Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
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 Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

Commercial

UK Government Signals Funding Crackdown in Claims Sector Reform

By John Freund |

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.