Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from Brown Rudnick’s 2nd Annual European Litigation Funding Conference

By John Freund |

Last week, Brown Rudnick hosted its second European Litigation Funding Conference, which brought together a crowd of international thought-leaders from across the industry, and provided attendees with an agenda filled with insightful discussions on a wide array of issues. The conference proved to be a beneficial experience for all, with Augusta Ventures co-founder Robert Hanna describing it as ‘the pre-eminent litigation funding conference in Europe, if not the world’.

Following a successful inaugural showing in 2022, this year’s event reinforced the maturation of the litigation funding industry, with panelists keen to dive into the opportunities and challenges that funders, law firms and other industry participants are facing. In addition to the high-level topics that continue to shape the market such as ESG and collective action litigation, the conference featured panels on areas that are still maturing within the litigation funding space, including crypto litigation and opportunities for a secondary market.

After an introduction from Brown Rudnick partner Elena Rey, the conference kicked off with a keynote address delivered by Anya Neistat, Legal Director of The Docket initiative at the Clooney Foundation for Justice. Having recently returned from conducting research and investigations in Ukraine, Neistat spoke of the importance of litigation which can help provide justice for victims of atrocities and war crimes. Highlighting the fact that survivors and NGOs often lack the means to take on complex litigation, Neistat emphasised that ‘litigation funding can be absolutely critical to allow survivors to get on the offensive.’

The first panel of the day featured a unique discussion of the emergence of crypto litigation, with the panelists discussing the primary challenge of accurately valuing this bespoke practice of litigation, as well as the underlying crypto-related assets. Moderating the panel, Stephen Palley of Brown Rudnick pointed out that despite the relatively new state of crypto litigation, he has found that courts are adapting well, and has ‘yet to find a judge who just says, “I don’t get it”’. Whilst members of the panel disagreed on whether all cryptocurrency is fundamentally ‘snake oil’, all agreed that valuation was the most important hurdle to overcome, with BDO’s Simon Greaves stating that a major issue is ‘how do you value it at the point of recovery’ when the worth of these assets can vary so wildly over time. James Collins KC of Essex Court encouraged industry participants to take a broad view of what crypto litigation might entail, suggesting that the future will see ‘claims in almost every area of law’.

Steven Friel, CEO of Woodsford, kicked off the discussion by defining the current environment as one where ‘opportunities vastly outweigh challenges’ and praised the CAT’s willingness to ‘have an expansive definition of what is a competition claim’.

Whilst the speakers expressed some concern about the ongoing Supreme Court appeal, which, as part of the defence strategy, is attempting to call into question certain aspects of the claimant’s funding agreement in the CAT – that strategy has failed at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. There is a high level of sophistication among the judiciary in this area and significant support for funding as a part of the landscape of collective actions in the UK. Without funding, good claims simply are not viable.

After a short break, the next panel looked at the investor perspective on litigation funding as an asset class, with Chad Clamage of Victory Park beginning the discussion by reinforcing the central principal that litigation funding remains ‘attractive as an uncorrelated asset class’. Robert Hanna stated that ‘there has never been a better time to be a funder’ with demand at an all-time high, and that ‘in the current economic environment, liquidity is going to be king’, as a wider investor base for funding emerges. D.E. Shaw’s Sarah Johnson cautioned that duration still remains an obstacle for many investors, highlighting that durations that start to approach 7 to 10 years can block investment ‘even if all the other factors are there’. Nick Moore of AON put the spotlight on the increasingly beneficial relationship between funders and insurers, describing it as a situation where ‘two industries with a history of mutual cynical disregard, are now coming together’.

The morning’s final session touched on the in-house perspective on litigation funding, with Suber Akther of Siemes Energy describing the difficulties faced by legal departments where they are ‘always under pressure’ to reduce costs and increase efficiency. Rocco Pirozzolo from Harbour Underwriting advised that whilst it may not always be viable for in-house teams, the best approach is for them to ‘look at the options out there, be open to it’. However, he also noted that work still needs to be done to counter the narrative that funders will control litigation, stating that ‘this myth has to be dispelled’. Andrew Jones of Fortress Investment Group reframed the issue at stake for in-house counsel, arguing that ‘a general counsel is an investor in litigation just like a funder, the only question is whose money you are going to use’.

The hot topic of portfolio and law firm financing kicked off the afternoon’s agenda, with Burford Capital’s Leeor Cohen emphasising that one of the core fundamentals for this approach is that a ‘portfolio is not worth more than what is actually in the portfolio’. Looking at the factors that funders must consider in portfolio deals, Tom Steindler from Exton Advisers highlighted four key considerations: open versus closed portfolios, the identity of the borrower, what the capital will be used for, and the method of repayment of proceeds. The panel closed its discussion by looking at future trends with Cohen and North Wall Capital’s Alex Garnier agreeing that we may see the less-specialised and opportunistic financiers exit the market, whilst Chris Neill of Pogust Goodhead predicted more collaborative efforts in the industry.

The penultimate panel for the day saw a fascinating discussion around collective redress in Europe, with panelists representing firms in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Emily Woolcott from Woodsford stated that ‘the Netherlands is the most attractive EU jurisdiction,’ which was widely echoed by the other panelists. Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital contrasted the French market’s unwelcoming environment for class actions with Spain, which stands out as a market ‘becoming an attractive location’. Discussion around the EU’s new collective redress directive featured interesting insights into the differing routes toward implementation in each country, with Tobias Glienke of Greenfort arguing that its introduction ‘could be a real gamechanger in Germany’, where the draft law looks to go beyond the directive by allowing small business participation and also include civil claims. The panel also discussed the crossover between the directive and the prominence of ESG litigation in Europe, with Frank Peters from Bureau Brandeis highlighting that environmental cases will be a major feature in the Netherlands, particularly around ‘polluter pays’ and greenwashing claims.

To close out the day, the much-awaited panel on secondary market opportunities provided attendees with an overview of the state of that market, as well as the potential routes for growth in the future. Patrick Rode from Deminor differentiated between jurisdictions, and stated that where countries have a more mature primary litigation funding market, we are also seeing the development of a more ‘advanced secondary market’. Therium Capital Management’s Ben Smyth highlighted that the very concept of secondary deals still faces challenges, as there is ‘a lot of cynicism why the seller wants to get rid of the asset’. The issue of transparency was also one of the main challenges raised, as Ben Moss from Orchard Global asserted that for trust in sellers to exist, ‘the reasoning needs to be visible’. In looking to further develop the market, David Vanaskey from Wilmington Trust Company suggested that lessons can be learned from outside the industry and that there is a ‘need to use technology solutions that are utilised in other secondary markets’.

Overall, Brown Rudnick’s second European Litigation Funding Conference once again demonstrated the breadth of experience in the industry and managed to deliver a full day of engaging content with speakers bringing current and relevant insights to each discussion. Attendees across the event remarked on the quality of panelists, which was facilitated by Brown Rudnick’s team of moderators who skillfully guided each discussion across interesting and impactful topics.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

By John Freund |

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By John Freund |

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

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Read More