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

Juris Capital Announces Expansion into Michigan

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn and an article in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business, litigation funder Juris Capital announced its expansion into Michigan. Juris Capital, which was founded in 2009 and operates from Chicago, announced the move will be led by the firm’s newest managing director, Dane Lund. The expansion into Michigan will be based in East Grand Rapids with Mr Lund tasked with driving Juris Capital’s growth in West Michigan and the wider region.

In the announcement on LinkedIn, Juris Capital said: “We look forward to collaborating with Michigan lawyers and businesses to explore innovative financing options. With a continued nationwide focus, we are well-positioned to support Michigan-based firms and litigants.”

Lund joined Juris Capital in January of this year with a background in both finance and the legal sector, having began his career as an associate at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and having since served in investment roles at Intermediate Capital Group and Burford Capital. Commenting on Juris Capital’s expansion into Michigan, Lund said: “Grand Rapids represents a key growth area for us […] With its thriving legal community and diverse economy, we’re excited to offer solutions that help law firms and businesses achieve their goals, without compromising on resources.”

AxiaFunder Shares Insights into Platform’s Investment Volumes and Returns

By Harry Moran |

Outside of publicly traded litigation funders, it is uncommon for the wider public to gain insight into the wins and losses of these businesses. However, a prominent litigation funding platform has provided a rare snapshot into the performance of its own business, as well as the outcomes of cases funded through its platform.

An article in Alternative Credit Investor which discusses the current state of the legal funding market features insights into the investments and returns for litigation finance platform, AxiaFunder. In the article, AxiaFunder’s chief executive, Cormac Leech shares that the firm’s funded volumes in the first half of 2024 had risen by 150% year-on-year. This growth has now seen the AxiaFunder platform reach a total of 17 fully funded commercial lawsuits to date.

However, Leech also shared that despite the impressive year-on-year growth in funded volumes, AxiaFunder has now also seen its first loss. Of the 17 funded cases, nine of these lawsuits have been won, two have been lost and the remaining six cases are still ongoing. Leech also revealed that for investors who have engaged with these cases through the AxiaFunder platform, their returns have varied from -96% to 175% depending on which cases they invested in.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Viren Mascarenhas, Partner, Milbank

By John Freund |

Viren is a Partner in Milbank’s New York office where he leads the international arbitration practice in the US.  He specializes in international arbitration (construction, commercial, and investment arbitration) as well as enforcement of awards and judgments in U.S. courts. 

He has nearly two decades of experience acting as counsel for parties in a broad range of industries, with a particular focus on energy and mining disputes. His investment treaty experience includes representing investors in disputes against Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  He has advised litigation funders on whether to underwrite prospective matters and also obtained litigation funding for his clients.  He sits as arbitrator in commercial arbitrations and teaches international arbitration at Columbia Law School. 

Viren has been recognized for his accomplishments in international arbitration by Chambers GlobalChambers USALegal 500Who’s Who Legal: ArbitrationThe Best Lawyers in America:  International ArbitrationEuromoney (commercial arbitration), Latinvex (disputes in Latin America), Law360 (energy disputes), Lawdragon (500 Leading Global Litigators, 2021, 2023, 2024), The New York Law JournalCrain’s Business New York,The LGBT Bar Association, the South Asian Bar Association, and the American Bar Association.  His client reviews in Chambers include, “Viren is talented, smart, and quick on his feet.  He is a lawyer you want in your corner”; “His attention to detail and commitment made him stand out – he was always thinking of next steps and briefing us often”; “Viren is bright, capable and a really strong advocate.”  Legal 500 identified Milbank as one of three firms to watch in the international arbitration space, noting, “Milbank continues to grow its profile in international arbitration since the late 2022 arrival of Viren Mascarenhas.  The team is particularly noted for its activity in the energy and infrastructure areas.”

Company Name and Description:  Milbank LLP is an international law firm headquartered in New York with offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Beijing, London, Frankfurt, Munich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo, Seoul, and Singapore.  Chambers USA ranks Milbank in Band 1 for a range of practices, including Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Capital Markets, Metals & Mining, Projects, and Transportation.

Company Website: www.milbank.com

Year Founded:  1866.  Company rebranded to Milbank in 2019.

Headquarters:  New York

Area of Focus: Milbank is a full services international law firm.  Viren is a member of the Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group.

Member Quote:  “Litigation funders want lawyers who can chart a course of action from filing a claim to collecting on the award/judgment, and then engage with the wide variety of players involved (client, opposing counsel, co-counsel, witnesses, experts, investigators, the adjudicators, and the funders themselves!) to make it happen.”

Read More

New Insights into Fortress’ Involvement in Legal Funding and Patent Monetization

Discussion of the litigation funding market often focuses on established funders who have become household names in the business of investing in high-value commercial litigation. However, outside of these traditional funders, there are global institutional investors whose involvement in the legal funding market has often remained out of the spotlight.

An article in Bloomberg Law provides an in-depth look at the involvement of Fortress Investment Group in the litigation finance market, providing a new window into their strategy and featuring insights from key leadership figures. 

The breadth of Fortress’ involvement in the legal market is demonstrated in the sheer scale of the numbers involved, with the firm having committed $6.6 billion in legal assets and another $2.9 billion to intellectual property assets. Fortress differentiates itself from a traditional funder like Burford Capital, whose approach to investing often centres around commercial litigation, whilst Fortress is mainly focusing on a ‘credit-like approach’ via its lending to law firms. 

Fortress has particularly targeted the mass tort market with loans exceeding $100 million, and the list of law firms invested in including Onder Law, Johnson Law Group, The Smith Law Firm, Weitz & Luxenberg and Napoli Shkolnik. Fortress managing partner and co-CIO, Jack Neumark explains how the firm’s size and resources allow it to succeed with mass torts, explaining that “one of the major traps that people get sucked into is not having the resources internally to do a thorough review of the files.” Burford Capital’s vice chair, David Perla describes Fortress’ dominance in this space and recounted that when Burford approaches mass tort firms “the name we hear frequently as to where they have financed their portfolios today or historically, you’ll hear Fortress more often than any other”.

In the world of patent monetization, Fortess’ head of intellectual property, Eran Zur argues that the firm “pioneered the patent lending business”, which had only existed conceptually before Fortress’ put its capital and resources behind it. Fortress’ patent-assertion entities include VLSI Technology LLC, owner of a portfolio of patents formerly belonging to NXP Semiconductors NV, notable for cases brought against Intel with billions sought in damages. In a case brought in Delaware before District Judge Colm F. Connolly, VLSI dropped the case against Intel following Connolly’s order to disclose the identity of VLSI’s investors. In response to being asked by Bloomberg whether the disclosure order caused Fortress to drop the Delaware case, Zur questioned whether “the identity of the plaintiff or the characteristics of the plaintiff matter in a patent claim?”

When looking to place Fortress in the litigation funding space alongside other market-leading names, Zur seemed to differentiate their own practice, saying: “We do not invest passively as opposed to litigation funders. It’s private equity. We sit on the board, we advise”. However, Jonathan Stroud, general counsel at Unified Patents argues against this delineation, arguing: “Because you have more control of the entities, it doesn’t mean you’re not a funder, you’re a super funder. […] You’re funding the case and you’re a client.”

Bloomberg’s article also makes clear that whether it considers itself to be a funder or not, Fortress has been actively involved by investing in and even acquiring other funders such as Vannin Capital and Affiniti Capital Management. In describing Fortress’ engagement with the market, one former employee at an unnamed litigation funder said they didn’t accept money from Fortress because “they choke you to death and then put you out of business”, referencing the fact that Fortress takes a very active role in its investments from regular monitoring of cases to tracking bank accounts. However, Neumark pushed back on the suggestion that Fortress operate as ‘pirates’ in the industry, instead explaining their business practice by saying: “We’re a tough counterparty if you don’t do what you say you’re gonna do […]We see where funds go. If you do something you’re not supposed to do, we’re gonna be upset.”

Looking towards the future of the funding market, Neumark believes that “the asset class is going to grow for sure over time.” However, he also pushed back against the common criticism that funders are “ambulance chasers” and argued that when investing in large-scale and complex antitrust or product liability cases, “there’s really no margin for doing stuff that’s frivolous.” Neumark was also quick to dismiss the idea of third-party funding as a vehicle for malign foreign actors, and said that litigation funding “might be the most inefficient way possible for a foreign entity to try to gain access to confidential information.”

Westbrooke Associates Expands into The Litigation Funding Sector

By Harry Moran |

Westbrooke Associates announces its expansion into the burgeoning litigation funding sector, marking a new chapter in its legacy of connecting investors with high-growth, socially impactful opportunities.

As a brokerage known for identifying innovative investment vehicles, Westbrooke Associates is now expanding into litigation funding, a niche asset class that has seen rapid growth in the UK and globally. Litigation funding provides financial backing to individuals and small businesses that would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation. This growing financial tool has proven essential in levelling the playing field in the legal system, enabling claimants to pursue justice against larger, well-funded opponents.

With rising litigation costs and increasingly complex cases, the demand for litigation funding has surged, particularly in markets such as the UK, which boasts one of the most advanced regulatory environments for this asset class. The global litigation funding market is experiencing extraordinary growth, with revenues projected to reach $43 billion by 2033, up from $17.1 billion in 2023.

As one of the most compelling alternative investment opportunities today, litigation funding offers investors a low-risk, high-return asset class that remains largely uncorrelated with traditional financial markets. This makes it an attractive option for portfolio diversification, especially during times of market volatility.

A report by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP highlights that the top 15 litigation funders in the UK saw assets grow to a record £2.2 billion in 2020/21, an 11% increase from the previous year. With such exponential growth, Westbrooke Associates is poised to help investors capitalise on the robust potential of this asset class.

Westbrooke Associates' expertise in sourcing profitable investments that align with strong ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) standards makes this a natural step forward. The firm has already established a successful collaboration with Addlington-West Legal Limited, offering investors access to litigation funding opportunities that prioritise both financial returns and social impact.

Litigation funding not only delivers strong returns but also plays a pivotal role in supporting justice. Westbrooke’s unique investment model ensures a rigorous due diligence process, with cases thoroughly vetted to back only those with strong chances of success. Investors benefit from fixed returns—typically generated within 18 months—while also supporting businesses that face significant financial barriers due to litigation costs.

Moreover, Westbrooke Associates' commitment to protecting investor capital is evident via the surety bond offered by Addlington-West Legal. This guarantees 100% capital protection in the event of unsuccessful claims, ensuring investor security and peace of mind. This level of risk mitigation, combined with relevant regulatory compliance, makes litigation funding a particularly attractive opportunity for Westbrooke Associates’ clients.

For investors seeking a safe, high-potential asset class, litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates represents an ideal investment opportunity. The firm’s longstanding reputation for identifying forward-thinking ventures is further bolstered by this new foray into the litigation funding space. Westbrooke Associates continues to demonstrate its ability to deliver innovative and socially responsible investment opportunities that align with the evolving needs of its investor base.

As the litigation funding market continues to grow, Westbrooke Associates is at the forefront of offering investors access to this dynamic and impactful sector. Whether you're a seasoned investor or looking to diversify your portfolio, Westbrooke Associates ensures that every investment opportunity provides both profitability and a positive societal impact.

For more information about how to invest in litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates or to request the Investment Memorandum, please visit www.westbrookeassociates.com or call 0203 745 0294.

Read More

FiDeAL® Announces a Strategic Partnership with Outmatch to Strengthen Litigation Finance Consulting Services and Expand Operations in France

By Harry Moran |

Treviso – FiDeAL®, a leader in litigation finance consulting, is pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Outmatch, a renowned French financial boutique specializing in M&A operations and in legal disputes resolution.

This collaboration marks a significant step in further strengthening FiDeAL’s litigation finance consulting services and in expanding its operations into the French legal market, one of the main European markets for complex legal disputes.

FiDeAL and Outmatch will combine their respective expertise to provide tailored solutions to French law firms and companies, supporting them with access to innovative financial tools and optimizing their legal strategies in high-profile litigation.

This partnership represents a milestone for both companies, opening new opportunities in the French market and offering a broader range of services to companies involved in complex disputes.

Read More

International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) Welcomes New ELI Report – ‘Principles Governing the Third-Party Funding of Litigation’

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has welcomed the findings of the newly published European Law Institute (ELI) report ‘Principles governing the third-party funding of litigation’. 

The report, authored by UK High Court Judge Dame Sarah Cockerill and Professor Susanne Augenhofer, is the product of more than two years of investigative work to develop principles and guidance for the TPLF market, and represents a new, independent contribution to the legitimate and effective use of TPLF. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘This new report, authored by seasoned legal observers, recognises that commercial legal finance increases access to justice for European businesses and consumers and provides ‘vital improvement in access to justice’ (pg.19) when made available. Contrary to the repeated claims of big business, funding helps level the playing field for those exercising their rights against multinationals with almost unlimited resources’. 

The report also cautions against imposing new regulations on the TPLF market. Instead, it advances a ‘complementary approach’ involving guidance to funders on issues to be taken into account before entering into a TPLF agreement, together with publishing a new Appendix drawing together the recommended minimum content of a funding agreement.

Purslow commented: 

‘ILFA agrees with the report’s conclusion that proscriptive one-size-fits-all regulation isn’t appropriate for a sector like ours. It risks funders ceasing to offer funding, inevitably leading to what the authors rightly identify as ‘serious access to justice issues’.’

The full report from ELI can be read online here

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About ELI 

The European Law Institute (ELI) is an independent non-profit organisation established to initiate, conduct and facilitate research, make recommendations and provide practical guidance in the field of European legal development. The ELI secretariat is hosted by the University of Vienna, Austria.

The report team was led by Susanne Augenhofer (Professor of Law, Austria), Dame Sara Cockerill (High Court Judge, UK), and Henrik Rothe (Professor of Law, Denmark) (until July 2022). 

Read More

NJ Appeals Court Rules Funding Agreements are Not Loans

By Harry Moran |

As the litigation funding industry has matured and the practice become more commonplace across the US legal system, most contentious debates revolve around issues of transparency or funder control over lawsuits. However, a recent complaint in New Jersey attempted to argue that a series funding agreement should be considered loans, only to have both the trial and appeals court reject these arguments in their entirety.

An article in Bloomberg Law highlights a decision handed down by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate with the court ruling that litigation funding arrangements do not constitute ‘loans’ under state law. The ruling arose out of three funding agreements entered into between Covered Bridge Capital (CBC) and plaintiff Christine Ivaliotis between 2016 and 2019, before Ivaliotis filed suit against CBC claiming that it had engaged in “fraudulent lending practices and impermissibly purchasing an interest in prejudgment personal injury proceeds.” The appeals court affirmed the original trial court’s decision, which dismissed Ivaliotis’ complaint “because plaintiff has not shown she sustained a compensable "ascertainable loss" as the result of a CFA violation by CBC”.

The court’s ruling considered the plaintiff’s assertion that funding agreements were loans and therefore required the funder to be licensed by the Department of Banking and Insurance, with the court stating clearly that “this premise is wrong.” The appeals court cited federal precedent and noted that the “distinction between loans and the proceeds of litigation funding agreements has been judicially recognized.” In the damming conclusion to its ruling, the court found that Ivaliotis “lacks standing to call herself an "aggrieved consumer," both as a matter of law, a matter of equity, and common sense.”The full decision from the New Jersey court can be read here.

Parabellum Capital Funding ‘Daniel’s Law’ Cases in New Jersey

By Harry Moran |

Whilst there is constant debate and discussion over the level of transparency and disclosure that should be required for the involvement of litigation funders in cases, the state of New Jersey is demonstrating how these rules work in practice after a plaintiff disclosed that it anticipated using litigation funds in an ongoing series of lawsuits.

Reporting by Reuters highlights a recent court filing in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiff, Atlas Data Privacy Corporation, informed the court that it would soon be using funding provided by Parabellum Capital. The litigation funding was secured by Atlas Data Privacy to support over 140 lawsuits that it has been assigned and brought against businesses who have allegedly breached New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which allows public officials to protect against the release of their personal information to the public.

In its filing to the court, Atlas Data Privacy said that as New Jersey’s rules on funding disclosure “requires that a statement be filed promptly following the use of third-party litigation funds”, and because the firm “anticipates utilizing such funds shortly”, it was filing the letter to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1.1. The two-page letter does not provide many details of Atlas’ funding arrangement with Parabellum Capital but confirmed that it was “non-recourse financing provided to Atlas, collateralized by litigation proceeds”. Unsurprisingly, the letter also confirmed that “the funder’s approval is not necessary for any litigation or settlement decisions in these actions.” 

Reuters’ article also includes comments from spokespersons for both Atlas and Parabellum, with the funder’s spokesperson saying that it was acting as “a passive financial partner of Atlas, which is playing an important role in enforcing compliance with one of the most meaningful privacy laws on record.”Atlas’ letter of disclosure to the court can be read in full here.

US Judicial Committee to Study Disclosure of Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

With federal lawmakers following in the wake of some state legislatures in introducing draft legislation to impose new regulations on litigation funding, it is perhaps no surprise that the US judiciary has now seen fit to take a more proactive approach in examining the role of third-party legal funding in the country.

An article in Reuters covers the news that the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed last week to begin a study into litigation finance, to ascertain whether a federal rule governing disclosure of third-party funding was necessary. The decision followed a panel meeting last Thursday in Washington, D.C., and notably comes shortly after over 100 companies signed a letter calling on the judiciary to introduce greater transparency measures for litigation funding. 

The chair of the Advisory Committee, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, said that the debate over third-party legal funding “is an important issue” and that it “is not going away.” Following the committee’s decision, a subcommittee will be created to study the issue but as the Reuters article highlights, this does not provide a timeline on when, or even if, a new rule governing disclosure would be introduced. U.S. District Judge John Bates, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, seemed to make a distinction between the “theoretical problem” that litigation finance could pose, and the study’s purpose to uncover whether there were “actual problems”.

In response to the committee’s decision, Page Faulk, senior vice president of legal reform initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, called on the judiciary “to move forward swiftly in adopting mandatory disclosure requirements.” In contrast, the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) said that it welcomed “the opportunity to be a part of the conversation to demonstrate how legal finance is a valuable part of the legal economy and has not resulted in any of the negative outcomes that the U.S. Chamber has cut from whole cloth.”

Read More

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
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |
The LFJ Podcast