header-logo header-logo

18 October 2018 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Litigation matters: funds & gains

Those who disapprove of funders need to appreciate that providing access to justice (albeit at a price) is laudable, says Dominic Regan

Commercial providers of litigation funding have never had it so good. Shares in one provider, Burford Capital, have risen by 50% in value this year. What is going on?

Supporting substantial litigation can be rewarding. A dreadful irony is that the funders can recoup more than the lawyers who actually secure the recovery. Investors are drawn to the rewards of a successfully funded case. The Financial Times on 19 November last year identified a return of up to 300% in some litigation.

An obvious question is why would one relinquish a serious part of damages to a funder? Why not self-fund and retain the entire award? My enquiries threw up some interesting details.

Win-wins & free rides

Mainstream banks are just not interested in funding a claim. Indeed, some banks now regard lawyers as a risky proposition all round. The finance director of a large business in Leeds told me that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll