Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

July 26, 2022

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

Jonathan Sablone Launches Sablone Advisory LLC, a Boutique Law and Advisory Firm Focused on Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Jonathan Sablone, a commercial disputes attorney with three decades of cross-border, financial services, and litigation finance experience, has launched Sablone Advisory LLC — a Boston-based boutique positioned to serve claimants, funders, and insurers across the legal finance ecosystem under the tagline "at the intersection of law and finance™."

According to Sablone Advisory LLC, the new firm offers underwriting, diligence, monitoring, and asset management services to litigation funders and to insurers offering contingent risk products. On the claimant side, Sablone Advisory works with plaintiffs and their counsel to position cases for funding, including packaging case portfolios for cross-collateralized funding and insurance wrappers — services that have become increasingly central as funders and insurers structure deals across multiple matters and risk layers.

"I founded Sablone Advisory to assist clients with the most intractable problems and issues facing the legal finance industry," said Sablone in announcing the launch. "'At the intersection of law and finance' is not just a slogan, but a practical, commercial approach to legal problem-solving that I have practiced for decades."

The launch reflects a continuing trend in the litigation finance industry: senior practitioners with capital-markets and complex-litigation backgrounds spinning out of large institutional platforms to offer specialized, independent advisory and underwriting services. As funders increasingly structure portfolio-level deals, layer ATE and contingent risk insurance into capital stacks, and pursue cross-border recoveries, demand for senior independent diligence and asset management — particularly from professionals fluent in both legal strategy and structured finance — has grown.

For claimants and their counsel, the firm's case-positioning services are likely to resonate in a market where funders are increasingly selective about case quality, structure, and counsel pedigree. For funders and insurers, an independent boutique offering monitoring and asset management — separate from origination — represents the kind of service-provider infrastructure that more mature alternative-asset markets typically develop as they scale.

Inquiries can be directed to Jonathan Sablone at jsablone@sabloneadvisory.com or via www.sabloneadvisory.com.

Commercial

Colorado HB 1421 Targets PE and Non-Attorney Funding of Law Firms in Bipartisan Push

By John Freund |

Colorado lawmakers have introduced HB 1421, a bill that would sharply restrict the ability of state law firms to enter financial or contractual arrangements with alternative business structures (ABS) and any entity in which non-attorneys hold ownership stakes or exert direction over legal practice. The bill is notable both for the reach of its restrictions and for the unusual coalition behind it.

As reported by The Sum and Substance, the legislation is sponsored by Democratic Rep. Javier Mabrey of Denver and Republican House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell of Monument, with active support from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association — typically opposing forces in business-litigation policy debates. The bill was scheduled for its first hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on April 29.

HB 1421 would prohibit Colorado law firms from entering arrangements with ABS-style structures relating to legal services, practicing in professional companies where non-lawyers own interests or direct lawyer judgment, or compensating any party where compensation depends on a percentage of legal fees or case recoveries. The bill would also empower courts to halt offending arrangements, order fee reimbursement to clients, and disgorge ABS profits derived from prohibited activities. The article specifically references Burford Capital's litigation funding presence in framing the bill's broader policy concern with non-lawyer financial stakes in legal outcomes.

The legislation lands at a moment when private equity ownership of legal services is expanding rapidly in jurisdictions that permit it — Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia — and where PE-backed national platforms are increasingly partnering with firms in non-ABS jurisdictions to extend their operating reach. The Colorado bill, if enacted, would cut against that expansion model by restricting how Colorado firms can collaborate with out-of-state, non-attorney-owned platforms.

For the litigation finance community, the bill is a meaningful data point. Although disclosure-based reform has dominated state-level TPLF debate in 2025-26, HB 1421 reflects a parallel and somewhat different policy thrust: not transparency about funding, but structural limits on the ownership and economic relationships that surround legal practice. The convergence of plaintiffs' bar and chamber-of-commerce support behind a single bill is itself rare, and may presage similar coalitions in other non-ABS states facing PE-driven consolidation pressure.

Commercial

Triple-I Tracks the State-Level Wave of Third-Party Litigation Funding Reform

By John Freund |

A new Triple-I research piece outlines the rapidly expanding state-level reform agenda targeting third-party litigation funding, with disclosure mandates, foreign-funder bans, and registration regimes advancing in legislatures across the country as federal action remains slower-moving.

According to Triple-I's Lewis Nibbelin, Georgia led the most consequential 2025 round of reform with legislation requiring litigation financiers to register with the Department of Banking and Finance and prohibiting funder influence over case outcomes — measures that Triple-I links to subsequent auto insurance rate reductions and dividends to Georgia drivers. Louisiana followed with its widely covered Department of Insurance partnership with the NICB and 4WARN to combat TPLF marketing tactics, alongside legislation requiring attorneys to disclose TPLF contracts within 30 days of retainer or funding execution.

Other states are moving in parallel. Mississippi's new law, effective July 1, mandates disclosure of foreign litigation funding to address concerns about exploitation by non-U.S. entities. Utah passed comparable restrictions in March 2026. Michigan's House committee bill — already covered in LFJ — would ban foreign TPLF entirely while requiring disclosure and registration of all funders. Missouri, Tennessee, and Ohio are advancing similar foreign-funding bans, with the Tennessee and Ohio bills already passing their respective state Houses.

The piece references a joint NICB/4WARN study quantifying the scale of the consumer-facing TPLF market: $380 million in online search advertising between June 2024 and June 2025, and 27.8 million clicks to TPLF websites in June 2025 alone. Triple-I cites broader tort cost figures from the Perryman Group and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse — including $35.8 billion in direct annual losses and roughly $600 per U.S. household — to frame the policy stakes.

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple, quoted in the piece, framed the partnership as protecting citizens "from opportunists who manipulate the claims process to fuel excessive litigation, which is a primary driver of our high insurance costs." For commercial litigation funders, the rapid proliferation of state-level disclosure and foreign-funder-ban regimes represents a meaningful compliance overlay — particularly for cross-border deals and structured funding vehicles where investor identity, jurisdiction, and reporting timing now vary materially by state.