A month of surprises follows explosive growth in third-party funding
2016 has proven to be a significant year for the third-party funding market
October 24, 2016 at 08:36 AM
3 minute read
The third-party funding market has seen exponential growth since its inception but 2016 has proven to be one of the most significant yet, with at least 10 new active funders adding to the existing pool of mainstream funders.
Earlier this month, in the case of Essar Oilfields Services v Norscot Rig Management [2016], the tribunal took the unprecedented step of allowing the claimant to recover the cost of its third-party funding arrangement from the opponent. The funding arrangement for Essar was brokered by one of the author's colleagues at TheJudge, who incidentally was also called upon to give evidence as to the reasonableness of the funding deal. Needless to say, the funding arrangement followed a market tender, which goes some way to justifying the reasonableness.
Even today, pricing between funders varies wildly case by case. Therefore, what is considered reasonable in one case may not be considered so in another. If Essar does prove a landmark decision, with lawyers increasingly seeking to recover the cost of their clients' funding arrangements, which can be a significant additional cost, then prudence would suggest lawyers should be anticipating the need to evidence reasonableness in the future when contemplating a litigation funding arrangement today.
October also saw the announcement by Burford Capital that it has created its own law firm to specifically undertake enforcement work. This move is only one of what appears to be an ever-expanding departure by funders away from pure financing of legal fees and expenses. For example, many funders are now actively financing working capital for their counterparties during the life of their litigation, with others seeking to purchase awards. The move by funders to create or potentially acquire law firms could well be a sign of things to come.
Another lesser known – but also significant – event for the market has been the arrival of three new litigation insurers to bolster the existing pool of insurance capital. While insurance rarely grabs the headlines, insurance capital has been key to underpinning much of the litigation funding market as well as expanding the suite of hedging options for claimants pursuing commercial disputes. With the right network, it is now possible to comfortably arrange £30m of legal costs indemnity for any single case. With only a handful of cases achieving such costs exposures, the litigation insurance market is now accessible for the entire spectrum of commercial legal disputes, both domestically and internationally. This form of hedging has been receiving increasing traction with bluechip companies, which while cash rich, prefer to move the risk over to insurers, albeit without the higher associated cost of third-party funding.
Finally, the funding market also received a boost from Asia, with the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-Committee giving a thumbs up to the development of third-party funding to support Hong Kong's efforts to remain competitive as an arbitration hub alongside other common law jurisdictions.
Even the more cynical among us would struggle to argue that funding and alternative fees are anything but mainstream.
Matthew Amey is a director at TheJudge.
- For more, see Litigation funders planning new role: law firm ownership
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250