Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial

Key Takeaways from the LITFINCON Event

March 21, 2022

Key Takeaways from the LITFINCON Event

LITFINCON’s inaugural conference kicked off last week at the Post Oak Hotel in Houston, Texas, with attendees flying in from all over the globe. Guests had a front-row seat to several thought-provoking conversations about the growing asset class from a variety of industry experts.

The LITFINCON event featured a variety of timely and insightful panel discussions. Below are some key takeaways from the two-day conference:

Day 1 highlighted current trends, the state of the industry, best strategies when seeking litigation finance, and the relationship between corporate legal departments and litigation finance.

The day kicked off with the “Views From The Judiciary On All Things Litigation Finance” panel, which was certainly a crowd favorite. Three distinguished judges shared their insights: The Honorable Charles R. Eskridge, III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas, The Honorable Andrew M. Edison, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and The Honorable Lauren Reeder of the 234th Judicial District, Harris County. They offered their unique views, as only active judges can, on a variety of issues affecting litigators, funders, and plaintiffs.

Day 2 highlighted what investors should know about this asset class, when and how to use a broker when looking for funding, technology trends in the legal field, and expert insights on fund formation. Day 2’s lunch break was something special, as it featured Chief Comedic Officer of Making Lawyers Laugh, LLC Sheng Weng, who most recently was seen touring with Ali Wong and was a featured stand-up on HBO’s “2 Dope Queens” special. Sheng also wrote for the ABC show “Fresh Off the Boat.” He kept guests entertained and roaring with laughter – a unique addition to the conference agenda.

Guests enjoyed rare in-person networking opportunities, and the opportunity to establish new business relationships. The attendee list included industry-leading firms, such as: Omni Bridgeway, Yieldstreet, Liti Capital, Law Finance Group, Polsinelli, Schulte Roth & Zabel, CAC Speciality, Parker Poe, 4 Rivers Legal, Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston, Roche Freedman, Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF), Global Litigation Consultants, D. E. Shaw & Co., Arran Capital, Law Office of Philip A. Reale, Dunning Rievman, and Kerberos Capital Management.

Overall, attendees were delighted by how the event turned out. We received some sparkling reviews, a smattering of which is offered for you here:

“LITFINCON was a very positive experience. The range of speakers and panelists was impressive and a great deal of ground relating to the current trends in the industry was covered. The attendees were a good representation of the main industry players, namely funders, attorneys and advisors/brokers. Texas is still a relatively nascent third-party funding market and there are without doubt some exciting opportunities there, particularly in the energy and IP sectors. Siltstone did a great job in setting this up and I am already looking forward to the 2023 renewal!”

  • Peter Petyt (CEO and Co‑Founder, 4 Rivers)

“It was a pleasure to discuss how corporate legal departments can utilize litigation funding at the inaugural LITFINCON. The diversity of viewpoints and experiences of my distinguished co-panelists really contributed to a candid, free-flowing discussion of what more can be done to acclimate corporate legal departments to the exciting possibilities offered by litigation finance.”

  • Gaston Kroub (Partner, Markman Advisors)

“The litigation finance industry is growing rapidly, which makes networking at events like LITFINCON both important and exciting. We are building something together. It is particularly important that we share best practices and that we find ways to communicate those to stakeholders who may not be knowledgeable about them, such as litigation clients and members of the judiciary. LITFINCON did a great job of convening a diverse group and sharing that information.

I particularly enjoyed the “Crypto” panel, “How Will Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, And Other Technological Innovations Impact Litigation and the Legal Field.” It is nice to attend a conference that offers new information and perspectives.”

  • Lauren Harrison (Vice President/Investment Counselor, Law Finance Group)
According to Siltstone Capital, the organizer of the event, LITFINCON was such a rousing success that the second installation is already being planned.

“Our entire Siltstone Capital team was humbled to host industry leaders at our inaugural LITFINCON. LITFINCON attracted a global array of speakers and attendees to help promote best practices for the growing and still malleable field of legal private credit. Hosting the conference in Houston, Texas also helped advance the legal private credit field to one of the biggest legal markets in the country. We can’t wait to host LITFINCON II in March 2023.”

  • Mani Walia (Managing Director & General Counsel, Siltstone Capital)

“The inaugural LITFINCON was a tremendous success. It received rave reviews. I want to thank all the sponsors, panelists, and attendees, who came in from all over the world – London, Geneva, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Austin. LITFINCON highlighted the growing field of litigation finance and the importance of Texas as a hub that unites all participants in the legal field. Siltstone Capital is excited about continuing the momentum and advancing the litigation finance field by hosting LITFINCON II in March 2023. We expect the event to be two to three times bigger!”

  • Robert Le (Founder & Managing Partner, Siltstone Capital)
We are equally excited for the 2023 version, and look forward to bringing you a recap of that event next year as well!

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.