Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Insights from New Entrants into Litigation Funding

December 20, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Insights from New Entrants into Litigation Funding

On Wednesday, December 15th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event featuring insights from new entrants into litigation funding. A panel featuring Charles Schmerler (CS), Senior Managing Director of Pretium Partners, Zachary Krug (ZK), Director of Signal Capital Partners, and Mark Wells (MW), Co-Founder of Almatura, discussed deal sourcing fundraising and hiring from a new entrant’s perspective.  Below are some key takeaways from the panel discussion, which was moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital: Broadly speaking, how do you view the current investor landscape for fundraising in the jurisdiction in which you’re involved? Also, what sort of goals do LPs have when approaching the litigation finance space, and how should new entrants into the space prepare when speaking to prospective investors? MW: Our first fundraise really was a slow burn between 2008 – 2010 when we closed the first fund. You’ll remember when we arrived in the market then, pretty much everyone was a first time manager. There was very little in the way of seasoned product, or to say nothing of the type fund 2 fund 3 type of opportunities. So the investors who were attracted in those days were the pioneering investors and they really had no choice but to commit themselves to first time managers. I think if we fast forward to 2021, it’s a much more mixed environment. There’s a lot more players. My experience is mainly on the European side, but I understand this is also true on the west side. And a number of the players have now matured and are on fund 3, fund 4, fund 5, so investors are presented with a more complete offering ranging from first time managers all the way through to repeat managers. ZK: In some respects, I think the high returns that are uncorrelated to the market remains, and is even a stronger factor in terms of investor appetite, particularly when you look at a landscape where many asset classes are at historically high valuations and it’s difficult to achieve the kind of multiple style returns that you can potentially achieve in litigation funding. So I think that attraction remains there and is quite strong. I think the difficulty for anyone who’s trying to raise money, there’s certainly a lot of money out there, and interest—but the difficulty is, if you’re a new entrant without a track record, you may be an excellent litigator with a long track record of trial victories, but I think without a track record of successful realizations, it can be difficult. Given the asset class and how it performs, it takes a while to develop a track record that’s worth anything because of the long tail risk in these assets. CS: My advice at first was ‘don’t try to raise a lot of money at the beginning of a global pandemic.’ But once you get past that, I think these are key points. Mark touched on something important in that there’s been a significant change in the way investors are able to approach the asset class from the way it was ten years ago. There’s much more data available right now. It’s not a mature industry yet, but there is empirical data out there. So investors are able to diligence this very carefully and they have a number of choices, there are a lot of players as Mark and Zach said. So I think anyone who is looking to raise capital has to be extremely well prepared. Let’s turn our attention toward deal sourcing. Where are you currently originating deals from, and to the extent that you’re willing and able to respond—what methods have you tried and what have yielded the best and worst results? MW: I think we’d say probably four channels of deal flow, the most important deals are from lawyers, and then the other sources would be claimants coming to us direct typically via advertising, LinkedIn, Google, media mentions, stuff like that. And then brokers and intermediaries; both specialist brokers and some of the ad hoc intermediaries. ZK: Mark hit on the key channels from my perspective. I do think it remains very much a relationship driven business, and in terms of what works and what doesn’t work. There is, I think in terms of the lawyers and even the brokers and intermediaries, and I suppose with the funders as well, an aspect where there’s a fair amount of relationship building, business development, what have you, that’s important to maintain those relationships. Let’s shift into a different topic: Hiring. How do you think about organizational design for your firms in terms of a combination of finance, legal, quants type of expertise. Mark, how do you tackle that, historically? MW: Yeah, that’s interesting how you list the financing and the legal and quantitative skills. I think I’d add one more characteristic which can really cut across all those disciplines—and that’s factual curiosity and factual inspection. In our experience over the years, when we look back and look very long and hard about why we lose cases., often it’s singular one-off factors. Something that we get a few times is that we lost the case because the facts that were eventually found deviated from what we’d assume when we were underwriting the case. I think really probing the facts and thinking about what can fill in any blanks in the claimant’s narrative is a really important part of the picture that needs to apply to everyone involved in underwriting the cases. ZK: It’s an interesting question, one that I’m grappling with as we speak, as a relatively new strategy within what is otherwise a very quantitative and numbers-driven organization. My experience is that most litigation funders are staffed by ex-litigators or have many lawyers on staff. They tend to bring that litigation mindset with them, which obviously is important from an underwriting and diligence perspective. But often when you put a bunch of litigators into a room to discuss a case, we can be very good at identifying the risks of what could go wrong, but less good at being creative about how to structure for those risks or to price for those risks, or be willing to take those risks. So my sense in terms of organization and hiring is—it’ll be more important to find folks who are creative about deal structuring and pricing more than simply smart lawyers. It’s more important to have that commercial acumen. Charles, can you comment about what the market for talent is like at the moment and what’s the general professional background that you’re seeing from some of your hires? CS: This feeds off the discussion you were just having with Mark and Zach. The market is good, there is always opportunity to find smart capable lawyers. We have a lot of analysts and quantitative people at the firm already. So we are less in need of hiring those. But I think you already touched on what is the ongoing debate—which is, where should you focus your energies? Should it be on the analytical side, the financial analytical side, or the legal side? We find that you can hire—but the question is: What’s the best way to go about hiring? So for us, we are looking more for people who are not just creative in structuring, but who understand how to recognize value. And that can mean different things in different contexts. For example, we have a particularly strong patent team. Between our two senior-most people, only one is a lawyer. Both have extensive experience monetizing patents over decades, and they understand how to assess the value of a portfolio in ways that most other people cannot.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

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.