Trending Now
Commercial

Key Takeaways From LFJ’s Podcast With Erik Bomans, CEO and Executive Board Member of Deminor

By John Freund |

On the latest episode of the LFJ Podcast, we spoke with Erik Bomans, CEO and Executive Board Member of Deminor. Mr. Bomans discussed recent developments and trends in litigation funding in continental Europe, including what the total addressable market looks like and how that is expected to grow over time, how country-specific jurisdictions are differentiated, some of the main barriers to investing in litigation funding in Europe, and how the regulatory environment across the continent can actually be a benefit to funders.

Below are some key takeaways from the conversation, which can be found in full here.

LFJ: How big is the European market for funding? How do you assess the total addressable market? 

EB: We have conducted our own research and have estimated the total addressable market in Europe at $1.8B, and that includes the UK. It is a small market, we estimate that it is 16% of the total addressable market of litigation funding.  By comparison, we estimate that the total addressable market in the US is $9B. That is nearly 5x bigger than the entire European market.  

When we say the total addressable market, we mean the potential for litigation funding. We get to these numbers by looking at the value of the litigation market, and we apply a percentage which is the penetration rate in that specific market. 

LFJ: In terms of a country specific breakdown, I imagine most of the activity happening in Germany and France. Your company Deminor has offices in Belgium, Luxembourg and Milan, so there must be a lot of action in these other jurisdictions as well. Is that the case, is there a lot of activity across Europe? 

EB: We are active in most European countries. The top countries without a doubt are the UK and Germany.  We estimate the total addressable market in the UK at $800M. The other $1B is spread out over continental Europe. With Germany definitely taking the biggest part, nearly ⅓. . The Netherlands is the third most active country in Europe. 

LFJ: What are some of the barriers to investing in the litigation funding market? Can you share some challenges funders find in this market? 

EB: There are pitfalls, Europe is a highly regulated market in general. Litigation funding contracts come with mandatory rules with highly regulated rules such as consumer protection. In Germany and France, legal advice can only be provided by practicing lawyers. 

One of the areas in Europe where litigation funding has been scrutinized most in Europe is antitrust cases, where some funders have used the assignment level to structure their litigation funding agreements.  

LFJ: How does the EU’s regulatory environment provide opportunities for litigation service providers? I want to ask you specifically about Deminor. How does the regulatory environment provide your business with growth opportunities?

EB: Antitrust is the next big area of growth, with the UK and Germany taking the lead. With Italy and Spain becoming active in this area as well. Litigation finance is a risky business, but there are new areas of growth in new emerging areas of litigation funding. Definitely, there are new  opportunities there for litigation funders. But it will be important for litigation funders to pick the right cases. 

LFJ: What are your predictions for how the EU litigation funding market develops over the next few years?

EB: Litigation funding is strongly growing here in Europe. The business is volatile, and no matter how much you diversify, returns may always be volatile.    

Commercial

View All
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
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Rowles-Davies: Retrospective Provision in Litigation Funding Bill is ‘Fundamentally Flawed’

By John Freund |

In an article shared on LinkedIn, Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of Lexolent, makes the case against the retrospective aspect of the UK government’s Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill. Whilst acknowledging that many within the industry disagree with his position, Rowles-Davies argues that ‘the Bill should be prospective only and that the retrospective element is fundamentally flawed.’

Rowles-Davies summarizes his extensive article into the following key points:

  1. ‘The starting point for any consideration of the Bill must be firstly to correct the various inaccurate Supporting Documents (to the Bill) such that the law as it stands, and has always stood, is properly reflected. 
  2. The Government has put forward no credible justification to support the retrospective provision in the Bill.
  3. When considered under the true set of facts, this legislation appears to be incompatible with the ECHR. 
  4. The justification for the Bill’s prospective elements and its (arguably unprecedented) retrospective aspect must be considered separately. The Supporting Documents grossly misrepresent the position. Save for pure value transfers from previously funded parties to existing funders, what the Bill properly seeks to achieve can be accomplished through prospective only legislation. 
  5. If retrospectivity survives, it is likely that the matter will come before the courts quickly thereafter in relation to the ECHR.’

Rowles-Davies argues in the article that ‘the Supporting Documents to the LFA Bill provide absolutely no evidence of legal precedent to support the retrospective aspect of the Bill.” He goes on to say that not only is this bill ‘unprecedented’, but it also fails to provide ‘credible “public interest” justification for the retrospective aspect.’ 

In the conclusion of the article, Rowles-Davies calls on both chambers of Parliament to ‘take proper time to explore the foundation upon which the Bill rests and then test its contents after it has been repaired.’ Furthermore, he argues that ‘the positioning of the Bill is disrespectful to a busy Parliament tasked with addressing far more pressing global, social, and public interest matters.’

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bills Targeting Litigation Finance Disclosure and Foreign Funders Make Progress in Louisiana

By John Freund |

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the campaign to introduce new rules governing litigation funding in the state of Louisiana, with proponents of the legislation sensing an opportunity to make progress since the state elected a new governor, Jeff Landry. The two bills making their way through the Legislature are: HB336, which would create a Litigation Financing Disclosure Act, and SB355, which would enact ‘transparency and limitations on foreign third-party litigation funding’. 

In an interview with Bloomberg, Representative Emily Chenevert ,who brought HB336, explained that the turnover in elected representatives provided a fresh opportunity, saying: “The appetite was there already within the legislature and so now it’s like, let’s attempt this and let’s see with a new House and some new senators what could happen.” Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director at funder Parabellum Capital, spoke out in opposition to Chenevert’s bill but said that SB355 was “acceptable to our industry.”

HB336 would require any party in a civil action to disclose the existence of a litigation financing agreement, whilst redacting the financial details of the agreement, and would make all financing arrangements ‘permissible subjects of discovery’. The bill also prohibits funders from controlling or making any decisions in the proceedings, stating that ‘The right to make these decisions remains solely with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney in the civil proceeding.’

SB355 requires any foreign litigation funder involved in a civil action in Louisiana to disclose its details to the state’s attorney general (AG), and to provide the AG with a copy of the funding agreement. Similarly to HB336, this bill would prohibit the foreign funder from controlling the legal action in any way and also prohibits the funder from being ‘assigned rights in a civil action for which the litigation funder has provided funding’.

HB336 has been approved by the state House and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whilst SB355 has cleared the majority of procedural hurdles and now awaits a vote by the House.