Google “Litigation Funding” and you will find a handful of providers. You will also discover is a plethora of articles and blogs from proactive law firms conveying the options available to enable the client to fund the cost of prospective litigation; in the vast majority of cases they refer to a third party providing these funding solutions.

There seems to be a consensus that external funding from entrepreneurs will increase as banks come under sustained attack from investors and shareholders, contract disputes increase in size and generally damages sought escalate and the public and business community get a better understanding of the legal market. An understanding of this means that those law firms who are aware of and able to offer their clients both traditional and alternative models in funding their costs should maintain and hopefully grow their business.

These firms appreciate the importance of providing their clients with the substance of choice. Increasing disbursements such as issue fees are beginning to create barriers in a law firm’s ability to capture progressive claims. Many clients and prospective clients are left contemplating the economics in pursuing their claim than perhaps they may have been just a couple of months ago. A multitude of workable funding options ultimately empowers the client to interpret and decide as to what benefits them or their business best and how such advantages can favour them. It’s a question of affordability and attitude to risk, furthermore, could such circumstances cultivate a downward pressure on fees?

We continue to witness the high entry levels many funders require. Many funders are accountable to hedge funders or offshore financial institutions who desire high returns which may not necessarily be determined by the number of cases funded but the value of individual cases funded…

Acasta Europe Ltd offers an innovative approach to third party funding. On the basis the quantum reflects and satisfies the client’s attitude to risk, fits in meeting the clients circumstances, needs and requirements; why impose any entry or acceptance level? Consider also the appeal of retro funding. Why should a claim stop because a client has run out of money or worse become bankrupt. Acasta Europe believe all things being equal, retro funding may well be the antidote to such potential situations. Could it be argued that without providing clients the substance of choice in funding their actions law firms potentially maybe doing their client a disservice?

For further information or to contact Acasta Europe Ltd, click here.

You can also follow us on social media

LinkedIn

Twitter

Where we share our observations, opinions and forward looking thoughts on the latest developments in the insurance industry.