Litigation Finance Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global litigation finance community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

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.’

An article in ETF Express covers the announcement from Level, a family law and private client lender, that it has acquired Tower Street Finance in order to expand its presence in the probate lending sector. Level’s acquisition strategy is reportedly being guided by the growth in activity around probate lending, which is being fuelled by processing delays and individuals’ demand for third-party capital amid a difficult economic climate.

Commenting on the acquisition, Level’s founder and CEO, George Williamson said: “Tower Street Finance have been the standout market leader since pioneering the probate market in 2020, while Level has done the same in the family law market.  By combining Tower Street Finance’s unparalleled expertise and network in the probate market with our platform and trusted reputation, we have a significant advantage over our competitors.”

Jim Sission, co-founder of Tower Street Finance, will be joining Level alongside two of his employees. Sission said that the acquisition by Level brings together the two company’s expertise across family law and probate lending, and will create “a best-in-class platform for legal funding.”

In addition to the acquisition, Level also announced that it had secured another £10 million in outside investment, comprised of a £5 million equity capital investment from Kendal Capital and £5 million debt investment from Correlation Risk Partners. Kendal Capital’s CEO and co-founder, Grant Kurland will be joining Level’s board of advisers, which already includes notable industry names such as Neil Purslow, CIO of Therium Capital. Kurland said that “the combination of Level & TSF is well placed to capitalise on their respective market leading positions in the family and probate sectors.”

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.

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.’

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.

In an interview with Leaders League, Guido Demarco, head of legal assets at Stonward, discusses the current state of the litigation funding market. The interview explores recent trends affecting funders, the nuances of the Spanish funding market, and Stonward’s own approach to legal strategy and market specialization.

Beginning with an overview of the global litigation funding industry, Demarco highlights the move towards consolidation, with funders specializing in specific legal sub-sectors or markets. Demarco says that this approach allows funders “to leverage expertise in particular legal domains or jurisdictions, enhancing their ability to assess and manage risks effectively.” He goes on to explain that the cost burden of case origination and due diligence, along with the need for specialized experts for each legal area, means that consolidation allows funders to maximise capital efficiency and scale their operations.

Focusing on the Spanish market, Demarco describes the country as a “promising hub” for litigation finance, pointing to the jurisdiction’s “sophisticated legal market” and its position as “a double gateway to the broader Latin American continent and the EU market.” Referencing his earlier explanation of the trend towards consolidation, Demarco argues that this has benefitted Spain as the market continues to attract specialist funders who can build an on-the-ground footprint in the market. As for Stonward’s exclusive focus on the Spanish funding market, Demarco says that this strategy has allowed the business “to develop an in-depth understanding of local legal intricacies, enabling the team to navigate the unique challenges and opportunities presented by Spanish procedural law.”

Following the second debate of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in the House of Lords, the bill was moved forward to the committee stage for members to propose amendments and undertake a line by line examination. As LFJ reported yesterday, three amendments were proposed in advance of the committee debate, with two being put forward by Lord Stewart of Direlton, the Advocate-General of Scotland, and one by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. 

LFJ has read through the full transcript of the committee stage debate and has provided a summary, highlighting key takeaways from the contributions made by each of the members of the House.

Yesterday’s debate was opened by Lord Stewart, who began by responding to issues raised by other members during the second reading of the bill. With regards to the retrospective nature of the bill, Lord Stewart acknowledged the potential issues that this could raise for claimants who negotiated new funding arrangements post-PACCAR, and told the House that “the Government are looking into the questions raised and hope to provide a further update on Report.” 

Lord Stewart then went on to introduce the two amendments on behalf of the government, starting with Amendment 1 which was described as a “technical amendment” and was designed to close a small gap in the definition of litigation funding agreements (LFAs). He explained that the amendment would ensure that an LFA “which is used to fund items of expenditure where the litigant is unrepresented” will be rendered enforceable by the new legislation. He stated that this amendment “reflects the policy object of the Bill”, and would avoid any LFAs being missed in the government’s efforts to reverse the impact of the PACCAR ruling.

Amendment 2 was also described as another technical change, which Lord Stewart said would “make it clear that the payment of adverse costs the litigant may be required to pay to another party, which would be funded under an LFA, includes the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement.”

Following on from Lord Stewart’s introduction of the government’s amendments, Lord Marks began by covering the arguments in favour of the introduction of regulation for the litigation funding market. Among these arguments, the most prominent point raised by Lord Marks was the idea that “in an unregulated market, litigation funders can effectively impose their terms on clients”, thereby reducing the amount of compensation that claimants may receive from any settlement. He also pointed to the question posed by others that, “if regulation of DBAs is appropriate for lawyers, why is it not for litigation funders?”

Lord Marks then continued on to address the issue of “retrospectivity” in the bill, noting that concerns had been raised that the retrospective nature of the bill and that any legislation attempting to include such a measure, must demonstrate “special justification”. Lord Marks said that he had concluded that in order to avoid “confusion and uncertainty”, this was one such situation that demonstrated special justification because it would ensure  that “in the case of LFAs between the PACCAR decision and the commencement of this Bill, such LFAs should be in the same position as LFAs entered into in the interregnum or in the interim period.”

Moving on to his own probing amendment, which called for a review into third-party funding and laid out the scope of the proposed review’s focus, Lord Marks acknowledged that “it has been comprehensively and well answered” both by letters from the Secretary of State and Lord Stewart, and by the publishing of the terms of reference for the Civil Justice Council (CJC) review. He went on to say that he was “pleased to see that the Government realise that this is urgent and that the whole question of looking at the field of litigation funding is both important and urgent.”

Speaking briefly about the CJC’s planned review, Lord Marks expressed that he was pleased to see the breadth of the review’s remit, including the issue of “whether there should be regulation and how, if there is to be regulation , it should be framed.” Among the other important issues that the review will be exploring, Lord Marks highlighted areas including the idea of a cap on funder’s returns, the recoverability of funder’s costs, and the potential conflicts of interest between funders, law firms and their clients.

Lord Marks closed his contribution by voicing his support for both of the government’s amendments.

Lord Carlile of Berriew was the next member of the House to speak, addressing the questions previously raised around the bill’s potential to violate the Human Rights Act and whether the retrospective quality of the bill. Lord Carlile spoke succinctly in saying that the arguments about the Human Rights Act were “not strong, and the Government are perfectly entitled to act as they are in that regard.” Furthermore, he went on to say that this legislation “would be absolutely pointless if it were not retrospective”, arguing that the purpose of the bill was to “right a wrong that nobody expected, and it is simply restoring to people the legal rights which they already had.”

Lord Carlile also took time to briefly endorse the CJC review and its terms of reference, going on to praise the choice of the CJC as the reviewing body. He explained that he would not be “an enthusiast for an independent reviewer in this situation”, and that the CJC would have the ability to be flexible whilst also retaining the ability to “change the law in small ways to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed.”

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle followed Lord Carlile but rose to voice opposition to the current approach to this legislation and said that it “is still not an adequate solution to the problems at hand.” She argued that the government is actually facing “a structural problem”, arguing that the current legal system demonstrates a “huge inequality of arms”. She concluded by saying that under this existing system, which the bill does not attempt to deal with, “there is far too much justice denied to individuals in our society when they are crushed by the weight of corporations or the state.”

Lord Sandhurst joined Lord Carlile in supporting the government’s amendments, arguing in favour of the retrospective nature of the bill whilst this opens up the possibility of “a spate of future litigation of the wrong satellite nature”, the government cannot afford to allow the current situation to continue. Considering the issue of a challenge by the ECHR, Lord Sandhurst argued that when crafting this type of legislation, “There may be no perfect answer, but this is the right route—or the least bad.”

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd spoke briefly in support of the bill and the CJC review, noting that the reviewer will be able to draw upon the lessons learned during Australia’s review of litigation funding regulations and the research completed by the European Law Institute. He argued that the example of Australia may demonstrate that the best strategy is not “the creation of yet another regulatory body” but instead giving the courts “the powers and guidance necessary to deal with the issues.”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede was the final peer to join the debate and took the time to address the real world use cases for litigation funding, highlighting its value to small and medium-sized companies to manage their cashflow whilst pursuing meritorious litigation. He argued that the use of LFAs is an ideal “way of managing risk”, and that the UK should not fall behind other jurisdictions such as Singapore, Australia, and Dubai, which would happily take up this share of the global litigation funding market.

Lord Stewart returned to the floor to close out the debate, taking the time to address issues and concerns raised by each of the members and reiterate the objectives of the government’s bill. Of primary importance procedurally, Lord Stewart focused on Lord Marks’ amendment requiring a review of the third-party funding sector, stating that in the face of the CJC review “his amendment is not necessary and will duplicate efforts.” Therefore, he requested that Lord Marks not press the amendment at this stage.

At the close of the debate, both of the government’s amendments were agreed and as Lord Marks had decided not to press his amendment, the debate was ended. The amended version of the bill can be read here.

The bill now moves to the report stage, which provides an opportunity for members of the Lords to further examine the bill and propose any additional amendments to the text. 

The full transcript of the committee stage debate can be read here.