Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Andi Mandell, Partner and Co-Head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group

By John Freund |
October 9, 2024

Community Spotlight: Andi Mandell, Partner and Co-Head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group

Andi Mandell is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group, where she advises on the tax aspects relating to structured finance, securitization and fund formation. Her practice is focused on esoteric assets, including litigation funding, structured settlements, lottery receivables, secured and unsecured consumer loans and timeshare loans.

Andi has over 30 years of experience providing skilled tax advice to the securitization industry. In addition to her work in the esoteric space, Andi is recognized as an authority in the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and real estate structured finance, including the structuring of REO-to-rental financings, servicer advance facilities, debt re-packaging, securitization of non-performing and re-performing mortgage loans, re-securitizations, distressed asset funds and MSR purchases and sales.

Andi works with other industry leaders who are shaping the securitization industry as a member of the Board of Directors of the Structured Finance Association (SFA), and is serving her fifth year as the co-chair of the Tax Policy Committee.

Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.    

Company Website: https://www.srz.com/

Year Founded: 1969  

Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.  

Area of Focus: Tax, Finance, Structured Finance  

Member Quote: “Navigating the intricacies of litigation funding requires a deep understanding of both the financial and the legal landscape. As a tax lawyer, my role is to ensure that funding arrangements are properly structured to allow a broad range of investors to participate as funders in this asset class in a tax efficient manner. Litigation funding presents unique tax challenges to non-US investors and tax exempts and having the tax expertise to help guide our clients allows for greater participation in this space.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It

A new research brief from litigation finance and insurance provider Certum Group finds that corporate legal departments are broadly aware of litigation risk transfer products but almost never use them, a gap the firm describes as "the next frontier in corporate litigation strategy."

According to the brief published by Certum Group, which surveyed 44 General Counsel and in-house litigation attorneys, roughly 70% of respondents are familiar with litigation funding but have never used it, while only about 6% have. The brief was authored by Kevin Skrzysowski, a Director at Certum Group, whose litigation funding team also includes Director William Marra, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk.

The survey characterises in-house litigation risk as operational rather than existential. Employment and intellectual property disputes drew the highest concern levels, while roughly two-thirds of respondents reported no concern at all about antitrust or mass tort exposure. Decision-making was consistent across defensive and affirmative matters, with likelihood of success (~84%) and cost to pursue (~74%) the most frequently cited factors.

On affirmative claims, respondents said they would be more likely to proceed if cost and risk could be shifted to an insurer (~62%), a contingent-fee firm (~49%) or through claim monetisation (~46%). A litigation funder ranked lowest at ~28%. Looking forward, however, roughly 51% said they would consider litigation funding, ahead of capital protection insurance (~43%) and claim monetisation (~41%), with about 30% ruling out all such products.

Cost certainty (~51%) and budget constraints (~46%) were the leading drivers of interest. Among the small group that has used litigation funding, two-thirds reported satisfaction with the decision.

Commercial

UPC Orders €200,000 Security After Finding Patent Claimant Had Pledged Its Assets to a Funder

The Unified Patent Court has ordered a newly formed patent claimant to post €200,000 in security for costs after concluding that the entity was economically assetless because its patents, licences and future income had all been pledged to its litigation funder.

As reported by Mishcon de Reya, the Hamburg Local Division reached that finding in *Nixu v Infoblox* (UPC_CFI_360/2026). Nixu, a US-domiciled claimant, was incorporated in March 2025 and acquired the patent in suit weeks later. The court declined to treat US domicile as a ground for security in itself, holding that "a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs" and noting that US courts recognise European judgments.

What did justify security was the claimant's financial structure. Under a Patent Security Agreement, all patents, licences and future income were pledged to the funder, and part of the purchase price remained unpaid. The court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on discretionary support from its funder.

The same update reports a second security decision. In *La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques* (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal upheld a €75,000 order against an SME claimant, confirming that "a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs." The court distinguished fee reductions and cost ceilings available to SMEs from the security regime under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, which contains no SME carve-out. Security was set at roughly 60% of the applicable €112,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

Together the decisions suggest the UPC will look through corporate form to the funding arrangement itself when assessing whether a claimant can meet an adverse costs award.

Commercial

Demotech Urges Insurers to Break Out Litigated Claims, Citing Funded Claim Generation

Insurance rating agency Demotech has called for a structural change to the way property and casualty insurers report loss costs, arguing that the current composite format masks the effect of technology-driven claim generation that is sometimes financed by third-party litigation funders.

As reported by PR Newswire, Joseph L. Petrelli, president and co-founder of Demotech, said the firm's 2022 review of failed carriers pointed to litigation as the decisive factor. "In 2022, our postmortem of failed carriers identified new, annual litigation as the proximate cause of what destroyed them," Petrelli said.

The argument turns on an assumption built into loss cost reporting decades ago. Petrelli noted that until the mid-1980s advisory organisations published rates and premiums for insurers to adopt or deviate from, and that "an implicit assumption underlying the original loss cost format was that an equilibrium existed in the relative claim frequency between claims reported and settled with policyholders, and claims litigated and negotiated with plaintiff firms."

Demotech's position is that the equilibrium no longer holds. Its research concluded that industrial-scale increases in litigated claims were achieved through technology, online marketing and advertising, "sometimes financed through third-party litigation funding." Petrelli also pointed to alternative business structures, managed services organisations and what he described as other mutations in the legal profession that "may circumvent the disclosure of third-party litigation funding."

The proposed remedy is to trifurcate loss cost data, disaggregating a single composite figure into claims closed without payment, litigated claims and non-litigated claims, each weighted by its own frequency. Demotech contends that the added granularity would allow insurers and regulators to price the litigated portion of a book directly rather than absorbing it into a blended average.