Many industry observers, surveys and reports have found that ESG litigation and particularly climate litigation will continue to grow as a dominant force in the legal landscape, and there will undoubtedly be a major role for litigation funders to play. A recent article provides an overview of the current state of third-party funding of climate litigation, looking at some of the most notable cases as well as the growing pool of opportunities available to investors.
An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe
Many industry observers, surveys and reports have found that ESG litigation and particularly climate litigation will continue to grow as a dominant force in the legal landscape, and there will undoubtedly be a major role for litigation funders to play. A recent article provides an overview of the current state of third-party funding of climate litigation, looking at some of the most notable cases as well as the growing pool of opportunities available to investors.
In a feature for The Wave, Isabelle Kaminski speaks to industry leaders and looks at the growth of litigation finance as a tool for empowering legal cases against those entities that violate environmental protections and regulations. Assessing the unique nature of third-party funding, Anna Carolina Salomão, partner and head of litigation finance at Pogust Goodhead, states that the differentiating factor is that funders are willing to take on the significant risks of funding litigation. As a result, third-party funders are creating “a vast ocean of opportunities for those that have their rights abused.”
Kaminski highlights the fact that whilst litigation funders can choose to pursue whichever type of cases they choose to, many are actively seeking out ESG-focused cases, and avoiding those which would be representing claimants on the opposing side of environmental issues. Thomas Kohlmeier, co-founder and co-CEO of Nivalion, highlighted an example where the funder considered a case being brought by a mining company against a state government, and declined to move forward despite the fact that the “case looked at first glance meritorious”.
Salomão also took aim at critics of litigation funding, particularly the lobbying efforts from the likes of the Chambers of Commerce and large multinational corporations seeking to curtail third-party funding. In particular, she questioned why these entities are opposed to funders supporting financially poor communities seeking justice, and suggested that the reason is “because it’s not beneficial for the big polluters that people now have ways to seek redress.”
