Practical Law

It is no secret that applying for litigation funding can be arduous and time consuming. On the one hand, it’s no surprise that it might take some time to convince a funder to invest potentially millions of pounds in the outcome of a dispute. On the other hand, it can be incredibly frustrating when an … Continue reading Will artificial intelligence revolutionise the litigation funding market any time soon? (Spoiler alert) Probably not! →

It is not often that litigation funding makes the national, let alone international news, but the recent allegations made by Muddy Waters in respect of Burford Capital’s accounting practices have even captured the interest of many mainstream media outlets. Whether the accusations stem from a lack of understanding about the risks involved in this incredibly … Continue reading Will the Burford/Muddy Waters saga increase the likelihood of regulation for the litigation funding industry? →

With the news that Pinsent Masons and HFW have both agreed litigation funding portfolio arrangements over the course of the last few weeks, you may be considering whether this sort of facility is the way forward for your practice. If so, read on for my whistle-stop tour of the key types of arrangements that are … Continue reading Litigation funding portfolio arrangements: a must have or a summertime fad? →

Administrators and liquidators have always had to take a creative approach to funding insolvency claims. Often lacking the funds to pay legal fees, they have been amongst those to benefit the most from the ability to combine conditional fee agreements (CFAs), litigation funding and after-the-event (ATE) insurance to create a scenario in which an officeholder … Continue reading Crucial considerations when arranging funding and insurance for insolvency disputes →

The judgment in Davey v Money and others will have come as a disappointment to the litigation funding community. After all, the “Arkin option” doesn’t have the same ring of certainty as the “Arkin cap”. But should a party providing the means for a claim to be brought in return for commercial gain really be surprised … Continue reading Davey v Money and others: Beware of leaving the litigation funder to arrange the client’s ATE insurance →

Unless you are new to dispute resolution, it is likely you’ll have a good understanding of litigation funding and after the event (ATE) insurance. You probably have your fair share of “go-to” contacts that you call when the need arises. As familiar as you may be with certain products, how well do you know the … Continue reading Litigation funding and after the event insurance: don’t fall foul of the updated SRA obligations →

The review of Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), published earlier this month, leaves little to write home about. However, it does offer some hope with regard to the future use of damages-based agreements (DBAs).

Whilst attending a conference recently, I was surprised to hear a representative of a well-known funder state that there are significant capacity issues within the after the event (ATE) insurance market and that it was becoming increasingly difficult for claimants to obtain adverse costs insurance for higher levels of indemnity. The funder went on to … Continue reading Adverse costs insurance: differing perspectives →

In any financial services sector, you will find a spectrum of companies with different credentials. At one end of the spectrum there will be legitimate entities, highly experienced companies serving the needs of their client base and moving the industry forward. However, at the other end there will be those less credible outfits that can … Continue reading Litigation funding and insurance: avoiding rogue players →

2018 could well be labelled the year of the litigation funder, with key players announcing record profits and proclaiming the impact the market has had on how high value disputes are pursued. Below the trumpets of the funding market, however, you’ll also hear the drum roll of litigation insurance gathering volume.

A portfolio litigation funding arrangement enables multiple cases to be funded under a single facility through a streamlined process and on agreed terms. When reading the press or listening to funding focused panels during this year’s conference season, it might seem like portfolio litigation funding arrangements are the new norm. Whilst this may one day … Continue reading Portfolio litigation funding arrangements: what’s all the fuss about? →

As the litigation funding market grows, claimants are faced with increased choice when sourcing funding and have more leverage when agreeing terms than ever before. Whilst “off the shelf” products exist, the majority of arrangements are tailored to the facts and the economics of each specific case, and there is often a good deal of … Continue reading What claimants need to consider before entering into a litigation funding agreement →

Whilst most funding and insurance products have been designed with the claimant in mind, there are solutions that can be applied to defence situations. As with claimant cases, it is important to consider whether the aim is to relieve the cash flow burden of paying the legal fees in defending the claim, or whether the … Continue reading Litigation funding and insurance for defendants: a lesser trodden path →

The introduction of damages-based agreements (DBAs) as part of the Jackson reforms did not have the immediate impact on law firm retainers that some may have expected. Whilst most lawyers would have been attracted by the potential for huge returns in successful cases, the early years saw few firms willing to step into what they … Continue reading How law firms are using insurance to overcome their fear of damages based agreements →