Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from the 6th Annual LF Dealmakers Conference

October 5, 2023

Highlights from the 6th Annual LF Dealmakers Conference

From September 26th-28th, LF Dealmakers hosted its sixth annual event in New York City. The three-day conference kicked off with a workshop on navigating the Mass Torts landscape, and an opening reception at the James Hotel. Days two and three featured panel discussions and networking opportunities between key stakeholders in the litigation finance space. Wendy Chou, founder of LF Dealmakers, was extremely pleased with the outcome of the event: “For six consecutive years, LF Dealmakers has sold out, a testament to the growing interest and importance of litigation finance in today’s legal landscape. We are immensely proud to have created a platform where the best minds in the litigation finance and legal sectors can come together for powerful connections and productive discussions.” Day two began with a pair of panels on the overall state of the industry and an insider’s approach to getting the best deal. The latter included a panel of experts, including Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner of Fabricant LLP, Molly Pease, Managing Director of Curiam Capital, and Boris Ziser, Partner at Schulte Roth and Zabel. The discussion revolved around the following topics:
  • Getting up to speed on funding & insurance products
  • How to fast track diligence and deal with exclusivity
  • Negotiating key terms and spotting red flags
  • Benchmarking numbers & making the waterfall work for you
One interesting point arose on the issue of judgement preservation in the IP space, where Fred Fabricant explained that he hasn’t seen a lot of insurance products in the pre-judgement section. “There are too many uncertainties, and it is very hard to assess the risk in this phase of the case.”  Fabricant is looking forward to insurance products in this phase. “In post-judgement, much easier for insurance to assess the risk, because you’ve eliminated lots of uncertainties.” Click here for the full recap of this panel discussion. The featured panel of Day 2 was titled: “The Great Debate: Trust and Transparency in Litigation Finance.” 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, and Maya Steinitz, Professor of Law at Boston University. The panel was moderated by Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker Poe. This unique panel was structured as a pair of debates (back-to-back), followed by an open forum involving panelists and audience questions. On the topic of ‘what is a litigation funder?’ what perhaps seems like an obvious question sparked a passionate back-and-forth between moderator Michael Kelley and Charles Schmerler over whether entities such as legal defense funds and the Chamber of Commerce should technically be classified as litigation funders. After all, the Chamber accepts donations and then uses its capital to file claims—so would donors to the Chamber be considered litigation funders? One interesting point came from Schmerler, who 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. Click here for a full recap of this panel discussion. Day three offered four panels and three roundtable discussions, followed by a closing reception. One panel focused on opportunities in Mass Torts and ABS, and consisted of Jacob Malherbe, CEO of X Social Media, Sara Papantonio, Partner at Levin Papantonio Rafferty, and Ryan Stephen, Managing Partner of Pine Valley Capital Partners. The panel was moderated by Steve Nober, CEO of Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (CAMG). The wide-ranging discussion covered the following topics:
  • Who’s doing what in mass torts? How about funding?
  • How funders are evaluating and working with firms
  • Examples of the ABS framework in action & challenges
  • Pre- and post-settlement funding and time to disbursement
One key point for funders to consider, is that as more funders enter the mass torts space, they need to be cognizant of ethical considerations around marketing, PR, claimant communications—all aspects of a case that are unique to class actions and mass torts. Congress is now taking a look at how law firms market to prospective claimants, and should any lawsuits arise, funders will no doubt be corralled into the mix. Given that, it is critical for funders to mitigate the inherent risks by asking more questions at the outset of case diligence: What kind of advertising is being used, where are the clients coming from, how do I know that the clients are real (ad tracking)?  Funders need to be proactive about managing risk, rather than getting caught on the wrong side of a PR headache. Click here for a full recap of this panel discussion. Additional panel discussions covered topics such as successful models of cost and risk sharing, managing IP risk, and a CIO roundtable featuring investors in the space. In addition to the knowledge-sharing, attendees were able to network with founders, CEOs, C-suite officers, thought leaders and other key stakeholders in the litigation finance space. All of which makes the LF Dealmakers event the ongoing success that it is. Founder Wendy Chou spoke to the core ethos of the event: “At Dealmakers, we believe that connections and conversations are the keys to progress. At this year’s LF Dealmakers Forum, we were honored to host a number of critical conversations, including a thought-provoking debate on trust and transparency. It was a historic moment as we welcomed a representative from the US Chamber of Commerce to our stage, marking their first-ever appearance at a litigation finance industry event. It speaks to our commitment to open dialogue and advancing important discussions within our community.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.