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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

A Framework for Measuring Tech ROI in Litigation Finance

This article was contributed by Ankita Mehta, Founder, Lexity.ai - a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

How do litigation funders truly quantify the return on investment from adopting new technologies? It’s the defining question for any CEO, CTO or internal champion. The potential is compelling: for context, according to litigation funders using Lexity’s AI-powered workflows, ROI figures of up to 285% have been reported.

The challenge is that the cost of doing nothing is invisible. Manual processes, analyst burnout, and missed deals rarely appear on a balance sheet — but they quietly erode yield every quarter.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. This article introduces a pragmatic framework for quantifying the true value of adopting technology solutions, replacing ‘low-value’ manual tasks and processes with AI and freeing up human capital to focus on ‘high-value’ activities that drive bottom line results  .

A Pragmatic Framework for Measuring AI ROI

A proper ROI calculation goes beyond simple time savings. It captures two distinct categories:

  1. Direct Cost Savings – what you save
  2. Increased Value Generation – what you gain

The ‘Cost’ Side (What You Save)

This is the most straightforward calculation, focused on eliminating “grunt work” and mitigating errors.

Metric 1: Direct Time Savings — Eliminating Manual Bottlenecks 

Start by auditing a single, high-cost bottleneck. For many funds, this is the Preliminary Case Assessment, a process that often takes two to three days of an expert analyst's time.

The calculation here is straightforward. By multiplying the hours saved per case by the analyst's blended cost and the number of cases reviewed, a fund can reveal a significant hard-dollar saving each month.

Consider a fund reviewing 20 cases per month. If a 2-day manual assessment can be cut to 4 hours using an AI-powered workflow, the fund reallocates hundreds of analyst-hours every month. That time is now moved from low-value data entry to high-value judgment and risk analysis.

Metric 2: Cost of Inconsistent Risk — Reducing Subjectivity 

This metric is more complex but just as critical. How much time is spent fixing inconsistent or error-prone reviews? More importantly, what is the financial impact of a bad deal slipping through screening, or a good deal being rejected because of a rushed, subjective review?

Lexity’s workflows standardise evaluation criteria and accelerate document/data extraction, converting subjective evaluations into consistent, auditable outputs. This reduces rework costs and helps mitigate hidden costs of human error in portfolio selection.

The ‘Benefit’ Side (What You Gain)

This is where the true strategic upside lies. It’s not just about saving time—it’s about reinvesting that time into higher-value activities that grow the fund.

Metric 3: Increased Deal Capacity — Scaling Without Headcount Growth

What if your team could analyze more deals with the same staff? Time saved from automation becomes time reallocated to new higher value opportunities, dramatically increasing the value of human contributions.

One of the funds working with Lexity have reported a 2x to 3x increase in deal review capacity without a corresponding increase in overhead. 

Metric 4: Cost of Capital Drag — Reducing Duration Risk 

Every month a case extends beyond its expected closing, that capital is locked up. It is "dead" capital that could have been redeployed into new, IRR-generating opportunities.

By reducing evaluation bottlenecks and creating more accurate baseline timelines from inception, a disciplined workflow accelerates the entire pipeline. 

This figure can be quantified by considering the amount of capital locked up, the fund's cost of capital, and the length of the delay. This conceptual model turns a vague risk ("duration risk") into a hard number that a fund can actively manage and reduce.

An ROI Model Is Useless Without Adoption

Even the most elegant ROI model is meaningless if the team won't use the solution. This is how expensive technology becomes "shelf-ware."

Successful adoption is not about the technology; it's about the process. It starts by:

  1. Establish Clear Goals and Identify Key Stakeholders: Set measurable goals and a baseline. Identify stakeholders, especially the teams performing the manual tasks- they will be the first to validate efficiency gains.
  2. Targeting "Grunt Work," Not "Judgment": Ask “What repetitive task steals time from real analysis?” The goal is to augment your experts, not replace them.
  3. Starting with One Problem: Don't try to "implement AI." Solve one high-value bottleneck, like Preliminary Case Assessment. Prove the value, then expand. 
  4. Focusing on Process Fit: The right technology enhances your workflow; it doesn’t complicate it.

Conclusion: From Calculation to Confidence

A high ROI isn't a vague projection; it’s what happens when a disciplined process meets intelligent automation.

By starting to measure what truly matters—reallocated hours, deal capacity, and capital drag—fund managers can turn ROI from a spreadsheet abstraction into a tangible, strategic advantage.

By Ankita Mehta Founder, Lexity.ai — a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital’s $35 M Antitrust Funding Claim Deemed Unsecured

By John Freund |

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

Commercial

Manolete Partners PLC Posts Flat H1 as UK Insolvency Funding Opportunity Grows

By John Freund |

The UK‑listed litigation funder Manolete Partners PLC has released its interim financial results for the half‑year ended 30 September 2025, revealing a stable but subdued performance amid an expanding insolvency funding opportunity.

According to the company announcement, total revenue fell to £12.7 million (down 12 % from £14.4 million a year earlier), while realised revenue slipped to £14.0 million (down 7 % from £15.0 million). Operating profit dropped sharply to £0.1 million, compared to £0.7 million in the prior period—though excluding fair value write‑downs tied to the company’s truck‑cartel portfolio, underlying profit stood at £2.0 million.

The business completed 146 cases during the period (up 7 % year‑on‑year) and signed 146 new case investments (up nearly 16 %). Live cases rose to 446 from 413 a year earlier, and the total estimated settlement value of new cases signed in the period was claimed to be 31 % ahead of the prior year. Cash receipts were flat at about £14.5 million, while net debt improved to £10.8 million (down from £11.9 million). The company’s cash balance nearly doubled to £1.1 million.

In its commentary, Manolete emphasises the buoyant UK insolvency backdrop — particularly the rise of Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations and HMRC‑driven petitions — as a tailwind for growth. However, the board notes the first half was impacted by a lower‑than‑average settlement value and a “quiet summer”, though trading picked up in September and October. The firm remains confident of stronger average settlement values and a weighting of realised revenues toward the second half of the year.