Trending Now
Commercial People Moves

Aperture Investors Hires Luke Darkow to Launch Litigation Finance Strategy 

September 10, 2024

Aperture Investors Hires Luke Darkow to Launch Litigation Finance Strategy 

Aperture Investors, an alternative asset manager and part of the Generali Investments platform, today announced that Luke Darkow has joined the firm to lead its new private credit Litigation Finance strategy. 

Darkow joins Aperture from Victory Park Capital, a global alternative investment manager, where he was a Principal and Portfolio Manager responsible for sourcing, analyzing, executing, and managing investments within the litigation finance asset class. Prior to Victory Park Capital, Darkow held roles at TPG Capital and Morgan Stanley. 

“With Aperture entering its next phase of growth, we see significant potential in specialty lending, particularly in litigation finance, which we believe remains a relatively underbanked asset class. Estimates suggest that the litigation finance market could double annually through 2035,” said Peter Kraus, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Aperture Investors. “Litigation Finance is a niche, relationship-driven sector—and Luke is no tourist. His expertise in both private and public debt investments, his deep network of law firms and legal service providers, and his ability to source opportunities and raise capital will allow us to build out this unique offering at Aperture.”

Litigation Finance involves the provision of third-party capital to help finance law firms or plaintiffs pursuing legal claims in exchange for, or collateralized by, a percentage of proceeds received upon the successful resolution of legal disputes. Aperture’s Litigation Finance strategy will primarily provide structured loans to law firms backed by expected legal fee receivables from procedurally mature, settled, and/or short duration legal cases, targeting uncorrelated returns.

“I’m incredibly pleased to join Aperture and help drive the firm into new opportunities in private credit with this niche, asset-based lending strategy,” commented Darkow. “As Aperture expands its slate of strategies and products, I’m also attracted to the intellectual horsepower and best-in-class infrastructure within the broader firm.” 

About Aperture Investors 

Aperture is an alternative asset management firm offering credit and equity strategies in commingled and bespoke portfolios for institutional investors. Aperture’s mission is outperformance, and it is focused on identifying portfolio managers who it believes have a unique edge and can consistently deliver innovative, solutions-oriented investment results throughout market cycles. Since inception, Aperture has steadily grown its breadth of products, and as of August 31st, it manages approximately $4 billion. Its investment strategies are diversified across asset classes and geographies – each managed by a dedicated investment team – with distribution across North America, Europe, Middle East and Asia. 

Aperture Investors was founded in 2018 and is led by industry veteran Peter Kraus and by Generali, one of the largest global insurance and asset management providers. For more about Aperture, visit us at www.apertureinvestors.com.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Malaysia Launches Modern Third-Party Funding Regime for Arbitration

By John Freund |

Malaysia has officially overhauled its legal framework for third-party funding in arbitration, marking a significant development in the country’s dispute finance landscape. Effective 1 January 2026, two key instruments, the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act A1737) and the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026, came into force with the aim of modernising regulation and improving access to justice.

An article in ICLG explains that the amended Arbitration Act introduces a dedicated chapter on third-party funding, creating Malaysia’s first comprehensive statutory foundation for funding arrangements in arbitration. The reforms abolish the long-standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the arbitration context, removing a historical barrier that could render funding agreements unenforceable on public policy grounds.

The legislation also introduces mandatory disclosure requirements, obliging parties to reveal the existence of funding arrangements and the identity of funders in both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Malaysia. These changes bring Malaysia closer to established regional arbitration hubs that already recognise and regulate third-party funding.

Alongside the legislative amendments, the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding sets out ethical standards and best practices for funders operating in Malaysia. The Code addresses issues such as marketing conduct, the need for funded parties to receive independent legal advice, capital adequacy expectations, the management of conflicts of interest, and rules around termination of funding arrangements. While the Code is not directly enforceable, arbitral tribunals and courts may take a funder’s compliance into account when relevant issues arise during proceedings.

The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department has indicated that this combined framework is intended to strike a balance between encouraging responsible third-party funding and improving transparency in arbitration. The reforms also respond to concerns raised by high-profile disputes where funding arrangements were not disclosed, highlighting the perceived need for clearer rules.

Commercial

ProLegal Unveils Full-Stack Legal Support Beyond Traditional Funding

By John Freund |

ProLegal, formerly operating as Pro Legal Funding, has announced a strategic rebrand and expansion that reflects a broader vision for its role in the legal services ecosystem. After nearly a decade in the legal finance market, the company is repositioning itself not simply as a litigation funder, but as a comprehensive legal support platform designed to address persistent structural challenges facing plaintiffs and law firms.

The announcement outlines ProLegal’s evolution beyond traditional pre-settlement funding into a suite of integrated services intended to support cases from intake through resolution. Company leadership points to longstanding industry issues such as opaque pricing, misaligned incentives, and overly transactional relationships between funders, attorneys, and clients. ProLegal’s response has been to rethink its operating model with a focus on collaboration, transparency, and practical support that extends beyond capital alone.

Under the new structure, ProLegal now offers a range of complementary services. These include ProLegal AI, which provides attorneys with artificial intelligence tools for document preparation and case support, and ProLegal Live, a virtual staffing solution designed to assist law firms with intake, onboarding, and administrative workflows.

The company has also launched ProLegal Rides, a transportation coordination service aimed at helping plaintiffs attend medical appointments that are critical to both recovery and case valuation. Additional offerings include a law firm design studio, a healthcare provider network focused on ethical referrals, and a centralized funding dashboard that allows for real-time case visibility.

Central to the rebrand is what ProLegal describes as an “Integrity Trifecta,” an internal framework requiring that funding advances meet standards of necessity, merit, and alignment with litigation strategy. The company emphasizes deeper engagement with attorneys, positioning them as strategic partners rather than intermediaries.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Funder Sues Client for $1M Settlement Proceeds

By John Freund |

A Croton-on-Hudson-based litigation financier has filed suit against a former client following a roughly $1 million settlement, alleging the funded party failed to honor the repayment terms of their litigation funding agreement. The dispute highlights the contractual and enforcement challenges that can arise once a funded matter reaches resolution.

According to Westfair Online, the financier provided capital to support a plaintiff’s legal claim in exchange for a defined share of any recovery. After the underlying litigation concluded with a significant settlement, the funder alleges that the plaintiff refused to authorize payment of the agreed-upon amount. The lawsuit claims breach of contract and seeks to recover the funder’s share of the settlement proceeds, along with any additional relief available under the agreement.

The case underscores a recurring tension within the litigation funding ecosystem. While funders assume substantial risk by advancing capital on a non-recourse basis, they remain dependent on clear contractual rights and post-settlement cooperation from funded parties. When those relationships break down, enforcement actions against clients, though relatively uncommon, become a necessary tool to protect funders’ investments.

For industry participants, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that even straightforward single-case funding arrangements can result in contentious disputes after a successful outcome. It also illustrates why funders increasingly emphasize robust contractual language, transparency around settlement mechanics, and direct involvement in distribution processes to reduce the risk of non-payment.