Trending Now

Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Latest News

View All

FORIS AG Reports Strong Market Interest in Litigation Financing Fund

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported in February, one legal funder in Germany is seeking to elevate its engagement in the country with a new fund that demonstrates significant ambition for the growth of litigation financing in this underserved market.

In an update posted by FORIS AG, the German litigation funder revealed that its FORIS Centris Litigation Financing Fund I has already attracted strong market interest from professional and institutional investors, allowing for case financing to begin. According to the post, the fund was already sufficiently capitalized in February to start backing lawsuits. FORIS AG launched this fund in partnership with Liechtenstein-based CAIAC Fund Management AG and Vienna-based Centris Capital AG.

Frederick Iwans, CEO of FORIS AG, said that the funder was confident it will be able to build on this momentum and reach the fund’s target of financing 20 to 25 cases within the next two years. Iwans also shed some light on the types of cases the fund was able to finance, explaining that FORIS AG had seen “a significant increase in financing requests or cases with amounts in dispute exceeding €50 million”. He also suggested that it was even possible for the fund to support cases above the €100 million threshold.

Michael Nagy, CEO of Centris Capital AG, said that he believes the fund has “hit a nerve” with the market and highlighted that they have already received twelve subscriptions to the fund. Nagy went on to explain that the uncorrelated nature of the litigation financing fund is particularly attractive to investors, given the ongoing turmoil in the stock market and the opportunity for these investors to diversify both their portfolios and risk profiles.

Bombay High Court Judgment Affirms Litigation Funding’s Legality in India

By Harry Moran |

Although the presence and visibility of legal funding in India is limited, a recent judgment re-affirming the legality of litigation funding will no doubt be seen as a positive sign for supporters of the nascent litigation finance market in the country.

An article on Verdictum covers a ruling in the Bombay High Court which affirmed that third-party litigation funding is neither illegal nor does it violate Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The judgment was handed down following the appeal of a decision in the City Civil Court which had quashed the amalgamation of two trusts, ruling that it was a matter of “champertous litigation” and was therefore prohibited by Section 23.

The background of the case begins with the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s approval of a 2005 amalgamation of the Rizvi Education Society and the Kailash Seva Sadan Trust, with the approval later being challenged by the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in the City Civil Court.

In his judgment for the High Court, Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh found that it “cannot be countenanced that third party funding of litigation is per se illegal and violates Section 23 of Contract Act, apart from the fact that such contemplation is alien to an inquiry under Section 50A (2) of Trusts Act.” 

Whilst this ruling was focused on a specific case within the limited context of the amalgamation of these two trusts, the repeated affirmation of litigation funding’s legality in India is a welcome sight for funders considering expanding their services to this jurisdiction.

The full judgment by the High Court in Rizvi Education Society & Ors. v. The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors can be read here

Toremis Speciality Launches Website and Legal Risk Services

By Harry Moran |

In January of this year, LFJ covered the launch of Legatus Holdings Limited, with the legal funding venture designed as a one-stop shop offering funding, legal services, insurance and claims acquisition under one umbrella organisation. Four months later, the insurance arm of this venture has launched its website and offered new insights into the legal risk services it will be offering.

In a post on Toremis Speciality’s website, CEO Nathan Hull introduced the new MGA business and provided an overview of its solutions and capabilities to the legal insurance market. Highlighting the company’s focus solely on legal related risks, Toremis will focus on delivering capabilities in after-the-Event (ATE), contingent risk, and tax liability insurance. Given Toremis’ ties to the other Legatus subsidiary companies (Asertis, KP Law, Cavis), Hull emphasised that the MGA also brings “strong, long-term capacity partners, that understand the space and are committed to its growth.”

Hull, whose involvement with Toremis was revealed at the time of the Legatus launch, brings a wealth of experience in legal insurance to his position as chief executive. Before taking on this new venture, Hull had spent the last five years as Head of Contingent and Litigation Risk Europe at VALE Insurance Partners.

Toremis’ website lists three executives in its senior leadership team, with Sam Tacey and Koosha Kowsari completing the trifecta alongside Hull. Tacey holds the position of Senior Partner, having joined the new venture from Acquinex where he served as Head of Contingent Risks and Claims. Kowsari is in post as the company’s Finance Director, building on a long career in finance and accounting, including his most recent role as Head of Insurance Finance at Marshmallow.

Legal-Bay Launches Innovative Attorney Case Cost Funding

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay Pre-settlement Lawsuit Funding, a longtime leader in presettlement and legal funding, has unveiled a new financing program designed to help attorneys cover the high costs of building and preparing cases for trial without relying on bank loans or credit lines.

Case costs can include everything from medical records to expert witnesses to life care plans to court fees. Legal-Bay's funding lessens the upfront financial strain by providing capital that's only repaid if the lawsuit is successful, and gives legal professionals fast, flexible access to extra money when they need it most. The program allows attorneys to secure resources for experts, depositions, court filings, and other necessary expenses without tying up firm assets or tapping into their own expense accounts.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, "Legal-Bay's attorney or law firm case cost funding program is tailored to help small and medium firms get the ball across the goal line to win big cases. We are a resource for lawyers nationwide to utilize case cost funding when cash flow is tight, without long underwriting processes, credit checks or monthly payments.  Best of all, our non-recourse funding means you only pay if you win the case."

If you're a lawyer or law firm in need of extra case cost funding in advance of your case's anticipated settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

With nearly 20 years of experience in legal finance, Legal-Bay has earned the trust of thousands of attorneys and law firms across the country. The company's commitment to fast approvals, transparent terms, and case-first evaluations has made it a go-to resource for professionals seeking a smarter way to manage litigation costs.

Legal-Bay is one of the best legal funding companies in the industry, known for their helpful staff and quick turnaround. They fund almost every type of lawsuit including personal injury, slips and falls, sexual discrimination, assault, or abuse, motor vehicle accidents, wrongful incarceration, and more. While sometimes legal funding is referred to as loans on lawsuit or lawsuit loans, there are no credit checks or collateral required. The money is an immediate cash advance against a plaintiff's anticipated settlement award, not a conventional loan. The non-recourse lawsuit funding is risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.

To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer your questions.

Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 Signs Non-Binding LOI with Cartiga, LLC

Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 ("Alchemy"( (Nasdaq: ALCY), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Cartiga, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Cartiga" and together with Alchemy, the "Parties"), in connection with a potential business combination ("Business Combination").

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm using advanced data analytics to drive investments in litigation finance. By integrating legal and financial data, Cartiga leverages proprietary information and deep domain expertise to predict litigation outcomes, optimize asset allocation and investment performance, and deliver case and business management insights to law firms.

Its analytics-driven strategy enables claim valuation, tech-enabled case monitoring, and dynamic risk adjustment. Cartiga streamlines the origination and investment process in a manner designed to mitigate risk and maximize returns. By investing in legal claims and legal services businesses, Cartiga continually improves its data advantage and value proposition to customers while delivering attractive non-correlated risk-adjusted returns(i). Cartiga believes that it is optimally positioned to drive growth by leveraging direct distribution and machine learning tools to both accelerate originations and deploy business optimization tools for law firms.

As a public company, the pro forma business plans to opportunistically consolidate the fragmented litigation finance market through the intended acquisition and integration of complementary companies and assets. This strategy is designed to enhance scale, operational efficiency and market presence, driving long-term growth for shareholders. 

Investment Highlights of Cartiga

  • Proven Track Record: More than $1.6 billion in lifetime originations and $1.6 billion in cash realizations since inception in 2000, demonstrating strong performance and profitability across market cycles.
  • Comprehensive Platform: A multi-product alternative asset management and direct origination platform investing in the U.S. litigation and legal services market.
  • Data-Driven Success: Advanced data analytics and bespoke technology enhance underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management.
  • Large Addressable Market: Large $300 billion+ addressable market representing approximately 1.4% of US GDP with a limited number of scaled competitors and meaningfully underpenetrated by traditional capital providers.(ii)
  • Strategic Relationships: Longstanding partnerships with lawyers supported by 20-person in-house sales and business development team.
  • Robust Data Moat: Proprietary claims and outcomes database provides durable competitive differentiator.
  • Experienced Leadership: Led by seasoned, long-tenured professionals with domain expertise in the legal, finance and asset management industries.
  • Financial Strength: Profitable, well-capitalized, scalable business with diversified portfolio of non-correlated assets generating predictable shorter duration cash flows.
  • Institutional Backing: Supported by over $250 million in committed equity capital from blue chip investor base.

Other Key Metrics

  • Proprietary Database: Contains over 250,000 individual litigation-linked asset fundings diversified across 8,000+ unique lawyers and law firms
  • Investment Track Record: 20+ year track-record originating assets exhibiting non-correlated risk(iii) and outsized risk-adjusted returns versus traditional private credit(iv)
  • IT and Product Development Investment: Over $20 million invested since 2020
  • Team Size: Approximately 95 employees
  • Structured Finance Expertise: Four rated securitization transactions completed – three have been fully realized.

Leadership Commentary

"We view Cartiga's platform as an attractive alternative investment, offering a return profile that is uncorrelated with other asset classes. This sector is massive and rapidly expanding," said Mr. Vittorio Savoia, Co-CEO of Alchemy.

Mr. Mattia Tomba, Co-CEO of Alchemy, added, "We believe Cartiga and Alchemy make a compelling partnership. As funding, disclosure, and regulatory standards evolve, we expect the interest for publicly traded litigation finance asset management companies to grow. We believe a Nasdaq listing will put Cartiga in a leadership position in the industry by enhancing transparency, reducing the cost of capital, and expanding access to flexible funding. "

Cartiga's CEO, Mr. Sam Wathen, remarked, "Combining with Alchemy aligns perfectly with our goals. Leveraging a Nasdaq listing would enable Cartiga to establish new industry guidelines with full transparency and utilize its public currency to drive growth and acquire complementary businesses. Enhanced transparency would ultimately lower funding costs, benefiting companies like ours."

About Cartiga, LLC

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm that leverages advanced data analytics to drive decision-making in the litigation finance sector. Cartiga combines capital with proprietary technology to help law firms and their clients achieve better litigation outcomes. The company applies a data-driven approach to underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management, utilizing proprietary data, structured and unstructured legal and financial information, and continuously updated datasets from ongoing capital deployment. This iterative process enhances Cartiga's predictive capabilities and strengthens its competitive edge.

Advisor to Cartiga, LLC

B. Riley Securities is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Cartiga, LLC. 

About Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Alchemy is a "special purpose acquisition company" or "SPAC," commonly known as a blank-check company, incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands as an exempted company for the purpose of completing a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses, with a focus on companies acquiring, processing, analyzing, and utilizing data acquired from a variety of systems and sources.

Advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, A Stifel Company, is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1. 

Important Information and Where To Find It

This press release is provided for information purposes only and contains information with respect to a potential Business Combination described herein. If the Parties enter into definitive documentation regarding a Business Combination, a newly formed holding company intends to file relevant materials with the SEC, including a Registration Statement on Form S-4, that includes a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, and when available, a definitive proxy statement and final prospectus. Promptly after filing any definitive proxy statement with the SEC, Alchemy will mail the definitive proxy statement and a proxy card to each shareholder entitled to vote at the Extraordinary Meeting relating to the transaction. INVESTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF ALCHEMY ARE URGED TO READ THESE MATERIALS (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION THAT ALCHEMY FILES WITH THE SEC IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT ALCHEMY, CARTIGA AND THE BUSINESS COMBINATION. Any definitive proxy statement, preliminary proxy statement and other relevant materials in connection with the transaction (if and when they become available), and any other documents filed by Alchemy with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov).

Participants in the Solicitation

Alchemy and its directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from Alchemy's shareholders with respect to the Business Combination. A list of the names of those directors and executive officers and a description of their interests in Alchemy will be included in any proxy statement for the Business Combination and be available at www.sec.gov. Information about Alchemy's directors and executive officers and their ownership of ordinary shares is set forth in Alchemy's final prospectus, dated as of May 4, 2023, and filed with the SEC (File No. 333-68659) on May 5, 2023, as modified or supplemented by any Form 3 or Form 4 filed with the SEC since the date of such filing (the "Prospectus"). Additional information regarding the interests of the participants in the proxy solicitation will be included in the proxy statement pertaining to the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. These documents can be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov).

Cartiga and its managers and executive officers may also be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Alchemy in connection with the proposed Business Combination. A list of the names of such managers and executive officers and information regarding their interests in the proposed Business Combination will be included in any proxy statement for the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. 

Sources

i Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

ii Source: GDP Figure based on the legal services market size as per the Beaureau of Economic Analysis. Underprenetration as measured based on the ratio of GDP contribution to US banking sector assets; US banking sector data as per the US Federal Reserve. 

iii Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

iv Based on asset performance measured versus the Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI) for 12/31/2019 through 12/31/2024

Federal Judge Threatens Sanctions for Attorney Who Shared Netflix’s Source Code with Litigation Funder

By Harry Moran |

A patent infringement case being brought against one of the world’s largest streaming companies would on its face be considered a significant matter. However, this case may have added implications for the world of litigation funding, as a judge has indicated that sanctions may be imposed on an attorney who shared sensitive information with the case’s funder.  

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers new insights into an ongoing patent lawsuit being brought against Netflix, as a federal judge looks set to impose sanctions on the plaintiff’s attorney for sharing the streaming service’s source code and company financial information with a litigation funder. The development came during a hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, following Netflix’s complaint that attorney Bill Ramey shared information disclosure during discovery with AiPi LLC.

AiPi is the party that has funded the patent infringement case brought by Lauri Valjakka, a Finnish inventor who sued Netflix in 2022. AiPI Solutions’ website lists ‘IP Litigation Finance’ as one of the core services it offers to clients, which include corporate patent holders, law firms seeking alternative financing arrangements, and investors looking to invest in lawsuits.

Netflix’s complaint stems from allegations that Ramey shared information that was designated “attorneys eyes only” with AiPi, and that this information had been shared before Netflix had been informed of the funder’s involvement in the lawsuit. Sarah Piepmeier, an attorney at Perkins Coie representing Netflix, argued that having access to this sensitive company data “could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or that could inspire them to bring new cases.”

Whilst Ramey tried to argue that the case’s protective order allowed for information to be shared with affiliates, and that the four lawyers at AiPi he had shared the information with fell under this designation, Judge Jon S. Tigar strongly disagreed with Ramey’s suggestion that this “is a situation of no harm”. Judge Tigar not only suggested that substantial “attorneys’ fees as a sanction are going to be appropriate”, he also said he was considering ordering Ramey to hand over any communications with the four individuals at AiPi. Furthermore, the judge indicated that he would be considering referring Ramey to a disciplinary body such as the California State Bar.

ASP Report Says Litigation Funding’s National Security Threat ‘Must be Taken Seriously’

By Harry Moran |

Among the criticisms leveled at the legal funding industry, one critique that has gained significant traction lately in the United States is the idea that the funding of patent infringement poses a unique risk to national security.

A new report released by the American Security Project (ASP) looks at the arguments around the use of third-party litigation funding in the United States, and whether its involvement in the legal system presents a threat to the country’s national security. ASP’s analysis draws on a variety of sources including public databases, a review of pre-existing literature on the subject, and interviews with individuals from both sides of funded cases.

Whilst the paper’s title, ‘National Security Implications of Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing’, would suggest that this analysis covers the entire breadth of funded lawsuits, it is primarily focused on patent litigation which is regularly identified as a high risk area for national and economic security. The report’s contents include an overview of the potential risks around third-party funding, the competing arguments on its use, a series of findings from the research, and four public policy recommendations. 

The recommendations put forward by ASP include a universal disclosure requirement for funders, similar to those measures that have recently been introduced in several state legislatures. The paper also suggests that an additional disclosure should be required where a case ‘implicates national or economic security’, with courts then given special discovery rules to project sensitive information as part of this additional disclosure.

The last two recommendations take a wider scope, with one idea being the introduction of mandatory sanctions for those found to have disclosed sensitive information as part of these funded cases. ASP’s final recommendation calls for a comparative study of patent litigation in foreign courts, to assess whether funded cases in foreign courts are targeting U.S. economic assets or national security information.

The National Security Implications of Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing report can be read in full here.

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Ramco’s Cristina Soler on the Benefits of Monetizing Arbitration Awards

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered yesterday, the availability of legal funding is having a significant impact on the world of arbitration, with funders offering a variety of services from financing the initial claim to supporting claimants through the enforcement of awards.

In an interview with Confilegal, Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding, discusses the growing use of award monetization in arbitral proceedings and the increasing adoption of litigation funding both in Spain and across Europe. Confilegal spoke with Soler at the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje in Madrid, where she participated in a panel discussion with Emma Morales (Simmons & Simmons), Damian Vallejo (Dunning Rievaman & Macdonald LLP), Carlos Iso (SACYR). Lourdes Martínez de Victoria Gómez (Departamento de Arbitrajes Internacionales), and María Rodríguez (ACCIONA).

In the interview, Soler highlights that the end of any arbitration proceedings is never marked simply with a party obtaining an award, as the enforcement of that award is often a long and expensive process. Soler explains that funders like Ramco can provide support in one of two ways: either by providing the financing to cover the legal costs of enforcement, or through the monetization of an award where it is sold or assigned to the funder for an upfront payment.

Soler emphasises that the main benefits of award monetization are the immediate provision of liquidity to the claimant and the mitigation of any risk involved in the complex enforcement process. She also goes on to explain that award monetization has become more sophisticated with different payment structures available and a growing secondary market where these awards are bought and sold.

More insights from Soler are available in the full interview on Confilegal’s website.

JurisTrade CEO Discusses Litigation Asset Marketplace Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in March of this year, JurisTrade launched the first phase of its Litigation Asset Marketplace offering over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities, with the aim of bridging the gap between available capital and active cases in need of financing.

In an interview with Global Finance, JurisTrade’s CEO, James Koutoulas discusses the company’s new marketplace, explaining the benefits it offers to both investors and plaintiffs who find themselves in need of additional funding during a case. 

Koutoulas describes the platform as “the first secondary marketplace for litigation assets”, with the marketplace designed to allow investors to buy and sell these opportunities just like tradeable securities. Koutoulas says that this will generate “two or three turns on these cases”, with the flexibility of this model allowing “investors to pick when they want to come in, like VC investors pick the A-round or C-round.”

Koutoulas also clarifies that the marketplace is not targeting retail investors, as the minimum stake is set at $500,000. Instead JurisTrade’s platform is focused on offering these opportunities to institutional investors and family offices, highlighting that due to the variety of cases “every investment is very bespoke.” 

Fundraising

View All

Case Developments

View All

Legal Innovation

View All

People Moves

View All

Regulatory

View All

Consumer

View All

Thought Leadership

View All