How Third-Party Litigation Funding Helps Small Businesses

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) form the backbone of most economies, contributing significantly to GDP, employment, and innovation. Yet, when legal disputes arise, whether over unpaid invoices, breach of contract, or delayed supplies, small businesses often lack the resources to pursue justice. Traditional litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. This financial strain forces many SMEs to either abandon valid claims or accept unfair settlements. Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) offers a solution, enabling businesses to pursue legitimate claims without bearing the upfront costs and risks.

 

How Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) helps small businesses

 

Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) is a game changer for small businesses that often struggle with limited financial resources. Legal disputes, whether over unpaid invoices, contract breaches, or unfair practices can drain cash flow and disrupt operations. With TPLF, a professional funder steps in to cover litigation costs such as lawyer fees, court charges, and expert witnesses. The small business only repays the funder if the case is successful, making it a risk-free option. This enables SMEs to pursue rightful claims without diverting working capital or fearing financial strain. Beyond just funding, many litigation financiers also bring expertise in case strategy and enforcement, improving the chances of recovery. By easing the financial and strategic burden, TPLF allows small businesses to hold larger entities accountable, protect their rights, and focus on growth instead of being weighed down by legal battles.

 

Why Small Businesses Need It

Here are several problems that litigation financing helps solve for small businesses:

 

1. • Access to legal recourse
     Many small businesses have valid claims but cannot afford to initiate legal proceedings. Because of the costs and delays, they often settle for less than what they’re owed or simply drop the claim. Litigation funding allows them to pursue those disputes.

1. • Preserving cash flow & operational focus
     Legal battles can tie up money that could otherwise be used in day-to-day operations: payroll, buying stock, investing, growth. Paying large upfront costs jeopardises business continuity. Funding alleviates that strain.

1. • Stronger leverage & negotiation position
     If the opposing party knows that you are financially backed, that sometimes pushes them to settle rather than dragging out or using delay tactics. It conveys seriousness.

1. • Risk mitigation
     Knowing that if you lose, you won’t be on the hook for all costs is empowering. It allows businesses to make more strategic decisions about whether to litigate or settle.

1. • Strategic partner & expertise
     Funders often bring legal and financial risk assessment, experience with similar cases, knowledge of enforceability, ability to engage expert witnesses, etc. That can improve the quality of the legal approach.
   • Leveling power asymmetries
     Many small businesses face counter-parties who are large, well-resourced, or even have advantages like better lawyers, deeper pockets. Funding helps balance that.

The Growing Ecosystem & Applications of Third-Party Litigation Funding

Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has evolved from being a niche financial product to a rapidly growing global industry. Initially limited to large corporate disputes, its scope has now expanded to include small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that struggle with high litigation costs. In India, where delayed payments and contract breaches are common, litigation financing is increasingly seen as a lifeline for MSMEs seeking justice without disrupting business operations.

The applications of TPLF extend across multiple sectors. Debt recovery cases form a significant share, as funders enable businesses to pursue overdue payments without draining working capital. Commercial arbitration is another key area, particularly in cross border disputes where costs are high but awards are enforceable. Intellectual property (IP) claims which often requiring expert witnesses and long trials, are also prime candidates for funding, giving smaller innovators the chance to defend their rights. In infrastructure, construction, and real estate, funders support contractors and suppliers locked in payment disputes with larger players.

Globally, collective claims and class actions are major applications, where funders aggregate smaller disputes against powerful corporations. With increasing awareness, India is likely to see similar models emerge, creating a robust ecosystem that democratizes access to justice for businesses of all sizes.

 

Legal & Regulatory Environment of Third-Party Litigation Funding

The growth of Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) is closely tied to its legal acceptance and regulatory oversight. While the concept is globally recognized, the legal and regulatory environment varies across jurisdictions. Key points include:

Legality of TPLF

 

• • In many countries (UK, Australia, Singapore), TPLF is expressly permitted and widely practiced.

• • In India, litigation funding is not prohibited. Courts have upheld its validity, especially in commercial disputes, provided agreements are transparent and ethical.

Judicial Recognition

 

• • Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and various High Courts, have ruled that funding agreements are not against public policy.

• • For instance, in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018), the Supreme Court clarified that while advocates cannot fund litigation, third-party funding is not barred.

Regulatory Oversight

 

• • UK: The Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) sets professional standards, ensuring funders meet capital adequacy requirements and act transparently.

• • Australia: Strong regulatory structures govern funder conduct, protecting claimants from exploitative terms.

Disclosure & Transparency

 

• • In many jurisdictions, parties must disclose funding arrangements to avoid conflicts of interest.

• • In India, disclosure is not yet mandatory, though courts may seek details in certain proceedings.

Ethical Concerns

 

• • Critics argue funders might influence litigation strategy or push for early settlements. Regulations globally emphasize that legal control must remain with the claimant and counsel.

Future in India

 

• As commercial disputes and arbitration cases rise, India is expected to move towards formal regulatory frameworks, similar to ALF in the UK, ensuring fair practices and greater SME participation.

Challenges & Risks of Third-Party Litigation Funding

While Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) provides small businesses with vital financial support, it is not without challenges and risks. Understanding these issues is critical before entering into a funding agreement.

High Cost of Funding

 

• • Funders typically take a significant share of the award or settlement (depending on risk and duration).

• • Although businesses gain access to justice, the final recovery may be considerably reduced.

Limited Access for Small Claims

 

• • Funders prefer high-value, well-documented cases due to the cost of due diligence and long timelines.

• • Micro and very small enterprises with disputes under ₹25–50 lakh often struggle to attract funders.

Lengthy Litigation Timelines

 

• • Even with funding, disputes may stretch for years due to adjournments, appeals, or enforcement delays.

• • Prolonged cases reduce the net value of recovery after legal and funding costs

Enforceability Risks

 

• • Winning a judgment or arbitral award is one step; recovering money from the opposing party is another.

• • If the losing party is insolvent or hides assets, the funded claimant may still end up with nothing.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

 

• • Funders may indirectly influence strategy such as pushing for early settlement to secure returns, even if the claimant prefers a full trial.

• • Maintaining clear agreements that ensure the claimant and counsel retain control is essential.

Lack of Regulation in India

 

• • Unlike the UK or Australia, India does not yet have a formal regulatory authority for litigation funding.

• • Absence of regulation raises risks of non-transparent agreements or exploitative terms.

Reputation & Business Relations

 

• Pursuing litigation even with funding, may strain ongoing relationships with clients or partners, impacting future business opportunities.

Practical Tips for Small Businesses Considering Litigation Financing

For small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) can unlock access to justice and ease financial pressure. However, businesses must approach it strategically. Below are key practical tips to ensure funding works in their favor:

 

 

 

1. • Document Your Case Thoroughly
     

      

     • • Funders assess cases based on the strength of evidence.
     • • Maintain contracts, invoices, delivery notes, emails, payment reminders, and proof of damages.
     • • A well-documented claim increases the chances of securing funding quickly.

1. • Understand the True Cost of Funding
     

      

     • • Review the percentage share or multiple of investment that the funder will take upon success.
     • • Some agreements include additional fees or interest, calculate the net recovery you will actually receive.
     • • Compare funding proposals to ensure fair terms.

1. • Check Minimum Claim Requirements
     

      

     • • Many funders have a threshold value (₹25–50 lakh in India) below which they may not fund.
     • • Businesses with smaller claims should explore pooled funding, legal expense insurance, or mediation as alternatives.

1. • Retain Control Over Litigation Strategy
     

      

     • • Ensure the funding contract clearly states that settlement decisions and case strategy remain with you and your lawyer.
     • • Avoid agreements where the funder can dictate litigation steps, as this could create conflicts of interest.

1. • Assess the Funder’s Credibility
     

      

     • • Partner only with reputable funders who have a proven track record.
     • • Ask about their past cases, timelines, and enforcement support.
     • • Reliable funders provide not just money but also expertise and connections.

1. • Evaluate Enforceability of Awards
     

      

     • • Winning a judgment is not enough ensure the defendant has assets that can be recovered.
     • • Funders usually check this during due diligence, but SMEs should also confirm recovery feasibility.

1. • Negotiate Clear Terms
     

      

     • • Clarify what expenses will be covered: lawyer fees, court costs, expert witnesses, or enforcement expenses.
     • • Understand obligations in case of appeals, delays, or partial settlements.
     • • Ensure transparency on timelines for distribution of recovered funds.

1. • Consider Alternatives
     

      

     • • Explore negotiation, mediation, or arbitration before litigation.
     • • In some cases, hybrid arrangements (partial self-funding plus external support) may be more cost-effective.

1.  

Comparative Study: India vs. Global Practices

India

In India, litigation funding is still at a nascent stage, though rapidly growing. Courts have not prohibited it, and in several rulings have upheld its legitimacy, particularly in commercial disputes. Specialized players are offering funding solutions tailored to MSMEs for debt recovery, arbitration, and contract enforcement. Given the backlog in Indian courts, where commercial cases may stretch 3–5 years, the availability of financing ensures that valid claims are not abandoned due to cost barriers. However, funders often set a minimum claim size (e.g., ₹25–50 lakh) to ensure economic viability, meaning micro enterprises with very small disputes may still struggle to access such services.

United Kingdom

The UK is one of the most advanced markets for TPLF. The industry is regulated through bodies like the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF), ensuring transparency, ethical funding, and independence of legal strategy. Here, SMEs can rely on funders not only for litigation but also for arbitration and collective claims. Strong regulation builds trust and protects businesses from exploitative funding agreements.

United States

The US has a large, competitive litigation funding market, especially in commercial disputes, intellectual property (IP) enforcement, and class actions. SMEs benefit greatly in IP cases where litigation costs are extremely high. However, the US still debates issues around disclosure of funding agreements, as courts and defendants often argue for greater transparency to avoid conflicts of interest.

Australia

Australia pioneered the litigation funding industry in the 1990s. It has strong regulatory oversight and is widely accepted as a legitimate practice. For SMEs, the system is particularly beneficial in collective or class actions, where funders pool claims of multiple small businesses against larger corporations.

Singapore & Hong Kong

These jurisdictions have recently opened up to litigation funding, especially for international arbitration cases. Their acceptance reflects the importance of TPLF in global trade and cross-border disputes. SMEs engaged in exports and international contracts benefit significantly, as arbitration costs in these hubs are otherwise prohibitively high.

 

Challenges for SMEs in India

While Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) offers significant advantages, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in India face unique challenges when accessing and using this tool:

 

1. • High Entry Thresholds
     

      

     • • Many litigation funders in India only support claims above ₹25–50 lakh, leaving out micro and small enterprises with lower-value disputes.

1. • Limited Awareness
     

      

     • • Most SMEs are unfamiliar with litigation funding, mistaking it for loans or fearing loss of control. This lack of knowledge reduces adoption.

1. • Enforcement Barriers
     

      

     • • Even if SMEs win cases, enforcing judgments in India can be slow due to appeals, execution delays, or defendants hiding assets. Funders often factor this risk into their decisions.

1. • Unregulated Ecosystem
     

      

     • • India lacks a dedicated regulatory body for TPLF. Without clear rules, SMEs risk entering into non-transparent or unfavorable agreements.

1. • Prolonged Litigation Timelines
     

      

     • • Cases in India often stretch for years. While funding covers costs, delays reduce the value of recovery after sharing proceeds with funders
         

1.  

Conclusion

Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has emerged as a powerful tool for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to overcome the financial and strategic barriers of pursuing justice. By shifting the cost and risk of litigation to external funders, SMEs gain the ability to enforce contracts, recover dues, and challenge unfair practices without draining their working capital. Globally, mature markets like the UK, Australia, and Singapore showcase how regulated frameworks can make litigation finance both accessible and transparent. In India, while the concept is legally recognized, the ecosystem remains young, with limited awareness, higher funding thresholds, and enforcement hurdles posing challenges. Nevertheless, as specialized funders, regulatory clarity, and market awareness expand, TPLF has the potential to democratize access to justice for Indian SMEs. For businesses struggling with unpaid dues or contractual disputes, litigation financing is not just a funding option it is a strategic enabler for growth, fairness, and resilience.