Key Takeaways
- ✓Securities funding enables institutional investors to pursue losses without incurring legal fees or adverse cost risks
- ✓UK securities claims require 'Book Building' - assembling claimant groups before issuing proceedings
- ✓ESG and 'Greenwashing' claims represent a massive growth area in securities litigation funding
- ✓Funders favor securities claims due to solvent defendants, mathematical damages, and settlement culture
- ✓Section 90 FSMA covers prospectus liability; Section 90A requires proving director dishonesty
Understanding how Commercial Litigation Funding works is essential before exploring specialized funding options for specific practice areas.
Introduction: Shareholder Stewardship & Asset Recovery
For decades, institutional investors faced a difficult choice when portfolio companies engaged in fraud or misrepresentation: sell the stock and crystallize the loss, or hold on and hope for a recovery.
Today, Securities Litigation Funding offers a third option: active recovery.
By leveraging Commercial Litigation Funding, asset managers, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds can pursue redress for losses without incurring legal fees or adverse cost risks. Funding has transformed shareholder litigation from a "nuisance" into a standard component of fiduciary stewardship.
What is Securities Litigation?
Securities litigation arises when a public company misleads its investors. This typically involves:
Misrepresentation
Lying in a prospectus or annual report about material facts.
Omission
Failing to disclose material information (e.g., pending investigations, product defects).
Market Manipulation
Artificially inflating the share price through deceptive practices.
When the truth comes out, the share price crashes. Securities litigation seeks to recover that "drop" in value for the shareholders who bought the stock at the inflated price.
Key Legal Mechanisms (UK vs US)
Understanding the jurisdiction is vital for funding:
United Kingdom (The Growth Market)
- Section 90 FSMA: Covers untrue or misleading statements in a prospectus (listing particulars). Liability is often stricter here.
- Section 90A FSMA: Covers misleading statements in published information (e.g., annual reports) or dishonest delay in publishing inside information. This requires proving that directors knew the statement was false ("recklessness" or "dishonesty").
United States
- Rule 10b-5: The classic securities fraud statute. The US has an "Opt-Out" class action regime, meaning all shareholders are automatically included unless they leave.
Expert Note: In the UK, securities actions are typically "Opt-In." This creates a massive logistical hurdle known as "Book Building," which funders are essential in solving.
The "Book Building" Process
Unlike a US class action where you sue first and find claimants later, UK securities claims require the legal team to assemble the claimant group before issuing proceedings. This is called Book Building.
How Funding Solves the Logistics
Identification
The funder and lawyers identify institutional investors who held the stock during the "relevant period."
Onboarding
Investors sign a participation agreement to join the claim.
Aggregation
The funder aggregates claims from hundreds of funds to reach a "critical mass" of damages (usually £10M–£100M+) to make the claim viable.
Cost Coverage
The funder pays for the sophisticated data analysis required to calculate the exact loss per share (using "Event Study" economics).
Without funding, the administrative cost of organizing 50 institutional investors would be prohibitive for any single law firm.
The ESG Frontier: The Future of Securities Claims
A massive trend in securities litigation funding is ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) disputes.
Investors are increasingly suing companies not just for financial fraud, but for "Greenwashing"—making false claims about environmental credentials.
Example Scenario
A mining company claims to be carbon neutral in its annual report. It is revealed they are not. The share price drops. Investors sue under Section 90A FSMA for the loss.
Why Funders Like ESG Claims
These cases often have strong public support and clear documentary evidence (the published reports vs. the reality). They align with the internal ESG mandates of many institutional claimants.
Why Funders Back Securities Claims
Securities litigation is attractive to funders for three specific reasons:
Solvent Defendants
You are suing large, publicly listed companies (PLCs) or their insurers (D&O Insurance). The risk of winning but not getting paid is near zero.
Damages Modeling
Unlike a breach of contract case where damages are debatable, stock drops are mathematical. Economists can quantify exactly how much the "lie" inflated the share price.
Settlement Culture
Public companies despise the bad PR of a fraud trial. A high percentage of securities claims settle before trial to avoid reputational damage.
Risks for Claimants
While funding removes financial risk, claimants must be aware of:
Disclosure Requirements
In litigation, you may need to disclose exactly when you bought/sold shares and your internal decision-making process.
The "Reliance" Test
In some jurisdictions, you must prove you relied on the specific lie when buying the share. (Though Section 90A in the UK is evolving on this point).
Conclusion
Securities Litigation Funding has democratised access to justice for shareholders. It ensures that public companies are held accountable for the accuracy of their reporting, and it allows investors to recover value that would otherwise be written off.
For general counsel at asset management firms, engaging with a funder is no longer optional—it is a necessary step in maximising portfolio value.
Back to Hub: Commercial Litigation Funding Guide
Related Topic: Competition & Antitrust Funding
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to Explore Funding Options?
Get a confidential case assessment from our litigation funding experts.
Submit Your Case