LFJ Podcast: Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents
In this episode, Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel of Unified Patents discusses the impact of the Litigation Funding Transparency Act on the IP and patent claims funding market.
All Articles
3597 Articles
Golden Pear Upsizes Corporate Note to $78.7M Amid Growth Plans
Golden Pear Funding has extended and upsized its investment-grade corporate note to $78.7 million, further bolstering the firm's capacity to serve the expanding litigation finance sector. The New York-based funder, a national leader in both pre-settlement and medical receivables financing, said the proceeds will support working capital and fuel strategic growth initiatives.
A press release from Golden Pear outlines how the capital raise reflects continued investor confidence in the firm’s business model. CEO Gary Amos noted that the infusion is critical as Golden Pear seeks to scale alongside the “rapidly expanding litigation finance market.” CFO Daniel Amsellem added that the new funding aligns with the company’s capital allocation strategy, aimed at optimizing operational efficiency and executing strategic projects.
Brean Capital, LLC acted as the exclusive financial advisor and sole placement agent on the transaction.
Founded in 2008, Golden Pear has funded more than $1.1 billion to over 87,000 clients and remains one of the largest specialty finance companies in the U.S. Its business model spans legal case funding and medical receivables purchasing, with backing from a network of private equity partners that provide institutional support for continued expansion.
S&P Warns Litigation Funding May Distort Insurance Market Dynamics
A panel convened by S&P Global has flagged litigation funding as a growing concern for casualty insurers, warning that its rapid rise could be fueling systemic inefficiencies and potential abuse in the legal system.
An article in Reuters details the findings from an S&P insurance panel that expressed concern over how the increasing role of third-party litigation funding is contributing to the volume and aggressiveness of legal claims. Panelists noted that while there is “no sign of the apocalypse,” litigation funders’ influence is prompting a cautious stance from casualty insurers, who are facing escalating claim costs, longer litigation cycles, and a rising number of so-called nuclear verdicts.
The panel advocated for comprehensive tort reform, citing litigation funding as a key driver of what they see as a dysfunctional tort system. They warned that without structural legal changes, insurance markets could see greater volatility and pricing pressure. While the exact impact of litigation funding on claims frequency remains contested, S&P analysts are increasingly viewing it as a structural headwind for insurers navigating a tougher underwriting environment.
The remarks come amid broader industry scrutiny of litigation finance’s influence on legal outcomes and market dynamics. With funders enabling claimants to pursue extended or higher-value litigation, insurers argue the funding model skews incentives and inflates settlements. Calls for greater transparency around funding arrangements and closer regulatory oversight are growing louder within insurance circles.
This latest critique adds momentum to the ongoing debate over litigation finance’s long-term impact. As third-party funding becomes more entrenched across jurisdictions, questions remain about how insurers, lawmakers, and courts will respond—and whether litigation finance will continue reshaping the contours of legal risk.
Mayfair Legal Launches Wildfire Support Program for Plaintiffs
Mayfair Legal Funding has unveiled a new initiative aimed at aiding wildfire victims in Los Angeles and Maui by providing pre-settlement advances tailored to individuals pursuing legal claims related to recent wildfire disasters. The program seeks to ease the financial burden on plaintiffs during the lengthy litigation process, allowing them to cover essential living expenses and medical costs without being forced into early or inadequate settlements.
An article in OpenPR reports that Mayfair’s program will provide wildfire-impacted claimants with cash advances while their cases proceed through court or settlement negotiations. The funding is non-recourse, meaning recipients are only obligated to repay the advance if their case is successful. This offering is particularly timely in light of the mounting legal battles related to utility-sparked wildfires in California and the catastrophic 2023 fires in Maui, both of which have left thousands seeking legal recourse and financial recovery.
Mayfair emphasized that this initiative aligns with its mission to ensure access to justice regardless of a claimant’s financial status. “We believe that no one should have to choose between basic survival and pursuing a rightful claim,” said a spokesperson for the funder, noting that the company’s underwriting process is designed for speed and minimal paperwork.
With natural disasters on the rise and litigation timelines stretching longer than ever, targeted pre-settlement funding like this may become an increasingly vital tool for plaintiffs. The wildfire-specific program from Mayfair underscores a growing trend of funders developing specialized products for mass torts and disaster-related litigation—an area likely to see heightened investor and regulatory attention in the years ahead.
Fortress Pushes Back on Tillis-Hern Tax Proposal Targeting Litigation Funding
In a pointed rebuttal to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Fortress Investment Group President Jack Neumark has challenged claims that litigation funders—particularly those with foreign investors—exploit U.S. tax loopholes to avoid paying capital gains taxes on lawsuit proceeds.
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Ending a Tax Break for Lawsuits” supporting a legislative proposal from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would increase taxes on litigation finance returns. In response, The Wall Street Journal published Neumark’s letter, where he firmly stated that Fortress is an American company whose legal asset investments are made by U.S.-based leadership and taxed under standard corporate or ordinary income rules—not as capital gains.
Neumark argued that Fortress-managed funds do not provide any capital gains tax exemption for foreign investors, pushing back against the editorial’s implication that litigation funding primarily benefits non-U.S. entities seeking to exploit the American legal system. He defended litigation finance as a tool for U.S. businesses to more efficiently pursue justified legal claims, reducing costs and allowing for reinvestment in growth and job creation.
Challenging the editorial’s portrayal of funded claims as “dubious,” Neumark highlighted that many have resulted in jury verdicts or settlements amounting to billions. He underscored the legitimacy of the U.S. court system in weeding out meritless suits and ensuring fair compensation for real damages.
Neumark concluded by warning that the Tillis-Hern tax measure would extend well beyond foreign investors, affecting domestic investors such as pension funds and effectively doubling tax rates on companies pursuing litigation—creating a precedent for ideologically motivated tax targeting.
This public defense signals a broader resistance among funders to legislative efforts that blur the lines between tax reform and ideological opposition to litigation finance. As these proposals gain traction, expect more funders to enter the public arena to protect what they view as vital access-to-justice infrastructure.
Therium Taps Fortress to Manage Caseload Amid Restructuring
Therium Capital Management has enlisted Fortress Investment Group to take over the management of the bulk of its litigation portfolio, marking a significant operational shift for one of the industry’s most prominent players. The move comes as Therium continues to restructure its business following reported job cuts earlier this year.
As reported by The Lawyer, Fortress will now serve as sub-adviser, overseeing the day-to-day handling of most of Therium’s funded cases. The collaboration is framed as a bid for greater efficiency and operational streamlining, rather than a full exit from case management. Sources indicate that existing litigation funding agreements between Therium and law firms will remain unchanged, suggesting the funder aims to preserve continuity for its clients and counterparties.
Therium has been a key figure in shaping modern litigation finance, with a global footprint and involvement in numerous high-profile disputes. This development raises compelling questions about how prominent funders are navigating a post-PACCAR environment, and if there will be other similar restructurings on the horizon.
UK Court of Appeal Takes Up Key Case on Funder Returns
A consequential legal battle now before the UK Court of Appeal could have sweeping implications for litigation funders operating in the UK and beyond. The case centers on the enforceability of funding agreements that calculate funder returns as a multiple of the capital invested—a model widely used across the industry.
An article in the Law Society Gazette outlines how the appeal follows a High Court ruling that refused to strike out a claim challenging such a funding structure. The challenge argues that these agreements, which are not pegged to the damages recovered but instead to the amount of funding provided, could fall afoul of the UK's statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). If upheld, funders using a multiple-of-capital return model might be required to comply with the more stringent regulatory framework governing DBAs—potentially rendering many existing contracts unenforceable.
The outcome could reverberate across the legal funding landscape, particularly in collective actions, where such return structures are commonly deployed. Industry observers note that a ruling against funders would necessitate a wholesale reevaluation of how litigation finance deals are structured, priced, and disclosed, especially in the UK market.
Funders and legal practitioners alike are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a test of legal clarity and commercial viability for the sector. The decision may also influence legislative and regulatory discussions already underway in the UK about how best to govern third-party funding.
This case underscores the regulatory and judicial uncertainties that still shadow the legal funding market, even as it matures. A ruling from the Court of Appeal could either reinforce current market practices or trigger a paradigm shift in funder-client agreements.
Siltstone’s LITFINCON Expands Globally to Houston, Singapore, Amsterdam
Siltstone Capital is taking its premier litigation finance conference, LITFINCON, global. The firm announced that its marquee event will now be hosted in three strategic locations—Houston, Singapore, and Amsterdam—marking a significant milestone in the evolution and internationalization of the litigation finance industry.
According to PR Newswire, the expansion builds on LITFINCON’s rapid growth since its inception in 2022, with the goal of fostering high-level dialogue among funders, lawyers, and investors worldwide. Each location was chosen for its significance in global legal markets: Houston remains the conference’s home base and a hub for U.S. litigation and energy disputes; Singapore offers access to the booming Asia-Pacific arbitration scene; and Amsterdam provides a gateway to European class actions and collective redress mechanisms.
Siltstone’s managing partner, William McMichael, emphasized that the global expansion is not just about geography but about shaping a more connected and mature litigation finance ecosystem. “We’ve seen the appetite for knowledge-sharing and networking among global stakeholders,” said McMichael. “LITFINCON Global is a response to that demand and a reflection of the sector’s continued growth.”
The conferences are scheduled to take place between late 2025 and early 2026, with Houston slated for February, Singapore in November, and Amsterdam to follow shortly after. Each event will retain LITFINCON’s hallmark focus on practical insights, deal-making, and candid conversation among industry insiders.
This expansion underscores the legal funding industry’s increasing globalization and mainstream acceptance. With funders and legal professionals seeking more sophisticated, cross-border opportunities, LITFINCON’s global footprint could shape the next phase of market development and standard-setting in litigation finance.
Mascarenhas Law Launches Boutique Dispute Resolution Practice
Viren Mascarenhas has officially launched Mascarenhas Law PLLC, a new boutique specializing in arbitration—covering construction, commercial, investment—alongside U.S. litigation and public international law. As a seasoned arbitrator and founding partner, Mascarenhas positions the firm to navigate complex cross-border and domestic disputes.
In a post on LinkedIn, Mascarenhas links to his new website, mascarenhaslaw.com, which states that the firm’s launch marks its commitment to delivering focused, high-caliber dispute resolution services across multiple legal domains. The full-service boutique offers expertise in construction arbitration and contractual disputes, commercial arbitration, investment treaty claims, U.S. court proceedings, and matters tied to international law. The announcement also highlights that Mascarenhas sits as an arbitrator, underscoring deep procedural insight and strategic acumen.
Mascarenhas Law exemplifies the growing trend toward smaller, specialist firms in the dispute resolution space. Its focus on both arbitral advocacy and arbitral leadership reflects evolving demands for flexible, expert-driven practices. The firm's launch could influence the boutique arbitration ecosystem by prompting more focused offerings and nuanced cross‑border competency in both advocacy and tribunal service.
