In most cases, informing the counterparty about the existence of a funding arrangement is a matter for you as a client and your legal team to decide.

Many clients choose to disclose the existence of funding because it can be a strategic benefit. The presence of a professional litigation funder often demonstrates that the claim has been independently assessed and that the claimant has the financial resources to pursue the dispute the whole way. In some cases, this can help levelling the playing field, particularly where there is a significant imbalance in resources between the parties. In certain cases, the existence of a funder may contribute to achieving a better settlement than without the existence of a funder.

In arbitration, however, disclosure is frequently required. We generally require that the existence of our funding and our identity are disclosed to the tribunal to avoid any potential conflicts of interest involving arbitrators. Undisclosed relationships between a funder and an arbitrator can create complications that may ultimately jeopardize the proceedings, lead to challenges against arbitrators or awards, or create unnecessary procedural disputes.

The trend in international arbitration has also been toward greater transparency. Many leading arbitral institutions and procedural frameworks now require or encourage disclosure of third-party funding arrangements to ensure that potential conflicts can be identified and addressed at an early stage.

While disclosure to the counterparty will depend on the circumstances of the case, disclosure to the arbitral tribunal is often both prudent and necessary. We work closely with clients and their counsel to ensure that any disclosures are made appropriately and in accordance with applicable rules and best practices.

No. We do not appoint counsel, and the choice of legal representation always remains with the client. Should you as a client approach us without any counsel retained, however, we can of course refer you to someone we thinks will be a good fit based on our experience.

In practice, many of the matters we fund are referred to us by law firms within our network. Often because counsel identifies that a client could benefit from litigation funding. As a result, legal counsel is typically already engaged by the time a funding request reaches us.

That said, the quality, experience, and suitability of counsel are important factors in our underwriting process. Because we take a passive role in the conduct of the dispute, we need to have confidence that the legal team has the expertise, resources, and judgment required to manage the case effectively. Assessing counsel is therefore a key part of our due diligence and investment decision-making.

Your ongoing obligations are straightforward. The primary requirement is to keep us informed about material developments in the dispute, including significant procedural events, settlement discussions, important rulings, and any developments that may affect the merits or value of the claim. There are also certain hygiene factors to consider, such as not becoming insolvent or becoming convicted for money-laundering, which would also apply to any normal business relationship.

We believe litigation funding works best as a partnership built on transparency and trust. Regular communication allows us to remain informed and, where appropriate, provide support and strategic input based on our experience.

Importantly, a funding agreement is intended to provide certainty. The fact that a case develops less favourably than initially anticipated does not, in itself, give us a right to walk away from our commitments. Disputes are inherently uncertain, and we recognize that developments during the course of litigation or arbitration may affect the prospects of success. 

When we decide to fund a case, we do so with a long-term perspective and a commitment to seeing the matter through. Our clients can expect us to stand by them until the dispute reaches its conclusion, whether through settlement, award, judgment, or enforcement.

Beyond providing capital, we can serve as a valuable strategic sounding board throughout a case by virtue of our long experience in assessing disputes of all kinds. While we do not seek to influence our clients' decisions, we are always available to discuss strategic questions whenever required.
Since inception, we have reviewed over 500 cases across a wide range of jurisdictions, industries, and dispute types. This gives us a unique perspective on how complex disputes are assessed, managed, and resolved in practice. As a result, we are often able to share insights and observations drawn from a broad cross-section of the market.

Our team regularly discusses issues such as case strategy, arbitrator appointments, settlement dynamics, enforcement considerations, and the use and presentation of expert evidence, including economic and quantum analysis. While legal advice remains the responsibility of counsel, clients and law firms often value having access to a commercially minded partner with extensive experience evaluating complex disputes.

Feedback from clients and legal professionals featured in Chambers & Partners has repeatedly highlighted our responsiveness, commercial judgment, and the strategic value we bring beyond the provision of capital. We view these endorsements as a reflection of our commitment to being a constructive and trusted partner throughout the life of a dispute.

In short, Third Party Funding offers more than financial support. It provides access to an experienced, independent perspective that can complement the expertise of the legal team and help clients navigate important strategic decisions with greater confidence.

Our approach is simple: once we commit to funding a case, we expect to see it through to its conclusion.

Termination rights are therefore very limited. Typically, we would only be entitled to terminate a funding agreement if it later becomes apparent that the funding was obtained on the basis of a material and knowing misrepresentation. In other words, if relevant information was deliberately withheld or inaccurately presented during the due diligence process, we may have grounds to terminate.

We may also be entitled to terminate if circumstances arise that make it objectively hopeless to continue pursuing the claim. For example, if the respondent becomes insolvent or enters bankruptcy proceedings and there is no realistic prospect of recovery, continuing the case may no longer be commercially rational for any party involved.

Importantly, a deterioration in the merits of the case, adverse procedural developments, or the emergence of unforeseen challenges do not, by themselves, entitle us to walk away. Litigation and arbitration inevitably involve risks and uncertainties, and accepting those risks are integral to our decision to invest in a case. 

Our clients engage us because they seek certainty and a reliable partner. We take that responsibility seriously and are committed to standing by our clients throughout the life of the dispute.

The vast majority of litigation funding is provided to claimants, as there is a clear monetary recovery to share with the funder upon success. 

Funding respondents is however also possible, but requires more creative and tailored solutions.

For defendants, we regularly explore structures that align our return with the commercial outcome of a successful defence. For example, where a dispute concerns ownership rights to an asset, such as shares in a company, intellectual property rights, or other revenue-generating assets, it may be possible to structure funding around the value preserved or recovered through a successful outcome. In some cases, this can involve a synthetic success fee or a share of future revenues attributable to the defended asset or rights.

It is also possible to fund defence costs for a client by using potential proceeds from another dispute where the client is claimant, in a form of cross-collateralization. While defence funding arrangements are less common than traditional claimant funding, we encourage respondents facing significant litigation or arbitration costs to speak with us, because even where there is no obvious damages claim or monetary recovery there can be ways to make it work.