Trending Now
Commercial Deals

A Recap of the Opening Panel at LF Dealmakers

September 28, 2022

A Recap of the Opening Panel at LF Dealmakers

Day 1 of the LF Dealmakers conference has begun. The opening panel saw Ted Farrell, founder of Litigation Funding Advisors, moderate a wide-ranging discussion on the state of legal finance. Panelists included James Bedell, Associate Director of Legal Finance at Yieldstreet, Cindy Chen Delano, Partner at Invictus Global Management, Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director of Aon, and Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Longford Capital. The discussion began with the evolution of the sector as a maturing asset class, away from discussions between ‘smart lawyers’ and into the mainstream. The panel underscored the range of players in the space now—3M, J&J, and others—which illustrates how far the industry has come. Additionally, the size and scope of claims—large-scale, nine-figure claims—which highlights the impact the asset class has had on the broader Legal Services sector. Additionally, the embrace of litigation funding by Big Insurance is a signal of the industry’s ongoing growth prospects. Michael Nicolas of Longford noted how his firm can now protect principal investment, and even some of the profit they’d like to return to investors, which is ‘a game changer,’ as now credit investors can consider becoming LPs because they can grow more comfortable with the risk profile of the sector. Cindy Chen Delano echoed the ‘game-changer’ remark, noting the different types of debt structures that can be originated now that insurance is on board, all the way up to high-yield bonds, which she sees coming down the pike. Stephen Kyriacou of Aon also pointed out how he was one of two insurance providers at last year’s conference, and there was no discussion of the subject. This year, there are more insurers in attendance, and the subject has already come up in the first discussion, and will continue to as the event progresses. Perhaps something unique about this conference is the encouragement of questions from the audience. The first panel took a question from an inventor who stressed the importance of funding in the inventor space, and lamented that in his experience it’s been so difficult to obtain the financing needed. The panel acknowledged his concern, and noted the industry’s emphasis on IP investment, while also pointing out that selectivity is paramount if a funder is going to survive long-term.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial

Kerberos Named Finalist for 2025 CIO Industry Innovation Awards in Private Credit

By John Freund |

Kerberos Capital Management has been named one of only four finalists nationwide for Chief Investment Officer (CIO) magazine’s 2025 Industry Innovation Awards in the Private Credit category.

Each year, CIO magazine honors organizations that demonstrate “truly exceptional approaches to the challenges of institutional asset ownership and asset management.” This recognition highlights Kerberos’ leadership in private credit and its innovative strategies that continue to set new standards in the institutional investing market.

“We are proud to be recognized among the top firms in the country for our work in private credit,” said Joe Siprut, CEO & CIO of Kerberos Capital Management. “This acknowledgment underscores our team’s commitment to innovation, disciplined risk management, and delivering differentiated value to our investors.”

Kerberos’ inclusion as a finalist reinforces its growing national reputation as a forward-thinking investment manager that thrives on tackling complex challenges, seeking to generate alpha from complexity but not from increased risk.

About Kerberos Capital Management

Kerberos Capital Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser and alternative investment manager, providing creative solutions for those seeking capital in special situations. Kerberos’ flagship private credit strategy emphasizes legal assets and other complex collateral. Kerberos manages both a pooled vehicle and separate accounts for institutional and high net worth investors worldwide.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Litigation Funding Voided: Bankruptcy Court Underscores Need for Court Approval

By John Freund |

Litigation finance has become an increasingly utilized tool to support valuable claims in financially distressed bankruptcies. However, a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas—voiding a $2.3 million litigation funding agreement between a liquidating trustee and a funder—has reignited scrutiny over how these arrangements are structured and approved.

An article on McDonald Hopkins's website emphasizes best practices in the wake of that ruling, urging parties to proactively ensure enforceability of funding agreements. Even when plan documents appear to authorize litigation funding, it’s strongly recommended that parties secure explicit approval from the bankruptcy court. Such approval enhances certainty, mitigates future challenges, and solidifies the funder's standing against all estate stakeholders.

Key recommendations from the advisory include:

  • Prepare for judicial and stakeholder scrutiny. Courts are likely to closely examine the economics and procedural fairness of funding agreements. Demonstrating that terms are fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the estate and creditors is essential.
  • Review existing agreements carefully. Funders and trustees should verify that their authority is clearly established in underlying plan or trust documents and confirm whether the arrangement has been properly disclosed and court‑approved. If not, consider options like negotiating revised terms or seeking court ratification.
  • Maintain transparency and documentation. Keep detailed records of communications, payments, and disclosures. Monitor developments in the case for challenges to funding arrangements.
  • Engage experienced bankruptcy counsel. Legal guidance is critical to respond to objections and navigate the nuanced landscape of litigation finance in reorganization contexts.

This ruling serves as a clear reminder: litigation funding in bankruptcy requires far more than a signed agreement—it demands judicial scrutiny and explicit approval. Stakeholders must prioritize transparency, heavy documentation, and procedural integrity to ensure arrangements are respected.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LCJ Calls Out Burford, Fortress for Control Provisions in TPLF Contracts

By John Freund |

A new salvo has been fired in the debate over transparency in litigation finance. Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) has submitted a comment letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules exposing what it says are extensive control provisions in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) contracts—contradicting funders’ public assertions of passivity.

A press release from Lawyers for Civil Justice highlights excerpts from nearly a dozen funding agreements, including contracts involving Burford Capital and a Fortress Legal Assets affiliate, that purportedly grant funders authority to select counsel, approve or reject settlements, and even continue litigation after the plaintiff exits the case. These “zombie litigation” provisions, LCJ argues, represent de facto control by financiers—despite repeated funder claims that they do not direct litigation strategy.

At stake is a proposed federal rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding agreements in civil cases. LCJ’s letter offers ammunition to supporters of mandatory disclosure, citing examples such as a Burford-Sysco agreement that bars settlement without funder consent, and an International Litigation Partners contract that allows the funder to issue binding instructions to attorneys. In one instance, a funder retained the right to continue litigation in its own name even after the plaintiff had withdrawn—raising red flags over who actually drives case outcomes.

Funders like Burford, Parabellum, and Statera have long argued they are “passive investors” and do not “control legal assets.” But the LCJ analysis directly challenges these claims, suggesting a significant gap between public narrative and contractual reality.

If adopted, a federal disclosure rule would mark a seismic shift in how courts assess conflicts of interest and strategic control in funded litigation. For the legal funding industry, the debate underscores a pivotal question: can funders claim passivity while retaining the contractual tools of influence?