Trending Now

The 2021 Litigation Finance Survey Findings

By John Freund |

In September, Bloomberg Law surveyed 38 litigation finance providers, 37 lawyers, and 75 legal professionals in the UK, US, and Australia on their interest in and use of Litigation Finance. This survey provides a stirring look at developments and attitudes within the industry.

As Bloomberg Law explains, the main area of concern for funders and attorneys is the question of who maintains control over the litigation. Current and pending legislation tends to guarantee that clients retain the right to decision-making even in funded cases. Meanwhile, it appears that ethical implications are of far greater importance to lawyers—with 55% listing it as a concern, compared to just 14% of funders.

Matters of return waterfall provisions (based on a multiple of invested capital) and attorney returns subordinated to return of funder capital were of high importance to both funders and lawyers. Factoring duration risk in calculations of proceeds distribution is also important to lawyers and funders—though funders find it a more crucial issue. Funders also focus on the right to withhold funding.

When lawyers are considering entering a funding agreement, they tend to look at the factors in this order.

  1. Financial terms
  2. Reputation of the funder
  3. Track record of the funder
  4. Type and quality of in-house legal consultancy

Commercial litigation remains the most popular area of practice for funder/attorney agreements. This is followed by international litigation, antitrust matters, international arbitration, insolvency, patent law, environmental actions, copyright/trademark cases, insurance issues, and product liability.

General industry views are largely positive toward funding, though there are some specific areas of concern. At least 39% of funders and 56% of lawyers do not feel that Litigation Finance is transparent as an industry. In more positive news, more than ¾ of lawyers and 97% of funders do not agree with the oft-repeated accusation that legal funding enables frivolous filings and cases without merit clogging court dockets. Still, lawyers were largely neutral on the positive ethical reputation enjoyed by funders. Most interestingly, about half of lawyers and nearly 4/5 of funders disagree with mandatory disclosure of legal funding agreements.

In the end, we see that lawyers are 69% more likely to seek out litigation funding compared to five years ago. That’s solid news for this industry that continues to grow and adapt to meet the changing needs of lawyers and clients.

Commercial

View All

Member Spotlight: Felipe Hotta 

By John Freund |

Felipe Hotta, Partner at Pogust Goodhead, is a 29-year-old Brazilian lawyer who graduated from the University of São Paulo (USP). Hotta graduated a master's degree in environmental law from Queen Mary University of London and trained at the Negotiation Program at Harvard Law School. 

Specialized in indigenous law, environmental law, and human rights, Hotta dedicates his career to advocating on behalf of vulnerable communities and of those without full access to justice in Brazil, particularly in cases against large international corporations.  

Pogust Goodhead is a global law firm headquartered in London, England, dedicated to fighting for justice on behalf of those affected by potentially irresponsible actions from large corporations. Pogust Goodhead´s mission is to level the playing field between individuals, businesses and large corporations. 

In 2023, Pogust Goodhead and Gramercy signed a £450 million investment partnership, the largest litigation funding deal in legal history. 

Company Website: https://pogustgoodhead.com/ 

Year Founded: 2018 

Headquarters: Rio de Janeiro, London, Philadelphia, Amsterdam, Miami, Edinburgh, San Diego, New Jersey and Sydney. 

Area of Focus:  Environmental law, human rights, climate litigation, consumer law, indigenous law, collective disputes 

Member Quote: "In a context where access to justice is often a privilege of the powerful, litigation funding emerges as hope for those who have been victims of human rights or environmental rights violations in Brazil, particularly in the fight against large corporations." 

Read More

Rachel Rothwell: CJC Review’s Recommendations Expected to be ‘Considered, Comprehensive and Workable’

By Harry Moran |

An opinion piece in the latest edition of The Law Society Gazette magazine sees Rachel Rothwell explore the question of whether litigation funders should be worried about the upcoming Civil Justice Council (CJC) review of third-party funding in the UK. 

As Rothwell points out in her introduction, the CJC review is unlikely to see the prolonged timelines of similar reviews we have seen abroad, as the CJC has been tasked to deliver its final report by the summer of 2025. She also suggests that the CJC “will not be starting from scratch”, given that one of the working group’s members, Mrs Justice Cockerill, has a pre-existing involvement in an ongoing research project looking at this topic for the European Law Institute (ELI).

Regarding the issue of whether the CJC review will recommend statutory regulation of the litigation funding industry, Rothwell suggests that whilst there is a member of the Financial Conduct Authority on the review’s working group, “the FCA has so far shown no appetite for that onerous task.” Furthermore, Rothwell reveals that the current draft version of the report from ELI “concludes that statutory regulation would not be the right approach.”

Rothwell also explores other issues that the CJC review may consider, from a greater level of self-regulation through industry associations or the potential of imposing a cap on funder’s returns. However, Rothwell concludes that as we currently look at the review “it is particularly encouraging that it is already drawing together a broader consultation group” and that we can expect its recommendations “to be considered, comprehensive and workable.”

Spanish Arbitration Event Highlights Value of Third-Party Funding

By Harry Moran |

An article in Iberian Lawyer provides coverage of the OPEN FEST of Arbitration event in Madrid, which included a panel discussion on investment arbitration and the use of third-party funding in these disputes. The panel was moderated by Claudia Frutos-Peterson from Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, and featured insights from Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco; José Julio Figueroa, General Counsel of Acciona; Carlos Gutiérrez García, Litigation Director at Siemens Gamesa; and Ignacio Del Cuvillo, Director of Legal Corporate Services & Finances at Repsol.

The panel discussion highlighted the gradually increased use of third-party funding in this area, citing the Global Arbitration Review (GAR) 100 annual survey which found the number of funded arbitrations had risen from 198 in 2022, to 208 in 2023. The lengthy timelines and high costs involved in these disputes was raised as a key incentive for the use of third-party funding, with Figueroa explaining that “conflicts between foreign investors and host states involve significant strategic, geopolitical, and economic interests, with prolonged and uncertain execution periods.”

Speaking from the funder’s perspective, Ramco’s Cristina Soler discussed the value that a funder can bring beyond its financial resources, such as the firm’s experience in navigating these disputes and building a viable strategy for both the arbitration and any award enforcement or collection issues that may arise.