Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
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!
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.