Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Day Two Recap of the LF Dealmakers Conference

October 1, 2021

Day Two Recap of the LF Dealmakers Conference

Day two of of the two-day event saw a trio of panels that covered topics such as investment strategy and risk management, the interplay between fund types, and litigation finance as a tool for ESG. The first panel of the day was titles “CIO Roundtable: Focus on Investment Strategy & Risk Management,” and was moderated by Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken. Panelists included:
  • Patrick Dempsey, Chief Investment Officer, US, Therium Capital
  • Sarah Johnson, Co-Head Litigation Finance, The D. E. Shaw Group
  • Aaron Katz, Chief Investment Officer, Parabellum Capital
  • David Kerstein, Chief Risk Officer & Senior Investment Manager, Validity Finance
The conversation began with the rise of business interruption claims. Patrick Dempsey of Therium hasn’t seen much in the way of business interruption claims that have been successful yet.  There was an initial interest in this case type, but then a lot of negative decisions came out of federal courts, and so interest waned. That said, you can build a portfolio of these claims and hedge your risk going forward. Aaron Katz of Parabellum noted how his firm hasn’t been active in the business interruption space, though the pace of all other claim types is picking up, with interesting new product areas being developed, including credit-like structures, different stages of cases being presented, lower risk investment types, and even partial recourse feature investment. Sarah Johnson of D.E. Shaw commented on the emergence of new entrants into the litigation funding space. Competition does affect pricing, and this has more of an impact in creative structuring—with new tranches of risk being created. David Kerstein of Validity jumped in to parse this out. He has seen more competition in pricing in larger size deals, however not so much in the more modestly-sized deals. There is still competition there, as claimants are approaching a lot of funders, just not as much price pressure in these types of claims. The conversation then turned to bankruptcy. This was a very quick distressed cycle—given that there was a lot of sophisticated money chasing these deals, there wasn’t as much of a need for litigation funding. However, we may soon begin to see bankruptcies driven by litigation, which could prompt claimants to approach funders for partnership or monetization. And smaller cases might be a place for funders, given that these bankruptcy claims are typically underfunded. As David Kerstein of Validity noted, “When there are bankruptcies that are based on litigation assets or issues, litigation funders are well placed to come in and provide value.” And on the issue of insurance, Aaron Katz noted that judgments are being protected with insurance, products are out there to preserve capital or even back some of the profit in a deal. That said, Parabellum hasn’t seen it as part of the bread and butter of their work. Yet Katz feels it’s only a matter of time before insurance permeates the space, but we’re not there yet. Patrick Dempsey chimed in on his experience with insurance in UK-based claims. Adverse costs insurance is inherent in the jurisdiction there, and so insurance on a portfolio basis was being considered very early on. That was ultimately deemed unnecessary, but that discussion is starting to return, and will likely come back in full force. Therium only uses insurance for judgment protection in the U.S. On the issue of regrets, Sarah Johnson noted how she wishes she had been more aggressive at the outset—doing more deals, and being less price sensitive. Having worked previously in distressed investments, she was used to price sensitivity being an issue, but she found that the industry grew a lot faster and provided much better returns than perhaps even she expected. This speaks well to the industry’s continued growth potential. Later in the day, a pair of panels tackled topics such as fund types, deal structures and costs of capital, as well as ESG and impact investing. One interesting takeaway from the former discussion came from Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Finance Group at Stifel. Lieber commented on the large commercial bank syndication model that her firm is structured with. What Stifel does is essentially a merchant banking model—they use their own balance sheet and originate their own transactions. When they approach a partner, whether that is a litigation funder, insurance company, private equity or multi-strategy firm, they choose their partner based on the return profile. And they can syndicate their partnerships within a larger deal construct. Stifel generally operates in the $50MM+ range, and can take on multiple co-investors with various tranches. So Stifel operates in cooperation with many other in the space, in a syndicated investment model. Stifel’s very presence in the market is emblematic of how prominent the funding industry has grown, and how much it has matured over the past few years. Doubtless there will be further maturation ahead, and likely more funding entities which enact a similar merchant banking model. As Tets Ishikawa Managing Director of LionFish noted (on the same panel discussion): “When the market started in the last 15-20 years, it really started as a litigation funding industry—as one single entity. But I believe this market will become like the commercial real estate market. There are many different types of real estate, just as there are many different types of litigation, so in the end there will be many different types of litigation finance investors.”
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Daily Caller Slams Third Party Funding as Funders Face Mounting Media Attacks

By John Freund |

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.

Commercial

Global Litigation Funding Thrives, Yet Regulation Still Looms

By John Freund |

The global litigation funding market is experiencing strong growth, yet lingering regulatory uncertainties continue to shadow its trajectory. According to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, the market was valued at approximately US $17.5 billion (AUD $26.9 billion) in March 2025 and is projected to surge to US $67.2 billion (AUD $103 billion) by 2037.

An article in LSJ states that major drivers of this expansion include rising legal costs, complex cross-border commercial litigation, and increased demand from small and mid-sized law firms seeking external funding to build out specialist teams. While funders embrace the growth opportunity, critics raise concerns around transparency, claimant autonomy, and potential conflicts of interest.

In Australia, a notable development occurred on 6 August 2025 when the High Court of Australia in Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd clarified that federal courts may make common fund or funding equalisation orders for the benefit of third-party funders (but not for solicitors) in class actions—except in Victoria, which still allows contingency fees. This decision is seen as a win for litigation funders, providing greater clarity across most Australian jurisdictions. Australia also saw regulatory reform in December 2022 when the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations came into force, exempting litigation funding schemes from the MIS/AFSL regime under specific conditions and emphasising the mitigation of conflicts of interest as a compliance feature.

On the regulatory front, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is considering extending relief instruments that exempt certain litigation funding arrangements from the National Credit Code and financial services licensing until March 2030. Meanwhile in the UK, the proposed Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 seeks to remove the classification of third-party funding agreements as “damages-based agreements” under the Courts & Legal Services Act – a move which proponents say will enable greater access to justice and clear the path for global funders.

Announcements Commercial Deals

Apex Group Ltd Selected to Support Seven Stars Legal Group Ltd’s Pioneering Tokenised Litigation Fund in Dubai

By John Freund |

Apex Group Ltd (“Apex Group”), one of the world's largest fund administration and solutions providers, today announced it has been selected to provide fund administration and digital asset infrastructure for the anticipated Seven Stars Legal Group Ltd (“Seven Stars”) Tokenised Litigation Fund, a pioneering investment vehicle that will combine institutional-grade litigation finance with blockchain technology.

The proposed fund, targeting GBP 50-250 million in commitments with an anticipated first close of GBP 50 million by March 31, 2026, represents a significant innovation in alternative investments. Once launched, the tokenised structure is expected to reduce traditional investment minimums from GBP 1 million to GBP 50,000, making institutional-quality litigation finance accessible to a broader range of qualified investors.

Subject to regulatory approvals and successful fund structuring, Apex Group is positioned to provide comprehensive fund administration services, while its digital asset platform, Apex Digital 3.0 (including Tokeny), would handle the token issuance and management infrastructure. This dual capability positions Apex Group as the sole provider managing both traditional fund administration and digital asset components under one unified platform.

Upon launch, Seven Stars will act as Investment Manager responsible for portfolio selection and management.

“Our selection to support Seven Stars' innovative fund structure exemplifies our commitment to bridging traditional finance with digital innovation,” said Agnes Mazurek, Global Head of Digital Assets at Apex Group. “By providing both conventional fund administration and tokenisation infrastructure, we're positioned to help fund managers unlock new distribution channels and operational efficiencies while maintaining institutional-grade governance and compliance standards.”

Offering up to a capped 16% annual return backed by diversified UK litigation portfolios, Seven Stars brings significant experience to the venture, having already deployed over GBP 44 million in UK litigation finance and funded more than 56,000 legal claims with a proven track record of performance, together with a team which includes leading Silk, Louis Doyle KC, who sits on the board and Advisory Committee at Seven Stars.

“Apex Group's expertise in both traditional fund administration and digital assets makes them the ideal partner for this groundbreaking initiative,” said Leon Clarance, Chief Strategy Officer at Seven Stars. "Their infrastructure will enable us to deliver the operational efficiency gains of tokenisation while maintaining the rigorous compliance and reporting standards our institutional investors expect.”

Mazurek added: “We are pleased to be supporting Seven Stars in this groundbreaking project. Our mission at Apex Group is to help clients bridge the TradFi and DeFi universes and this project perfectly represents this connectivity.”

Planned Partnership Capabilities

The anticipated partnership would leverage several key Apex Group capabilities:

  • Fund Administration: NAV calculation, investor services, and regulatory reporting 
  • Digital Asset Infrastructure: Token issuance, custody, and lifecycle management via Apex Digital 3.0
  • Regulatory Compliance: Full regulatory oversight and compliance monitoring 
  • Investor Onboarding: Streamlined KYC/AML processes for both traditional and digital investors

The proposed tokenised structure would enable secondary trading after a 6-month lock-in period, providing liquidity options traditionally unavailable in litigation finance funds. Smart contract automation is projected to reduce administrative costs by up to 90%, with anticipated savings passed through to investors.

This announcement follows Apex Group's recent expansion of its digital asset capabilities in the DIFC, positioning the firm as a leader in supporting the convergence of traditional finance and blockchain technology in the Middle East's premier financial hub.

About Apex Group

Apex Group is dedicated to driving positive change in financial services while supporting the growth and ambitions of asset managers, allocators, financial institutions, and family offices. Established in Bermuda in 2003, the Group has continually disrupted the industry through its investment in innovation and talent.

Today, Apex Group sets the pace in fund and asset servicing and stands out for its unique single-source solution and unified cross asset-class platform which supports the entire value chain, harnesses leading innovative technology, and benefits from cross-jurisdictional expertise delivered by a long-standing management team and over 13,000 highly integrated professionals.   

Apex Group leads the industry with a broad and unmatched range of services, including capital raising, business and corporate management, fund and investor administration, portfolio and investment administration, ESG, capital markets and transactions support. These services are tailored to each client and are delivered both at the Group level and via specialist subsidiary brands.

The Apex Foundation, a not-for-profit entity, is the Group’s passionate commitment to empower sustainable change. 

About Seven Stars Legal

Seven Stars Legal is a specialist litigation finance provider focused on high-volume, precedent-based UK consumer claims. Founded by a team with over GBP 380 million in litigation finance experience, the company provides institutional investors with access to uncorrelated, asset-backed returns through secured lending to regulated UK law firms. Seven Stars has funded over 56,000 claims since 2022, maintaining a zero-default track record through its multi-layered security framework and AI-enhanced due diligence processes