In an earlier piece I proposed implied probability of loss as a means of analysing the risk of a single case investment. In this piece I will use the implied probability of loss to look at cases with different risks at different stages, and then to look at some different models for co-funding transactions with other funders, including a concept of dollar-weighted risk. Finally, I’ll propose a structure to allow two funders to fund a case that might otherwise be outside the risk parameters of either of them individually.

Funding Nemo: do funders fund too few cases?

Changes to the CPR for media and communications claims
From 1 October 2019, significant changes to CPR 53 will come into force, establishing the Queen’s Bench Division’s (QBD) Media and Communications List (M&C list), a specialist list of the High Court to deal with claims arising in the area of media and communications. The M&C list was created in May 2017 but had not been reflected in the CPR prior to these changes. The existing CPR 53 solely related to defamation claims, and was seen by many to be significantly out of step with current practice in media and communications litigation. Continue reading

In defence of litigation funding
“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 mainstream press coverage generated by the current Burford Capital siege would have been very welcome. The opportunity to promote general awareness of litigation funding; to champion its ability to unlock meritorious claims; and access to very attractive, uncorrelated returns in a low yield environment.