Trending Now
Commercial Deals

JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace Launches Phase 1 Rollout with over $70 Million in Litigation Funding Opportunities

By Harry Moran |
March 19, 2025

JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace Launches Phase 1 Rollout with over $70 Million in Litigation Funding Opportunities

The JurisTrade Platform soft-launched last week with over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities in single cases, funding mass tort dockets and law firm refinancing.

The JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace (“JurisTrade’) provides a transparent electronic platform which facilitates both primary funding opportunities in litigation finance, as well secondary sales of such interests.

The potential market for litigation finance ranges in the several $100s billions, of which only $30 billion is currently funded. JurisTrade is designed to unlock this large unmet demand through its liquid and transparent marketplace.

The litigation finance ecosystem has been clamoring for years for this type of market solution. Similarly to many other major asset classes, JurisTrade was built on a foundation of industry standardization, transparency and process streamlining, which eliminates uncertainty and, thus, attracts liquidity for litigation finance, a bona fide uncorrelated asset class.

Clients of JurisTrade include institutions, law firms, litigation finance funds, and family offices.

JurisTrade’s Phase I rollout includes nine diverse investment opportunities including a high-profile single case, a judgment monetization case, a law firm debt refinancing case, and several mass action-related cases. An OTC service desk is being offered to assist our clients in negotiating terms and structuring all manners of trades and vehicles, among other things. Other market features, technology, and analytics will be offered soon.

Typhon Capital Management, Larry Hite, and two notable family offices are sponsors of JurisTrade, and JurisTrade will be leveraging their collective expertise and experience. Typhon, in particular, provides trading operations on JurisTrade. Clients can use JurisTrade to directly engage in claims trading, such as bankruptcy and mass tort, then leverage Typhon to invest in or create custom passive funds holding any manner of litigation interests or loans, and actively managed funds, such as thematic claim trading, market making, or activist litigations. Typhon can also structure insurance wrappers around litigation-focused investments.

The senior management team of JurisTrade includes James Koutoulas as CEO, Kevin J.P. O’Hara as Chairman, Shawn Hartpence as Chief Commercial Officer, and Andrew Barroway and Larry Hite as strategic limited partners.

“Mr. Koutoulas is a seasoned hedge fund manager and attorney with a unique skillset encompassing derivatives-trading, complex bankruptcy and class action litigation, and software development making him the perfect CEO to bring the emerging asset class of litigation assets to a wider audience. He and I share similar philosophies on structuring vehicles with asymmetric, positively-skewed, and uncorrelated return profiles which will be much appreciated in the litigation investing world,” said Larry Hite, Founder of Hite Capital.

“Similarly, Mr. O’Hara’s previous C-suite roles at NYSE, CBOT, Archipelago and Gulf Finance House, and as an attorney at the SEC and his financial markets development in Eastern Europe, provide JurisTrade with one of the most accomplished exchange experts to steer our growth.”

“Larry Hite is a pioneer of two assets classes – commodity trading and litigation assets. Larry is an original ‘Market Wizard’ and we are humbled to have him as a founding partner and advisor to JurisTrade,” said James Koutoulas, CEO of JurisTrade.

Please sign up to view our initial inventory and be kept up to date at www.juristrade.com.

About Larry Hite:

Larry Hite is a legendary commodities trader and one of the founders of systematic trading. Mr. Hite founded Mint Capital, which was the largest CTA in the world by AUM in 1990. He has since been an active investor in litigation assets where he has invested in thousands of cases.

About Typhon Capital Management:

Typhon Capital Management, led by CEO James Koutoulas, is a multi-strategy hedge fund and platform specializing in tactical futures, quantitative, and cryptocurrency trading. Typhon creates custom portfolios and structured products for institutional investors and wealth management firms and is headquartered in Miami Beach. Mr. Koutoulas also was lead customer counsel in the MF Global bankruptcy, leading the recovery of all $6.7 billion in customer assets.

About Kevin J.P. O’Hara:

Kevin J. P. O’Hara has a decades-long career in business, law and regulation, entrepreneurship, technology, international, investing, and post-graduate teaching. Mr. O’Hara is an active angel investor with several successful exits, including sales to LinkedIn, PayPal, and IQVIA. He has a plethora of private and public company board and governance experience.

He was previously: (1) a C-suite member at CBOT, NYSE, Archipelago, and Gulf Finance House (Bahrain); (2) an attorney at the SEC, DOJ, and a major Chicago law firm (products liability and mass tort defense)(3) a law and business school lecturer at Northwestern University and Loyola University; and (4) an in-county financial and economic advisor in Eastern Europe in 1990s.

About Shawn Hartpence:

Shawn Hartpence has over a decade of experience advising law firms, litigation fund managers and institutional investors on capital formation and litigation investment. Areas of expertise include mass tort portfolio funding, secondary mass tort portfolio trading, single-case funding, portfolio funding, single-case monetization, and capital introduction for niche litigation strategies. Mr. Hartpence is a partner at Ocasio Mass Tort Law, a DC Law Firm and a Board Member of a cutting-edge AI Litigation assessment company.

About Andrew Barroway:

Andrew Barroway is a distinguished litigator and hedge fund manager with a proven track record of success in the investment world. He previously built Barroway, Topaz, Kessler, Meltzer, & Check, LLP, the second largest securities class action firm in the country, and helped lead the $3.2 billion settlement of Tyco Ltd. International. At Merion Investment Management, Mr. Barroway invented the appraisal rights arbitrage trade where he managed $1.2B in the near-riskless strategy, annualizing 13.25% net for 12 years. Mr. Barroway is a strategic limited partner in JurisTrade and the senior portfolio manager of our upcoming Cerus Litigation Fund.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.