n general, the U.S. legal system requires parties to bear their own costs, and does not automate “loser-pays” rules like other jurisdictions or arbitral institutions. There are certain exceptions, notably when the dispute arises under a contract providing that the prevailing party will be entitled to its fees and costs. An incentive to both parties to include such a provision is so that each party will truly be “made whole” after any dispute, rather than netting from any recovery the costs of legal fees and expenses. 

Litigation finance is growing in prominence in the legal industry, embraced not just by lawyers but also increasingly by courts and state bars.  As lawyers and claimholders have come to understand the utility and flexibility of litigation finance, the demand for funding has increased, and so too has the number of funders in the market.  Some funders (like Lake Whillans) focus exclusively on litigation financing, whereas others are incorporating litigation finance investments as part of a larger investment portfolio.  Some funders are interested only in the highest-value disputes, whereas others target smaller investments.  Some will fund a strong case in any area of commercial litigation, whereas others specialize in a more focused range of cases.

How are claimholders choosing among the increasing diversity of funding options?  How should they be choosing?  In this article we first present some empirical evidence on considerations in funder selection and then offer our advice, gleaned from our long experience in the litigation finance market.

Much of the discussion of litigation finance naturally focuses on the underwriting phase of the funding process. We’ve written previously about the variety of flavors of litigation finance deals and the fact that it’s never too early or too late to seek funding. We’ve also discussed the pricing that a claimholder should expect in negotiating a litigation funding agreement.

But what about when all the terms have been agreed and both claimholder and funder have signed the funding agreement? What role does the funder play? Who controls settlement? And what type of interaction should a claimholder expect to have with the funder on an ongoing basis? And how do the mechanics of funding work? How does the money flow both for covering litigation expenses and for dividing the proceeds from a successful claim? Lake Whillans has seen many litigation funding investments through to their conclusion, and although each case has unique elements, there are some standard practices.

In its early days (not so long ago), litigation finance entailed a straightforward proposition. A claimholder with a meritorious claim, but without the resources to litigate it, would seek funding from a litigation finance provider. The funder would conduct due diligence on the claim and negotiate investment terms. If the claim succeeded, the funder would recoup its principal, plus a return; if it failed, the claimholder would walk away with no liability. Funder and claimholder had no particular expectation of any longer-term partnership.

This type of one-off, single-case funding is still going strong today. But the field of litigation finance has expanded considerably, and funding now comes in a variety of flavors. A growing proportion of funding deals involve neither a single case nor a poorly-resourced claimholder. Today, entities seeking funding are often more concerned with managing risk than with acquiring sufficient resources to litigate.

This article will explore three growth areas in the current funding landscape: (1) deals involving funding for larger corporations, (2) law firm portfolio funding, and (3) acquisition of claims by litigation funders. Lake Whillans has extensive experience investing in each of these structures.