Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Event: How Investors Approach Litigation Finance

On Thursday, July 14th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a digital event, “How Investors Approach Litigation Finance.” The event featured a unique cross-section of investor types, including David Gallagher, Co-Head of Litigation Investing at The D.E. Shaw Group, CJ Wei, Vice President of Private Credit at Northleaf Capital, Benjamin Blum, Managing Director at Flexpoint Ford, LLC, David Demeter, Director of Investment at Davidson College, and Kendra Corbett, Partner at Cloverlay. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Below are some key highlights from the discussion:

ET: How did you start investing in Litigation Finance? What types of results did you focus on, and how has your strategy changed over time?

DG: It takes time to obtain a meaningful number of results from litigation finance investments, and you can learn a lot along the way, even before the results come in. And because you invest in such a small proportion of the opportunities you look at, you try to learn from the investments you don’t make, as well as the investments you do make. And one of the lessons I’ve learned as it relates to deployment strategy, is that good deals are so hard to come by, and are a product of so many variables outside of your control, that it’s better to be responsive to the opportunity set in front of you, than to be wedded to the abstract ideas of portfolio construction or deal structuring. I think adaptiveness is key.

KC: We’ve been active in deploying capital in litigation finance for over six years now, and I wouldn’t say our approach has changed dramatically. We’ve been laser-focused on maintaining diversification across cases to avoid binary risks, and finding alignment across all of the involved parties.

I think we’ve looked for market specialists, and we haven’t necessarily tried to find litigation finance beta, and instead we’ve looked for partners with a demonstrable value-add and strategic advantage.

ET:  For those panelists more interested in credit opportunities in the legal finance space, why did you decide to focus on credit?

DG: At the D.E. Shaw Group, the litigation investing team works closely with the Private Credit group, which I like to think broadens the types of deals we do. So, in addition to investing in litigation finance deals with a more typical risk/reward profile, we also invest in less volatile opportunities that are less about litigation risk, and more about timing risk and basic credit risk.

BB: There are a few ways to create a credit-like opportunity in litigation finance. In addition, the way David was describing, the other way is to create a credit-like product by lending against a diverse portfolio of individual case fundings. So the asset is a little bit less credit-like, but the investment structure creates a credit-like investment. Both areas are of interest to us, especially when there is strong alignment with the borrower and downside protection through underwriting, to justify accepting a return profile that is either capped or has limited upside.

CW: At Northleaf, we have many different funds with many different return hurdles, so we view ourselves as a capital solutions provider to litigation finance businesses. That being said, our thesis around the asset class is akin to a type of Private Credit approach strategy. Principal protection is our priority. We not only have asset coverage of the legal assets, but additional covenants and protections, and bespoke structures where we have guardrails against any downside scenario.

ET: From an equity perspective, how is litigation finance the same as, or different from, other equity assets in which you invest?

DD: If you suspend disbelief a bit, I would equate it with early venture investing. Liquidity cycles tend to be uncorrelated in the long run, you’re generally creating milestones for capital, outcomes can be pretty skewed, where large winners make up the majority of profit (although it’s certainly more skewed in venture than in litigation finance), and the investment strategy isn’t all that scalable—managers have to be cognizant of all that they’re trying to deploy.

DG: I’ll focus on some of the differences. First, a litigation finance investor has no control over the litigation, while an equity investor or investors that own the majority of the company—they do control the company. So the closest analogy is to a class of shares that has no voting rights. Second, LitFin investments are typically illiquid. Equity investments are typically liquid. Another difference is that case outcomes are typically more binary than business outcomes.  And one last difference is that a company you might invest in can pivot and respond as needed to market opportunities, a case you invest in—it pretty much is what it is, and there’s only so much that even the most talented lawyers can do, with the facts and the law involved.

ET: One of the common criticisms I hear from fund managers, at least early on in the life cycle, is that investors are not willing to pay management fees to fund their operations. How does the panel respond to this criticism, given that the average litigation finance claim is small—around $3-5MM—and there is a lot of relatively sophisticated operations needed to be conducted by investment managers?  

DD: I think there are ways of paying someone a full fee and making sure deployment is there. And that is my primary concern, and I think most LPs primary concern, when it comes to paying a management fee. We’re also concerned about misalignment. At the fund level, people should really be making a large amount of their compensation from performance fees, not salary.

KC: It’s definitely a difficult issue. The fee drag that comes with charging investors on committed capital becomes pretty untenable when you’re comparing gross returns to net returns. So from our perspective, at a minimum, fees need to be on an as-committed basis. We’ve also seen scenarios where there is a lower management fee on committed capital that steps up once it’s drawn. It’s just really difficult with some of the commercial litigation strategies to have a full freight fee—2%–committed from investors.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Deals

Litigation Lending Services Funding Queensland Health Class Action

By Harry Moran |

When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Releases Judgment Approving £200m Settlement in Mastercard Class Action

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

Announcements Commercial Deals

SIM IP Provides Funding and Strategic Advisory Services to Gene Pool to Drive Global Intellectual Property Monetization

By Harry Moran |

Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc ("SIM IP"), a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment, and monetization, today announced it has entered into a funding and strategic advisory agreement with Gene Pool Technologies.

Gene Pool Technologies ("Gene Pool") focuses on the development, aggregation, and licensing of advanced extraction and processing technologies, with a particular emphasis on solutions applicable to the cannabis and hemp industries. Gene Pool's intellectual property portfolio broadly covers innovations in plant extraction methods, equipment, and systems that enhance quality, safety, and efficiency for producers and manufacturers.

"We believe that Gene Pool brings a disciplined, technology-focused process to intellectual property licensing that aligns with SIM IP's commitment to efficient and transparent value creation," said Jennifer Burdman, Managing Director at SIM IP. "We look forward to collaborating to provide inventors with stronger protection and improved monetization opportunities, while offering industry participants with streamlined access to critical technologies through clear and equitable licensing terms."

Erich Spangenberg, CEO of SIM IP, commented, "Gene Pool is leveraging two key services provided by SIM IP, which includes capital support through a corporate investment and unparalleled, strategic advisory expertise. Gene Pool strategically chose to leverage our capital for both litigation and the anticipated acquisition of additional intellectual property, as well as our extensive expertise in global intellectual property monetization to support execution and business strategy."

Gene Pool partners with innovators and technology owners to ensure their innovations are protected, compensated, and accessible to operators through operator-friendly, non-exclusive licensing agreements. Gene Pool's licensable portfolio includes  over fifty patent assets, with approximately half owned by Gene Pool and the rest being in-licensed from key market innovators.

"Gene Pool was seeking a strategic partner capable of providing capital and supporting the execution of our intellectual property monetization strategy across multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe. We're pleased to have identified SIM IP as a partner and to have formalized our collaboration," said Travis Steffen, CEO of Gene Pool. "We met with numerous litigation funding firms; however, only SIM IP demonstrated strategic advisory service capabilities and meaningful experience in global enforcement strategies."

Over the last few years, Gene Pool secured significant legal victories against companies in the cannabis and hemp industries including defending key patent claims in three inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; defeating invalidity, non-infringement, and illegality challenges against these claims in U.S. District Court; and most recently obtaining summary judgment from the same court that the Defendants infringed these claims.

About SIM IP

Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc. ("SIM IP") is a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment and monetization opportunities. SIM IP invests across IP as an asset class and across jurisdictions, primarily focusing on the US, Europe, and Asia. Further information is available at www.simip.io. Follow us on LinkedIn, X (Twitter), and Instagram. 

About Gene Pool Technologies

At Gene Pool Technologies, we believe in industry solutions that recognize inventors, incentivize ongoing R&D, and enable operating companies with seamless access to technologies that will be critical to the long-term success of the Cannabis industry. Our team brings decades of experience across Cannabis and intellectual property and is deeply committed to the success of the industry and the innovation that will continue to drive quality, safety, and efficiency.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made in this release are "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding SIM IP's strategy, plans, objectives, initiatives and financial outlook. When used in this press release, the words "estimates," "projected," "expects," "anticipates," "forecasts," "plans," "intends," "believes," "seeks," "may," "will," "should," "future," "propose" and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside SIM IP's control, that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. As such, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements.

Investors should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the "Risk Factors" sections of SIM IP's filings with the SEC, including the Registration Statement and the other documents filed by SIM IP. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements.