Trending Now
Commercial

How Litigation Funding is Impacting the Broader Legal Market

By John Freund |

Ever since its arrival on the stage in the early 1990s in Australia, litigation funding has managed to impact the broader legal climate in which it participates (in early 90s Australis, that was the insolvency market, today in Australia, the UK and America, that is nearly every legal sector). Take class actions, for example. Litigation funding has been proven to increase the rate of settlements  in class actions by 21%. Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University compiled data leading up to July 2017, which showed that funded parties in class actions are 69% likely to settle, whereas unfunded parties are only 48% likely to settle.

According to an ICGN report shared on LinkedIn, litigation funding has had a significant impact on various sectors of the legal market. First and foremost is the non-U.S. Securities market. Ever since the Supreme Court’s seminal 2010 ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which found that U.S. securities law applies only to stocks purchased on domestic exchanges, foreign securities investors have been ramping up legal activity across the globe.

The growth of litigation funding has (not coincidentally) coincided with this surge in shareholder class actions, as funders can not only help finance claims, but can actually engage with law firms in the laborious process of building claims and sourcing claimants in the first place. This is clearly a major boon to non-U.S. law firms, which are often prevented from working on contingency the way their U.S. counterparts can. And funders have indeed been capitalizing on this opportunity, as it has been estimated that upwards of 50% of all new class action claims in Australia are funded claims.

Of course, international arbitration is also seeing a spike in funded claims, with the formal acceptance of third party funding by both Hong Kong and Singapore last year. Arbitration is often a costly exercise, and typically lodged against extremely well-capitalized defendants. Litigation funders level the playing field for global enterprises seeking access to justice.

All told, the various impacts of funding are only just beginning to be recognized, as the industry is still in its infancy – or perhaps its mere ‘toddler’ years. There is still plenty of maturation down the road ahead for litigation funding, and if the past few years are any indication, we’re likely to see the wider legal market change drastically as a result.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Australian Federal Court Approves $24.5M Funder’s Commission for Galactic 

By John Freund |

Reporting by Lawyer’s Weekly covers a major development in two Australian class actions, where litigation funder Galactic obtained a favourable ruling from the full Federal Court to double its commission from its funding of lawsuits brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank. Justices Craig Colvin, Bernard Murphy and Michael Lee, overturned a 2023 judgement by Justice O’Callaghan that refused to make Galactic’s CFO order. As a result, Galactic’s commission from the class actions will drastically rise from $12 million, to a total $24.5 million.

The Federal Court’s ruling on 2 May found that Justice O’Callaghan had been wrong to refuse making the CFO order on the basis that the court did not have the power to do so. The three Justices wrote that Galactic’s $24.5 million commission “is commercially realistic and properly reflects the costs and risks Galactic took on by funding the proceedings.”

The class actions brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank focused on allegations that the fuel and convenience store chain’s standard Franchise Agreement had ‘unfair contractual terms’ that violated consumer law. ANZ Bank were targeted by the second class action over claims that it had failed to meet its obligations under Australia’s Code of Banking Practice, ‘by lending to buy into the franchise system, often up to 100 per cent of the franchise license.’

Case Developments Commercial

London’s Black-Cab Drivers Bring £250M Claim Against Uber

By John Freund |

An article The Financial Times covers legal actions being brought against Uber on behalf of London’s black-cab drivers, centred on allegations that Uber misled Transport for London (TfL) to obtain its license. Specifically, the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Uber misled TfL around its booking model, and that the company allowed its drivers to receive direct bookings from customers rather than through a central system.

The claim is being brought in the High Court by RGL Management and is representing more than 10,500 black-cab drivers, who argue that they were harmed by unfair competition and are seeking up to £25,000 in compensation per driver. The claimants are represented by Mishcon de Reya and Katch Investment group are providing the litigation funding for the claim, with the total value of the group litigation reaching £250 million.

In a statement, Uber continued to deny the allegations and said that the claims “are completely unfounded”, maintaining its position that the ride-hailing company “operates lawfully in London, fully licensed by TfL.”

More information about the group litigation can be found on RGL Management’s ‘Black Cabs v Uber Litigation 2021’ (BULit21) website.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Read More