Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

By John Freund |
December 16, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There’s been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what’s good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn’t say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift – if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that – and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don’t think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that’s right. What’s interesting is, there hasn’t been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we’re seeing a lot of that. We’re also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We’ve seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we’ve seen those deals – especially the ones that happened before Covid – there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you’re debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we’ve seen a shift away more to – I won’t say single cases – but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We’ve also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We’re seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We’re just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.