Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Adam Gerchen Discusses His Approach to Litigation Finance

September 29, 2022

Adam Gerchen Discusses His Approach to Litigation Finance

Day 2 of the LF Dealmakers conference kicked off with Roy Strom, a reporter at Bloomberg Law, interviewing Adam Gerchen, CEO of Gerchen Keller Partners and Keller Postman LLP. Adam Gerchen spoke on a variety of issues.  A few takeaways below: On the growth of claims sizes: Prominent case examples like the 3M class action, which several years ago would have been 50,000 claimants, and today is above 250,000 illustrate the sector’s evolution. That is due to advancements in digital marketing, and technology enabling the intake and management of all of those claimants. So the industry is ballooning in ways that are rather unique. On fundraising: Within a portfolio, the lack of co-variance is actually similar to reinsurance. So there are all sorts of powerful things you can do from a portfolio construction perspective. LPs already have so much exposure to litigation funding and they don’t even know it. It’s much less of a unique thing than they previously believed. On the interesting macro-environment right now:  If I were on the allocation side right now, this is a space I would definitively find attractive. The thing LPs may not know is, where you are in the lifecycle of these claims is very interesting. Look at mass torts – you have torts that have been around for several years, that are not being priced correctly. On what he is most excited about: Insurance wrappers that can wrap an entire fund – “I can’t believe it.” In the spectrum of things Gerchen would do, an IP appellate risk doesn’t seem the most attractive, but that is where folks seem to be most engaged. He thinks in the short-term this is extremely interesting, but then again, insurers have a much lower cost of capital than funders, so that could compress pricing downstream, which could cause issues. But overall, these are very exciting times.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Malaysia’s New Arbitration Funding Rules Follow Collapse of Therium-Backed Sulu Claim

Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

Commercial

New York Poll Finds Nearly 80% of Voters Would End Third-Party Litigation Funding

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

Commercial

DIFC Court Orders Defendant to Reveal Who Is Funding His Legal Team in $456M TrueUSD Case

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.