Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

LF Dealmakers Panel: The Great Debate: Trust and Transparency in Litigation Finance

September 27, 2023

LF Dealmakers Panel: The Great Debate: Trust and Transparency in Litigation Finance

The day’s featured panel included a discussion around ethical challenges and conflicts of interest, impacts on attorney-client relationships, developing a regulatory framework, and balancing the benefits vs. the risks of litigation funding. The panel consisted of Nathan Morris, SVP of Legal Reform Advocacy at the U.S. Chamber of Legal Reform, Charles Schmerler, Head of Litigation Finance at Pretium Partners, Lucian Pera, Partner at Adams and Reese, and Maya Steinitz, Professor of Law at Boston University. The panel was moderated by Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker,Poe, Adams and Bernstein, LLP. This unique panel was structured as a pair of debates (back-to-back), followed by an open forum involving panelists and audience questions. The first debate was centered around the question of ‘what is litigation finance?’ Essentially, what constitutes third-party financing, what are the key components that make up a litigation funder, and how should we define the practice? Some key takeaways from this part of the discussion:
  • Insurance carriers haven’t been classified as third-party funders, but essentially that is what they are doing
  • A secured bank loan to a law firm is not what we talk about when we talk about litigation funding. So, financing a litigator is not necessarily litigation finance. Litigation funders offer financing related to the litigation, making them an interested party in the litigation., in contrast to a disinterested bank
  • Law firms acting on the contingency model can indeed be classified as litigation funders
  • Litigation funding doesn’t even have to be for profit. Famously, Peter Thiel funded Hulk Hogan’s litigation against Gawker, and it is unclear if there was any profit participation on Thiel’s part, though his likely motivation was revenge (or perhaps justice) after Gawker previously outed him as gay
  • Context matters, especially when we consider how we define litigation finance for the purpose of regulation
The question then came: Is a legal defense fund a litigation funder? It files briefs, and somebody must pay to have those briefs filed. So should their donors be identified? This question led to a robust debate between moderator Michael Kelley and Charles Schmerler over whether the Chamber of Commerce should be classified as a litigation funder. After all, the Chamber accepts donations and then uses its capital to file claims—so would donors to the Chamber be considered litigation funders? Schmerler noted that causal litigation is different from commercial litigation—especially from a public policy perspective. So conflating them under the semantic of ‘litigation funding’ isn’t as useful, even if they can each be technically classified as litigation funding. That robust discussion gave way to the second debate, which focused on disclosure, and control and conflicts in litigation finance transactions. Kelley asked Nathan Morris why he supports disclosure in litigation funding matters. Morris feels that the purpose of disclosure is to understand the nature of the involvement of the funder, and such disclosures should be made, just as they are made in the case of insurance. It’s important to gauge a funder’s measure of influence, the structures and contours of their arrangement with the plaintiff, and how that might impact case decision. Maya Steinitz added that disclosure requires a nuanced analysis, in that impact litigation is different from commercial litigation, which is different from class actions. So identifying a clear line for disclosure leads to conflicting views, because people are responding to the idea of disclosure in different scenarios. Steinitz believes in a balancing test—what is in the best interests of the public, considering variables such as the type of litigation and motive of litigation? We shouldn’t draw a general rule on disclosure, but rather have a bespoke response based on several factors. Other panelists disagreed, believing that ‘disclosure is a solution in search of a problem,’ and that ultimately it will serve no benefit, as it is essentially impossible to determine how much control a litigation funder has over a claim, or whether the law firm in question is in dire need of capital and must therefore cede control to the funder. Morris’ position remains that disclosure is necessary, and insists his views are not predicated on the desire to see the industry regulated out of existence, but rather to protect the public interest. The open forum portion led to some interesting discussion points, including:
  • Whether law firms in a funded claim have abdicated their independence to litigation funders
  • How ethics rules regulate litigation funders and funding agreements
  • Whether disclosure of the existence of funding can even identify any control issues in the case
  • The prospect of litigation being funded for purely financial (as opposed to meritorious) reasons
In the end, this was a very unique structure for a panel discussion, which led to a passionate and spirited debate by the panelists, as well as a thorough degree of engagement from the audience.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Institute for Legal Reform Urges EU Clampdown on Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

As debate over third-party litigation funding (TPLF) continues to intensify globally, new pressure is being applied at the European level from business and industry groups calling for tighter oversight. A recent submission from a U.S.-based advocacy organization urges EU policymakers to take coordinated action, framing litigation funding as a growing risk to legal certainty and economic competitiveness across the bloc.

An article from Institute for Legal Reform outlines a formal letter sent to senior EU officials calling for harmonized, EU-wide regulation of third-party litigation funding. The Institute argues that the rapid expansion of TPLF—particularly in collective actions and mass claims—has outpaced existing regulatory frameworks, creating what it characterizes as opportunities for abuse. According to the submission, funders’ economic incentives may distort litigation strategy, encourage speculative claims, and exert undue influence over claimants and counsel.

The letter specifically urges institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament to introduce transparency and disclosure requirements around funding arrangements. The Institute also advocates for safeguards addressing funder control, conflicts of interest, and capital adequacy, suggesting that inconsistent national approaches risk regulatory arbitrage. In its view, the EU’s Representative Actions Directive and broader access-to-justice initiatives should not be allowed to become conduits for what it calls “profit-driven litigation.”

The submission reflects a familiar narrative advanced by business groups in the U.S. and Europe, linking litigation funding to rising litigation costs, forum shopping, and pressure on corporate defendants. While the Institute positions its recommendations as pro-consumer and pro-rule-of-law, the letter has already drawn criticism from funding advocates who argue that TPLF improves access to justice and levels the playing field against well-resourced defendants.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone Capital Reaches Settlement with Former General Counsel

By John Freund |

Litigation funder Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet “Mani” Walia, have reached a settlement resolving a trade secrets lawsuit that had been pending in Texas state court. The agreement brings an end to a dispute that arose after Walia’s departure from the firm, following allegations that he misused confidential information to establish a competing business in the litigation finance space.

As reported in Law 360, Siltstone filed suit in late 2025, claiming that Walia, who had served as general counsel and was closely involved in the company’s internal operations, improperly accessed and retained proprietary materials after leaving the firm. According to the funder, the information at issue included sensitive business strategies and other confidential data central to Siltstone’s competitive position. The lawsuit asserted claims under Texas trade secrets law, along with allegations of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty tied to confidentiality and restrictive covenant provisions.

Walia disputed the allegations as the case moved forward, setting the stage for what appeared to be a hard-fought legal battle between the former employer and its onetime senior executive. However, before the dispute could be fully litigated, the parties opted to reach a negotiated resolution. Following the settlement, Siltstone moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, signaling that the matter has been conclusively resolved and cannot be refiled.

The specific terms of the settlement have not been made public, which is typical in cases involving alleged trade secret misappropriation. While details remain confidential, such resolutions often include mutual releases of claims and provisions aimed at protecting sensitive information going forward.

Commercial People Moves

Burford Capital Makes Strategic Entry into South Korea

By John Freund |

Litigation funder Burford Capital is expanding its footprint in Asia with its first senior hire in South Korea, marking a strategic move into a jurisdiction it sees as increasingly important for complex commercial and arbitration disputes. The firm has appointed Elizabeth J. Shin as Senior Vice President and Head of Korea, with responsibility for leading Burford’s activities in the market and developing relationships with Korean corporates and law firms.

Law.com reports that Shin joins Burford from Lee & Ko, where she was a partner in the firm’s international arbitration and global disputes practice. Her background includes advising on high-value cross-border commercial disputes, intellectual property matters, and arbitration proceedings across a range of industries. Burford has positioned her experience as a key asset as it looks to support Korean companies pursuing claims in international forums and managing the cost and risk of major disputes.

The hire reflects Burford’s view that Korea represents a growing opportunity for legal finance, driven by the country’s sophisticated corporate sector and increasing involvement in international arbitration and complex litigation. By establishing a senior presence on the ground in Seoul, Burford aims to provide local market insight alongside its capital and strategic expertise, while also raising awareness of litigation funding as a tool for dispute management.

Korea has traditionally been a more conservative market for third-party funding compared with jurisdictions such as the US, UK, and Australia, but interest in alternative dispute finance has been gradually increasing. Burford’s move signals confidence that demand will continue to grow, particularly as Korean businesses become more active in global disputes and seek flexible ways to finance large claims.