Litigation funding is primarily used for off-setting expensive legal costs.

Apart from this, the benefits of litigation funding go beyond just fulfilling the financial needs of the claimant. Such a funding paves way for even the big businesses in the following manner:

It saves individuals and businesses from disrupting their planned/ operating cash flows;

It provides additional quality assessment of claims at no extra cost;

It acts as a cost- center replacement for businesses

In India, organized conventional sources of finance (viz. banks, other financial institutions) do not provide funds for fighting a battle in the court of law. Even in cases of non-conventional sources, the claimant needs to bear the abnormally high finance costs along with the committed liability of repaying the debt irrespective of the outcome.

On the contrary, litigation funders are ready to back litigation claims without any additional collateral. In other words, they generally design these transactions as non-recourse investments, meaning in case of unsuccessful claims, the claimant has no liability whatsoever of repaying any litigation costs incurred by the funder.

Litigation funding, also known as Third-Party Funding (‘TPF’) is permitted in India. The concept of third-party funding is statutorily recognized under the Civil Code of Procedure, 1908 in some states (eg, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) by their respective state amendments to Order XXV rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908(CPC). Even though the remaining states have not statutorily recognized the concept of third-party funding, there is no express bar under any legislation against the same.

In 2015, the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji (2018) 5 SCC 379clarified the legal permissibility of TPF in litigation and observed that: “There appears to be no restriction on third parties (non-lawyers) funding the litigation and getting repaid after the outcome of the litigation.”. The same has been reiterated in ‘G’ Senior Advocate, IN Re, AIR 1954 SC 557, where the Supreme Court has laid down that lawyers are not permitted to fund litigation, but there seems to be no bar on the same being done by third parties

FIGHTRIGHT provides non-recourse funding to selective commercial litigations based on the merits of claim. It is the non-recourse nature of these arrangements that provides ‘genuine’ claimants access to justice.

FIGHTRIGHT funds meritorious commercial claim(s) be it of property or monetary having a claim value in excess of INR 20 lakhs.

FIGHTRIGHT funds meritorious commercial claim(s) be it of property or monetary having a claim value in excess of INR 20 lakhs.

No, FIGHTRIGHT does not charge any upfront fee, instead we have a share in the claim proceeds of the claimant. FIGHTRIGHT works on an outcome-based compensation model. We accept the risk that some claims will fail and rely on a robust underwriting process to ensure that we win significantly more than we lose.

FIGHTRIGHT receives a mutually agreed upon portion from the proceeds of the claim. Recovery may be from a settlement or a judgment at trial (or after an appeals process). In case a claim turns out be unsuccessful, we are owed nothing by the claimant. To this effect, FIGHTRIGHT and the claimant execute a litigation funding agreement post which funds are deployed for meeting the legal and other expenses.

Every business and every claim are different, and we provide more accurate timelines after due diligence is performed by our investment team. The risk analysis of the investment is performed by leveraging cutting edge technology and database of all existing historical case laws and live orders including every fact and facet of the case. Typically, the process takes around 2-4 weeks.

At FIGHTRIGHT, we not only fund the litigation costs for the claimants, but also: