Frequently asked questions

LionFish Capital is the trading name of LionFish Group Limited, a trusted, market-leading specialist finance business in litigation risks. We work closely with litigation lawyers, as well as legal expense insurance providers and other third party litigation funders in the UK and globally.

Unlike most funders in the third-party litigation funding market, LionFish Capital is not a fund and therefore does note invest money on behalf of third-party institutional investors. LionFish Capital is owned and backed by a long-standing, multi-billion AUM alternatives investment manager. As a principal investment business, we make our profits and suffer our losses directly on the outcome of the risks we invest in, not from the fees we make from third-party investors.

LionFish Capital is not constrained by the typically restrictive capital pools obtained from institutional investors by traditional litigation funding companies. As such, LionFish Capital provides a fast,effective alternative to commercial litigation funding for individuals, law firms and insolvency practitioners, as well as finance for businesses and corporates across a wide variety of sectors. Our capital base allows us to be nimble and focus on identifying attractive litigation risks where transactions are structured to suit the demands of the opportunity.

LionFish was founded in May 2020 and since then, has been providing a steady, reliable and consistent service to all it has interacted with. More importantly, on the basis that trust takes years to build but seconds to destroy, we have always prioritised how our clients feel throughout their litigation funding journey. After all, by the very nature of what we do, our clients are most in need of the transparency, reliability and consistency we bring to the table.

LionFish Capital is not an insurer and does not provide or underwrite after-the-event (ATE) insurance or any form of legal expenses insurance or legal expenses cover. Given the interplay between funding and ATE Insurance, ATE insurers work selectively with third party litigation funders. The key directors of LionFish have long-standing working relationships with most providers of ATE and litigation insurance.

Litigation funding provides financial support to parties involved in disputes. This funding covers legal fees and other related expenses, allowing claimants to pursue their disputes without financial constraints whilst levelling the playing field against financially unconstrained defendants.

No. LionFish Capital will lose any money it has invested if a case it is funding loses. The capital and returns due are only payable from recovered costs and any proceeds received in the underlying case.

After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance is an insurance policy that provides legal expenses insurance cover, such as cover for adverse costspayable when a case is unsuccessful. It does not provide any ongoing funding for legal fees or legal funding services and is therefore very distinct fromlitigation funding.

All lawyers are obliged to act in the bestinterests of their clients. Most lawyers are familiar with the mechanics andthe benefits of litigation funding for all types of clients. Whether a corporatelitigation, class action or a civil litigation lawyer acting under some form ofcontingency fee agreement, most litigation lawyers will at least be advising on its availability as an option to their clients.

Law firm financing is one way to finance lawyers acting under conditional or contingency fee arrangements and therefore a valuable tool for commercial dispute resolution departments.

No. LionFish works with specialist ATE and litigation funding brokers and introducers, as well as lawyers and other professionals. However, all cases will typically need a lawyer instructed in the dispute to consider the case.

In addition to an application form or case memo prepared by the instructed lawyer, we typically require a detailed summary of the case, the pleadings, counsel’s advice and key correspondence with the opponent, along with an estimated or completed costs budget and the evidence ofthe opponent’s financial strength.

The structure and tidiness of case presentationwill usually be determinative of the speed with which a funder can process an application.

Provided that the case and supporting information has been presented well, the funding application and our decision to fund should take no more than 4 weeks. However, if a case cannot be funded, LionFish commits to informing the claimant and their instructed lawyer at the earliest opportunity so as to waste their time and costs unnecessarily.

Yes. LionFish prioritises operational efficiency and operating margins over deployment rates and investor returns that most funders focus on. As such, LionFish’s objective to minimise costs and increase margins is aligned with the prospective clients’ desires to keep the cost of litigation down, making swift decisions a commercially valuable aspect of our business.

No. In any litigation funding investment, the investor is not able to control a claim. That applies to LionFish in any commercial litigation finance arrangement. LionFish invests not only based on the legal merits of the dispute but based on the lawyers that the client has instructed. Hence, the final call on every aspect of litigation is made by the claimant and their lawyer.

As LionFish is not a fund with a restrictive and limited mandate, LionFish can in theory fund any case. However, we have tended to stay away from consumer collective actions with a particular focus on funding meritorious legal matters for commercial parties who are victims of commercial wrong-doing and are struggling to finance their case. Whether a small or large case in Australia, the UK or a matter being heard in an arbitration forum regarding insolvency law, patent infringement, general business or commercial disputes, trust and probate, if the case has merit and the economics work for all parties, then we can fund it.

Yes. The decision to fund a case is based on the assessment of the legal merits of the dispute at the time of application, as well as the financial terms that are agreed with the claimant.

Yes. The decision to fund a case is based on the assessment of the legal merits of the dispute at the time of application, as well as the financial terms that are agreed with the client. ATE insurance is almost always procured by the client on cases we fund and where the investment amount is significant, we co-fund with other professional funders. To date, we have co-funded numerous transactions and joint funded on matter with several other funders in a multi-funder transaction.

The funding amount is agreed at the outset based on a cost budget that is rigorously tested and fully expected to be met. Where costs overrun (or look like they will likely overrun further down the line), a review of the situation and increase in costs would be undertaken with the lawyer and the claimant. A decision will then be made, balancing the additional funding required versus the legal merits of the case and the impact on the client's net outcome.

An application can be made at any stage of proceedings, although it should be noted that funding at a very early stage when prospects of success and the costs of litigation are more difficult to ascertain may be too early, whilst waiting for the last opportunity to settle just before a trial window may be too late. It is therefore always worthwhile having a brief conversation with a specialist broker or with us directly to discuss matters through.

Monies are advanced to the claimant who is responsible for paying the invoices. However, in practice, monies are transferred to the lawyer’s client account, typically upon the verification of invoices for costs incurred, on behalf of the claimant.

Every dispute is unique in its funding requirements.  Clients sometimes require funding for all the costs of a case whereas others require funding for discrete costs including lawyer fees, disbursements, counsel’s fees, ATE insurance premia or deed of indemnity fees. The decision to advance funding will depend on the merits, circumstances and requirements of each case.

‍

LionFish works with a large number of lawyers and assesses their suitability for the case at hand. LionFish do not advise or seek to influence the claimant’s choice of lawyers.

Yes. Disputes are unique and some cases may not be suitable for, or already have, ATE or legal expenses insurance cover inplace. Where it does not, this will be taken into consideration to arrive atthe decision of whether to invest.

In the UK, Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) are agreements where the law firm and/or counsel is acting on a no-win no-fee basis for some or all of its incurred fees. They act on the condition that if the claim is successful, that unpaid portion will be paid with a mark-up / uplift, capped at 100%.

In the UK, Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) are agreements where the law firm and/or counsel is acting on a no-win no-fee basis for all of its incurred fees. This is on the condition that if the claim is successful, the lawyer will receive a pre-agreed percentage of the award.

In the UK, part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR, “Offers to Settle”) aims to encourage a settlement to a dispute. It can be made at any time leading up to a trial and generally attract adverse cost consequences if not beaten at trial.

The UK’s Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) area procedural code that set a framework around how civil claims should be approachedand managed. These rules allow the courts to deal with cases justly andefficiently, improving the speed and costs of legal proceedings.

Security for Costs are amounts the court canorder certain claimants to pay on account in case the defendant is successfuland adverse costs become payable.

In the UK, if a defendant makes a valid Part 36 offer, the claimant may bear cost consequences if the claim is won but for an amount which is less than the Part 36 offer. The simple principle is that the trial will have seemed unnecessary when it could have been settled at the time of the Part 36 offer for an amount greater than what the court arrived at. In such circumstances, the claimant will typically be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs from the Part 36 offer (plus interest) as a form of penalty for not accepting the offer, despite having won the case.

After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance is an insurance policy that provides legal expenses cover, such as cover for adverse costspayable when a case is unsuccessful. As opposed to funding, it does not provideany ongoing financing for legal fees or legal funding services.

Adverse costs are the opponent’s costs that a losingparty is typically ordered to pay by the court or tribunal in the event of anunsuccessful outcome. This concept of costs-shifting does not exist in everyjurisdiction but is a feature of the jurisdictions LionFish Capital mostcommonly funds in.