Trending Now

All Articles

3490 Articles
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Garrett Ordower, Partner, Scale LLP

By John Freund |

Garrett is a seasoned attorney and head of Scale LLP's Litigation Finance Team. With extensive experience across both commercial and consumer litigation finance sectors, Garrett brings a uniquely comprehensive perspective to the field. He has developed specialized expertise in sourcing, evaluating, structuring, and managing diverse funding arrangements, from single-case investments to complex law firm portfolio facilities. Throughout his career, Garrett has successfully navigated intricate and often contentious workouts involving various stakeholders, including claimholders, attorneys, funders, and medical providers.

Beyond traditional litigation finance, Garrett has emerged as a thought leader in legal innovation. He advises on sophisticated structuring and ethics issues for startups in litigation finance, LegalTech, JusticeTech, and advises on a broad range of ethics issues including emerging issues relating to the use of artificial intelligence to deliver legal services to both consumers and businesses. His expertise extends to alternative business structures and two-company models that enable innovative legal service delivery while maintaining ethical compliance. Garrett is licensed to practice in New York, Illinois, and Arizona.

Garrett began his career as a litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, engaging in significant litigation and white collar matters. He then transitioned to one of the pioneering commercial litigation funders, Lake Whillans Litigation Finance, as a managing director. At Lake Whillans, Garrett participated in tens of millions in litigation finance deals including asset purchases, law firm lending portfolios, and claimholder funding. His articles on litigation finance topics have been widely published, and he was recognized as one of Lawdragon's Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance.

Garrett then joined Mighty Group, Inc., as its General Counsel following the company's Series B raise. He handled all legal aspects of Mighty's significant consumer litigation finance portfolio, which included investments in medical receivables, pre-settlement advances, and law firm lending. Garrett also played a pivotal role in helping Mighty create an innovative tech-forward competitor to existing personal injury law firms.

Since joining Scale, Garrett has focused his practice on helping innovative companies in the legal and litigation finance spaces. As head of the Litigation Finance Team, Garrett has helped litigation finance companies with fund structures, commercial and consumer transactions, and ethics and regulatory advice. Garrett has also advised a wide variety of LegalTech and JusticeTech companies on structuring their businesses in order to achieve their goals in an ethical and compliant manner, including doing so through the use of AI.

Prior to practicing, Garrett graduated from the University of Chicago Law School where he was Editor-in-Chief of the University of Chicago Law Review, and clerked on the Northern District of Illinois and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Garrett maintains an active pro bono practice and recently secured the vacatur of his client's manslaughter conviction. Prior to law school, Garrett worked as a newspaper reporter and investigative journalist.

Company Name and Description: Scale LLP, a full-service, national law firm that rethinks the traditional law firm model. Scale provides a tech-forward, distributed platform that reduces overhead and increases efficiency to offer the best legal talent at a competitive price-point.

Company Website: scalefirm.com

Year Founded: 2017

Headquarters: San Francisco, CA

Area of Focus: Scale LLP's Litigation Finance Team delivers comprehensive solutions across the entire litigation funding ecosystem. We provide specialized counsel to litigation finance companies, claimholders, law firms, and investors, drawing on our team's firsthand experience having worked on all sides of litigation finance transactions. Our services encompass fund formation, deal structuring, portfolio construction, regulatory compliance, and workout solutions and litigation related to distressed assets.

Our practice uniquely bridges both commercial and consumer litigation finance sectors, allowing us to develop innovative hybrid approaches that maximize return while managing risk appropriately. We combine deep litigation experience with sophisticated financial structuring capabilities to deliver practical advice on complex transactions ranging from single-case investments to multi-jurisdictional portfolio facilities.

Beyond traditional litigation finance, we lead the field in advising LegalTech and JusticeTech companies on cutting-edge business models that navigate regulatory complexity while promoting greater access to justice. We provide guidance on artificial intelligence implementation in legal services, addressing both the transformative potential and ethical challenges presented by these technologies. Our attorneys have pioneered compliant structures for alternative business arrangements in both traditional and emerging jurisdictions, helping clients develop sustainable competitive advantages through regulatory innovation.

Member Quote: "I work at the intersection of law, finance, and technology because I believe these convergent forces can transform our legal system. By leveraging litigation finance, legal innovation, and AI tools thoughtfully, we can build a more equitable legal landscape where outcomes are determined by merits rather than resources. Every day, I work with visionaries who are dismantling outdated structures and creating something more efficient, accessible, and just. This evolution not only enhances access to justice but also creates compelling investment opportunities in a market ripe for transformation."

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Scott Davis, Partner, Klarquist

By John Freund |

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice."

Case Developments Commercial

$170 Million Settlement Approved in Allianz Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Halves Funder’s Legal Costs in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.

Case Developments Commercial

$3.5M Settlement Approved in Class Action Against Melissa Caddick’s Auditors 

By Harry Moran |

A class action brought in the Federal Court of Australia has reached a resolution less than two years after it began, as a settlement has been approved between investors and the former auditors of a deceased fraudster.

Reporting by The Canberra Times covers a $3.5 million settlement in the class action brought against the auditors that were engaged by Melissa Caddick, an Australian financial adviser who defrauded investors prior to her disappearance and death in November, 2020. The settlement is the latest money recouped by Caddick’s investors, having already received $7.25 million following the sale of her assets by liquidators between 2023 and 2024. The class action targeted Caddick’s auditors on allegations that they had failed in their duties to audit their client’s self-managed superannuation funds, and had breached the Corporations Act.

The class action had been launched in September 2023 with Mackay Chapman representing 32 of Caddick’s former investors, with litigation funder Therium providing the financing for the lawsuit. Following the approval of the $3.5 million settlement by Federal court Justice Brigitte Markovic, Mackay Chapman will receive around $1 million in legal costs whilst Therium will be allocated a funding commission of $492,000. After disbursement costs, the claimants will receive the remaining $1.73 million from the settlement.

Michael Chapman, director at Mackay Chapman, described the settlement as “a great outcome for the group members”, and that his firm’s legal costs were recouped at discount to ensure that 50 per cent of the overall settlement was returned to the investors. 

The settlement agreement did not contain any admission of liability by the auditors. The full settlement approval order with additional details on the disbursement of funds can be read here.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Dean Gresham, Managing Director, Certum Group

Dean Gresham is a Managing Director who oversees the evaluation, underwriting, and risk management of all the company’s risk transfer solutions, including litigation finance and contingent risk insurance. With 25 years of experience in complex litigation and legal risk analysis, Dean ensures rigorous underwriting standards and strategic risk mitigation across the company’s risk transfer solutions.

Before joining Certum Group, Dean was a trial lawyer for more than 21 years handling complex commercial, catastrophic injury, qui tam, and class action litigation across the country. While practicing, Dean litigated on both sides of the docket and developed a keen ability to analyze and assess risk from both the plaintiff’s and defendant's unique perspectives.

In 2020, Dean was awarded the Elite Trial Lawyer of the Year award by the National Law Journal for his trailblazing work on a complicated wrongful adoption case. Dean is consistently chosen by his peers as a Texas Super Lawyer (2009-2024); one of the Best Lawyers in Dallas by D Magazine (2009-2024), one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Texas by the National Association of Trial Lawyers (2011-2024), and in the Nation’s Top One Percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel (2019-2024).

Dean is the 2025 Chair of the Dallas Bar Association's prestigious Business Litigation Section and sits on the DBA’s Judiciary Committee.

Company Name and Description: Certum Group offers a next-generation litigation risk transfer platform that provides bespoke solutions for companies, law firms, and funders facing the uncertainty of litigation. Latin for “certainty,” Certum represents the core benefit the company delivers to its clients across its entire suite of risk transfer solutions.  Certum is the full-service funding and insurance partner for law firms and their business clients.

Company Website: www.certumgroup.com

Year Founded: 2014 

Headquarters:  Plano, Texas

Area of Focus: Member: Head of Underwriting and Chair of the Investment Committee.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding doesn’t just fuel cases—it fuels justice. Power should never trump merit.”

Commercial Special Features

Highlights from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Investor Perspectives

By John Freund |

On March 27th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key industry stakeholders giving their perspectives on investment within the legal funding sector. Our esteemed panelists included Chris Capitanelli (CC), Partner at Winston and Strawn, LLP, Joel Magerman (JM), CEO of Bryant Park Capital, Joe Siprut (JSi), Founder and CEO of Kerberos Capital, and Jaime Sneider (JSn), Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group. The panel was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Below are highlights from the discussion:

One thing that piqued my interest recently was the recent Georgia jury that awareded a single plaintiff $2.1 billion in one of 177 lawsuits against Monsanto. What is your perspective on the health of the mass tort litigation market in general?

JSn: Well, I think nuclear verdicts get way more attention than they probably deserve. That verdict is going to end up getting reduced significantly because the punitive damages that were awarded were unconstitutionally excessive. I think it was a 30 to 1 ratio. I suspect that will just easily be reduced, and there will probably be very little attention associated with that reduction, even though that's a check that's already in place to try to prevent outsized judgments that aren't tied as much to compensatory damages. I expect Monsanto will also likely challenge the verdict on other grounds as well, which is its right to do.

The fact is, there are a whole number of checks that are in place to ensure the integrity of our verdicts in the US legal system, and it's already extraordinarily costly and difficult for a person that files a case who has to subject himself to discovery, prevail on motions to dismiss, prevail on motions for summary judgment, win various expert rulings related to the expert evidence. And even if a plaintiff does prevail like this one has before a jury, they face all sorts of post-trial briefing remedies that could result in a reduction or setting aside the verdict, and then they face appeals. The fact is, I think corporate defendants have a lot of ways of protecting themselves if they choose to go to trial or if they choose to litigate the case.

And I think, oftentimes when people talk about the mass tort space, their disagreement really isn't with a specific case, but with the US Constitution itself, which protects the right to juries, even in civil litigation in this country. The fact is that there is a rich tradition in the United States that recognizes tort is essential to deterring wrongdoing. And ensuring people are fairly compensated for the injuries that they sustained due to unsafe products or other situations. So, broadly speaking, we don't think in any systematic a way that reform is required, although I suspect around the margins there could be modest changes that might make sense.

Omni has made a number of recent moves involving secondary sales and private credit to improve their earnings and cash flow. What is your sense of how much pressure the industry is under to produce cash flow for its investors?

JSi: I think there is some pressure for sure, but more than pressure, I think it's a natural thing for self-interested managers to want to give their investors realizations so that they can raise more capital, right?

So, even if no one had ever told me, boy, it would be nice to get money back at some point in the future, that would obviously still be what I'm incentivized to do because the sooner I can get realizations and get cash back, the sooner people can have confidence that, wow, this actually really works, and then they give you 2x the investment for the next vehicle.

So the pressure is, I think, part of it. But for a relatively new asset class like litigation finance, which is still in middle innings, I think, at most, you want realizations. You want to turn things over as quickly as you can, and you want to get capital back.

In terms of what ILFA is doing, do you feel like they're doing enough for the industry to counter some of the attacks that are coming from the US Chamber of Commerce and others?

CC: I think there has been a focus from ILFA on trying to prevent some of the state court legislation from kind of acting as a test case, so to speak, for additional litigation. So there's been, you know, they've been involved in the big stuff, but also the little stuff, so it's not used against us, so to speak.

So I think in that regard, it's good. I wonder at what point is there some sort of proposal, as to if there's something that's amenable, is there something that we can all get behind, if that's what's needed in order to kind of stop these broad bills coming into both state legislatures and Congress. But I think overall, the messaging has been clear that this is not acceptable and is not addressing the issue.

Pretium, a relative newcomer to the market, just announced a $500 million raise. At the same time, it's been rumored that Harvard Endowment, which has traditionally been a significant investor in the commercial litigation finance market, is no longer allocating capital to the Litfin space. What is your sense of where this industry continues to be in favor with investors, and what are some of the challenges?

JSi: On the whole, I think the answer is yes, it continues to be in favor with investors, probably increasing favor with investors. From our own experience, we talk to LPs or new LPs quite frequently where we are told that just recently that institution has internally decided that they are now green lighting initiatives in litigation finance or doing a manager search. Whereas for the past three or four years, they've held off and it's just kind of been in the queue. So the fact that that is happening seems to me that investors are increasingly interested.

Probably part of the reason for that is that as the asset class on the whole matures, individual managers have longer track records. Maybe certain managers are on their third or fourth vintage. And there are realized results that can be put up and analyzed that give investors comfort. It's very hard to do that on day one. But when you're several years into it, or at this point longer for many people, it becomes a lot easier. And so I think we are seeing some of that.

One of the inherent challenge to raising capital in the litigation finance asset class is that even just the term litigation finance itself is sort of shrouded in mystery. I mean, it's very unclear what that even means and it turns out that it means many different things. The media on the whole, not including LFJ obviously, but the media on the whole has not done us many favors in that regard because they often use the term litigation finance to mean one specific thing, oftentimes case finance, specific equity type risk on a single case, when in fact, there are many of us who do all kinds of different things: law firm lending, the credit stuff, the portfolio finance stuff. There's all kinds of different slivers. And so the effect of that is that an LP or factions within an LP may have a preconceived notion about what litigation finance is, which is completely wrong. And they may have a preconceived notion of what a particular manager's strategy is. That's completely wrong.

I also think that litigation finance provokes an almost emotional reaction sometimes. It's often the case that investments get shot down because someone on the IC says that they hate lawyers, or they got sued once, and so they hate lawyers. And so they want nothing to do with litigation finance. And so whether that's fair or unfair is irrelevant. I think it is something that is a factor and that doesn't help. But I'd like to think that on the whole, the good strategies and the good track records will win the day in the end.

The discussion can be viewed in its entirety here.

Announcements Commercial Fundraising

Manolete Partners Announces New Revolving Credit Facility with HSBC Bank

By Harry Moran |

Manolete Partners Plc (AIM:MANO), the leading UK-listed insolvency litigation financing company, is pleased to announce it has signed a new Revolving Credit Facility ("RCF") with its existing provider, HSBC UK Bank Plc ( "HSBC"). 

The new RCF provides Manolete with the same level of facility as the previous arrangement, at £17.5m. However, the margin charged to Manolete by HSBC on the new RCF is at a reduced rate of 4.0% (previously 4.7%) over the Sterling Overnight Index Average (SONIA) and has a reduced non-utilisation fee, from 1.88% to 1.40%. 

The new RCF is a 3.25-year facility with an initial maturity of 27 June 2028. Manolete has the option to further extend the facility on its current terms by an additional year. 

The covenants remain unchanged except for the Asset Cover covenant which has been relaxed for the next six months. 

Steven Cooklin, CEO commented: "We are delighted to have secured a new long-term commitment to the business from HSBC, which is testament to the strong partnership we have established since 2018. The improved terms of the facility demonstrate confidence in the Manolete business." 

This announcement contains inside information as defined in Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation No. 596/2014 ("MAR"). 

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Georgia Legislature Approves Amended Litigation Funding Bill

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ has reported over recent weeks, the push for new rules governing litigation funding across several U.S. states has gained traction in 2025, with Georgia now set to impose new legislation that includes several restrictions on third-party funding in the state. 

An article in the Georgia Recorder covers the news that the state’s legislature has voted to pass a bill designed to impose new restrictions and oversight on third-party litigation funding in Georgia. Senate Bill 69 was passed by a vote of 98-69 in the House of Representatives, following amendments made in the committee stage, and has since returned to the Senate where a vote on the amended bill passed with 52 Yea votes. The bill, along with Senate Bill 68 which is part of the wider tort reform legislative package, will now go to the Governor to be signed into law.

The amendments made in the House Subcommittee of Rules on Lawsuit Reform include provisions for the state’s Department of Banking and Finance to deny funders’ applications to register. Furthermore, disclosure requirements have been updated to include any stakeholder who has a 10% or greater stake in a litigation funder, as well as clarified language in the sections dealing with foreign entities involved in third-party funding.

James Burchett, the House Majority Caucus Whip, said that the bill aims to address absence of any “provisions whatsoever that outline regulations on litigation financing,”  and will seek to “put some guard rails and regulation on the industry.” Voting in opposition to the bill, Minority Caucus Chair Tanya Miller argued that the bill “attempts to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist”, and that the bill is “part of a broader propaganda playbook designed to protect big business and the insurance industry at the expense of everyday Georgians.” 

Miller further highlighted that during the evaluation of the legislation by the House’s committees, “not a single case in Georgia was identified to justify this legislation.”