitraging the time value of litigation →

As the global litigation funding industry has grown exponentially over the years, so have the critics, driven and funded by those with most to lose. Unsurprisingly then, various battles have been waged by these critics seeking to undermine the integrity, credibility and viability of litigation funding as a whole. One such battleground globally has been … Continue reading Disclosing litigation funding arrangements: a debate worth having →

Since Jackson LJ’s 2010 Review of Civil Litigation Costs (Jackson Review) led to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), it has been taken as read that conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees and after-the-event (ATE) premiums are not recoverable. Calls to repeal the primary legislation have gone largely unnoticed and … Continue reading Why CFA success fees, ATE premiums and funder returns should be recoverable in commercial litigation cases →

In a short space of time, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) has come to sit at the top of many corporate agendas. No longer a movement, ESG is underpinned by the reality that the majority of the billions of individuals, who are both the customers and the ultimate source of the debt and equity capital … Continue reading Why litigation funding and ESG go hand in hand →

Every growth industry has its critics, usually those with most to lose. Litigation funding is no different and they will be rubbing their hands with glee at the ongoing Australian review considering capping funders’ returns at 30% of the award. This would have far reaching consequences for the whole industry. However, a closer look at … Continue reading Funders’ pricing and the real value of litigation risks →

Why is customer service an anathema in the third-party litigation funding (TPLF) industry, viewed as some “thing” that matters only when eating out in a restaurant, buying a car or staying at a hotel? We hear lots of consultant-inspired corporate tag lines (“internationally recognised”, “global force”, “market leading”, “strong track record”, “in-house underwriting capabilities”, to … Continue reading How to work a litigation funder →

Last month, international law firm Brown Rudnick announced the launch of an initiative to create standardised documentation for the litigation funding market. Teaming up with numerous funders, insurers, brokers and other associated professionals, it made reference to the standardisation of documentation in the syndicated loan market, driven by the Loan Market Association (LMA), as an … Continue reading Litigation funding: the debate over standardised documentation →

Is the litigation funding industry under existential threat? That’s certainly what some are suggesting following recent events in Australia, which culminated in the enactment of legislation headlined, “Litigation funders to be regulated”. While that may seem an overreaction to what is regulation only for Australia class actions (and who can blame them given the recent … Continue reading Addressing the existential threat to litigation funding →

Well done, everyone. We’ve done it. We’ve put litigation funding on the map. They used to call us “charlatans”, “immoral” and “seeking access to profits from others’ miseries”. But it was all worth it.

A question few funders dare ask openly, given the obvious risk of excommunication, but one which is impossible to ignore, given the deafening whispers reverberating in the industry’s corridors since 10 February 2020.

No commercial litigation solicitor bats an eyelid to the principle of a 100% uplift in a conditional fee agreement (CFA). They are taking the risk of losing all their work in progress if the case is unsuccessful and a 100% uplift is just reward.

“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” How true the words of Oscar Wilde would have rung for the litigation funding market ten years ago. Struggling at the time for any publicity or endorsement from the broader legal market, the kind of … Continue reading In defence of litigation funding →

Big-hitting defendant solicitors were rather quick to proclaim the demise of the Arkin cap, following Snowden J’s judgment in Davey vs Money last month. They’re in good company. In his 2010 Review of Civil Litigation Costs, Jackson LJ said that funders should be fully liable for adverse costs. Others argue that the Arkin cap’s generosity … Continue reading The Arkin cap: not quite the demise being (pro-)claimed →

“Yes” seems to be the consensus, ever since Snowden J commented in Premier Motorauctions that the absence of a credit rating indicated that an insurer might be at greater risk of defaulting.