Litigation funding agreements—control

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Produced in partnership with Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd and Tanya Lansky of LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd
Practice notes

Litigation funding agreements—control

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Produced in partnership with Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd and Tanya Lansky of LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd

Practice notes
imgtext

While each litigation funding agreement (LFA) and its associated documents will vary depending on the funder and the specificities of the funded matter, there exist key issues that need to be addressed in the various negotiation phases.

This Practice Note is one in a series of short Practice Notes by Tanya Lansky and Tets Ishikawa, Managing Directors of LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd, aiming to provide for those involved in negotiating and considering LFAs and their associated documents a better understanding of the factors at play.

Control

The extent to which a funder’s involvement in any funded case translates to control is a common concern highlighted by stakeholders considering litigation funding. While funders should not be controlling a funded claim, control can be dealt with by a clause explicitly stating that the litigant retains sole conduct of the case.

There are, however, some nuances to any such clause that one should be aware of when negotiating an LFA.

Useful context

In Akhmedova v Akhmedov, a high-profile

Tets Ishikawa
Tets Ishikawa

Litigation Funder, LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd

Tets started his career as a derivatives structurer and securitisation banker at ABN AMRO, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. He was subsequently a founding partner of Amias Berman, a fixed income agency brokerage, and has invested in, advised and ran a wide range of businesses across technology, aviation, commercial agriculture, sports and chemicals. He is currently a NED and Adviser to Brickflow, a real estate loan sourcing software company.
 
Tets was first involved in litigation funding in 2011, raising capital for an impecunious client in a high value claim against a bank. He also advised an ATE insurer (latterly known as Acasta) on litigation funding, culminating in the founding of Sparkle Capital in 2014. Having helped found and establish the business, Tets was hired full-time in 2018 by Acasta to join its senior management team, with day to day responsibility for the ATE business and Sparkle Capital.
 
In 2020, Tets was hired by RBG Holdings plc to found LionFish as a principal investment business. In 2023, LionFish was acquired by funds managed by Foresight, a £12bn+ AUM private equity business.
 

Read moreRead more
Tanya Lansky
Tanya Lansky

Litigation Funder, LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd

Tanya has been working in the disputes financing and insurance industries for close to a decade.
 
Having started her career at TheJudge Global, the then independent specialist broker of litigation insurance and funding, Tanya became immersed in this specialist market in its relative infancy. Beyond her role of negotiating and structuring insurance and financing agreements, Tanya also dedicated time to educating lawyers and counsel on the nuances of the industry.
 
Following her time as specialist broker, Tanya joined boutique advisory firm Emissary Partners to leverage her relationships in the litigation funding market as well as her economic understanding of disputes as an asset.
 
In 2022 she joined London-based litigation funder LionFish, and, given her extensive experience, became part of the firm’s management team in short order. 

Read moreRead more
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Popular documents

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986A fraudulent trading claim arises under two separate statutory routes. Firstly, fraudulent trading is a criminal offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Secondly, a civil remedy arises under

Limitation periods applicable to insolvency claims

Limitation periods applicable to insolvency claimsLimitation periods refer to the time during which a claim may be brought.The law on limitation periods is set out in the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) which makes provisions in respect of different causes of action.In an insolvency context, claims

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986What is wrongful trading?Wrongful trading is a claim which arises under sections 214 (liquidation) and 246ZB (administration) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).The essence of a wrongful trading claim is that:•the

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986What is misfeasance?A claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) operates where a person caught by the section has:•misapplied, retained or become accountable for any money or other property of the company•breached any