Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Fortress Pushes Back on Tillis-Hern Tax Proposal Targeting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

In a pointed rebuttal to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Fortress Investment Group President Jack Neumark has challenged claims that litigation funders—particularly those with foreign investors—exploit U.S. tax loopholes to avoid paying capital gains taxes on lawsuit proceeds.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Ending a Tax Break for Lawsuits” supporting a legislative proposal from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would increase taxes on litigation finance returns. In response, The Wall Street Journal published Neumark’s letter, where he firmly stated that Fortress is an American company whose legal asset investments are made by U.S.-based leadership and taxed under standard corporate or ordinary income rules—not as capital gains.

Neumark argued that Fortress-managed funds do not provide any capital gains tax exemption for foreign investors, pushing back against the editorial’s implication that litigation funding primarily benefits non-U.S. entities seeking to exploit the American legal system. He defended litigation finance as a tool for U.S. businesses to more efficiently pursue justified legal claims, reducing costs and allowing for reinvestment in growth and job creation.

Challenging the editorial’s portrayal of funded claims as “dubious,” Neumark highlighted that many have resulted in jury verdicts or settlements amounting to billions. He underscored the legitimacy of the U.S. court system in weeding out meritless suits and ensuring fair compensation for real damages.

Neumark concluded by warning that the Tillis-Hern tax measure would extend well beyond foreign investors, affecting domestic investors such as pension funds and effectively doubling tax rates on companies pursuing litigation—creating a precedent for ideologically motivated tax targeting.

This public defense signals a broader resistance among funders to legislative efforts that blur the lines between tax reform and ideological opposition to litigation finance. As these proposals gain traction, expect more funders to enter the public arena to protect what they view as vital access-to-justice infrastructure.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

LFJ Podcast: Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet

By John Freund |

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1ef7ZhgVw
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Insurers Intensify Offensive Against Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Shields Haptic’s Litigation-Funding Files From Apple

By John Freund |

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.