Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Deals Special Features

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

September 29, 2021

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities. The initial panel discussion was titled “State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook.” The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:
  • Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
  • Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
  • Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
  • Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital
The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in: Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before. Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential. Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before. The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table. In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here. At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims. The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here. Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow. The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on “How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey,” featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs. Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value. MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services. All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Labour MP Comes Out Swinging Against Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

Litigation funding has become a fixture in modern civil justice systems, designed to open the courts to claimants who lack the means to pursue meritorious claims. But a recent opinion piece by Labour MP Oliver Ryan argues that in the UK, the industry is increasingly drifting from that core purpose and instead serving the financial interests of investors and funders at the expense of real victims.

An article in City A.M. states that while third-party litigation funding has a legitimate role in enabling access to justice, market incentives are now skewing the system. Ryan highlights examples including the UK government’s move to “protect litigation funding” and reverse the Paccar ruling—a Supreme Court decision that had cast doubt on traditional fee structures—arguing that policy solutions must reflect how the market actually operates on the ground, not just how policymakers hope it will.

Ryan points to the handling of the Post Office scandal as a stark case in point. Despite grievous harms suffered by sub-postmasters, he notes that approximately 80 percent of damages paid eventually flowed to funders and lawyers rather than victims—an outcome he says “cannot be right.” He also cites the collapse of a cavity insulation claim and management upheavals in a multi-billion-pound class action against BHP as examples of how funder-centric incentives can undermine claimant outcomes and system integrity.

Rather than calling for an end to litigation funding, Ryan urges reforms centered on capping excessive funder returns, enforcing capital adequacy protections for claimants, tightening marketing oversight, and rebalancing incentives so victims—not investors—are the primary beneficiaries of successful claims.

Case Developments Commercial

Private Investors Eye Profits in L.A. County Sex Abuse Settlements

An investigation reveals that private investors are positioning themselves to profit from the enormous pool of money flowing from Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse litigation. The county has already agreed to spend nearly $5 billion this year resolving thousands of claims related to alleged sexual abuse in its juvenile detention and foster care systems, including a $4 billion settlement—the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

An article in the Los Angeles Times explains that proponents of this investor involvement argue such financing gives plaintiffs’ attorneys the capital they need to take on deep-pocketed defendants and helps victims who lack resources access justice. Records reviewed by the Times show that several law firms bringing these claims receive financial backing from private investors, often through opaque out-of-state entities and Delaware-based companies.

Backers contend the arrangement can level the legal playing field and expedite case filings and settlements. However, public officials and critics express alarm over the lack of transparency surrounding these investments and the possibility that significant portions of settlement money intended for survivors could instead flow to private financiers. Some county supervisors reported being contacted by investors asking about the potential profitability of the sex abuse suits, raising ethical concerns about treating human trauma as an “evergreen” revenue stream.

The backdrop to this investor interest is a surge in litigation following changes in California law that revived long-dormant abuse claims and spurred widespread advertising by plaintiff firms seeking new clients. Government scrutiny has heightened amid reports of questionable recruitment practices and potential fraud in some claims, and the county’s district attorney has launched an investigation into parts of the settlement process.