Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Ask the Experts: What to Do When Deals Go Wrong

September 29, 2022

Ask the Experts: What to Do When Deals Go Wrong

In the final panel of the conference, Michael Kelley, Partner at Parker Poe, moderated a discussion on lessons that can be learned from past deal issues. Panelists included Chip Hodgkins, Managing Director of Statera Capital, Tracey Thomas, CEO of IP Zone, and Erika Levin, Partner at Fox Rothschild. This panel highlighted several stressors and break points that occur in funding relationships and transactions. One issue that often comes up is that communication problems arise. For example, there can be reporting requirements that firms forget to bring up at the start of a relationship. It’s often difficult to communicate all of the various burdensome filing requirements. Another issue that can arise is economic inefficiency. Sometimes an inversion occurs, where a lack of attention to the budget arises, or a secondary counsel comes in and there’s an issue there. These things can cause obvious problems, given that lawyers just aren’t that great at budgeting, according to the panel’s perspective. The panel recommends transparency, and addressing issues instead of burying them, which is often the temptation. For example, on budgetary issues, often counter-parties might not even be aware of where they are in the budget, so a lot of times avoiding problems just comes down to sharing information before a dislocation occurs. Another interesting point: sometimes the relationship between law firm and funder becomes too cozy, and it’s no longer aligned with the client’s best interests. Tracey Thomas of IP Zone pointed out that in such situations, they’ve had to terminate the relationship, and they’ve found that termination is in their best interests in such circumstances. On case management, sometimes funders can try to take control of the budgetary decisions of the case. One example that was brought up was when a funder told a client to ‘shut up and dribble,’ and follow their lawyer’s advice on where to spend money. While that may have been in the best short-term interests of the case, it fractured the relationship. Not to mention the fact that it was borderline unethical. At the end of the day, the relationship between a lawyer and client should be sacrosanct. Once funding enters the relationship, things can get murky, and this can present ethical considerations that are very problematic. So this will be an ongoing source of contention as the litigation funding industry continues to mature.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Burford Covers Antitrust in Legal Funding

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has contributed a chapter to Concurrences Competition Law Review focused on how legal finance is accelerating corporate opt-out antitrust claims.

The piece—authored by Charles Griffin and Alyx Pattison—frames the cost and complexity of high-stakes competition litigation as a persistent deterrent for in-house teams, then walks through financing structures (fees & expenses financing, monetizations) that convert legal assets into budgetable corporate tools. Burford also cites fresh survey work from 2025 indicating that cost, risk and timing remain the chief barriers for corporates contemplating affirmative recoveries.

The chapter’s themes include: the rise of corporate opt-outs, the appeal of portfolio approaches, and case studies on unlocking capital from pending claims to support broader corporate objectives. While the article is thought-leadership rather than a deal announcement, it lands amid a surge in private enforcement activity and a more sophisticated debate over governance around funder influence, disclosure and control rights.

The upshot for the market: if corporate opt-outs continue to professionalize—and if boards start treating claims more like assets—expect a deeper bench of financing structures (including hybrid monetizations) and more direct engagement between funders and CFOs. That could widen the funnel of antitrust recoveries in both the U.S. and EU, even as regulators and courts refine the rules of the road.

Case Developments Commercial

Almaden Arbitration Backed by $9.5m Funding

By John Freund |

Almaden Minerals has locked in the procedural calendar for its CPTPP arbitration against Mexico and reiterated that the case is supported by up to $9.5 million in non-recourse litigation funding. The Vancouver-based miner is seeking more than $1.06 billion in damages tied to the cancellation of mineral concessions for the Ixtaca project and related regulatory actions. Hearings are penciled in for December 14–18, 2026 in Washington, D.C., after Mexico’s counter-memorial deadline of November 24, 2025 and subsequent briefing milestones.

An announcement via GlobeNewswire confirms the non-recourse funding arrangement—first disclosed in 2024—remains in place with a “leading legal finance counterparty.” The company says the financing enables it to prosecute the ICSID claim without burdening its balance sheet while pursuing a negotiated settlement in parallel. The update follows the tribunal’s rejection of Mexico’s bifurcation request earlier this summer, a step that keeps merits issues moving on a consolidated track.

For the funding market, the case exemplifies how non-recourse capital continues to bridge resource-intensive investor-state disputes, where damages models are sensitive to commodity prices and sovereign-risk dynamics. The disclosed budget level—$9.5 million—sits squarely within the range seen for multi-year ISDS matters and underscores the need for careful duration underwriting, including fee/expense waterfalls that can accommodate extended calendars.

Should metals pricing remain supportive and the tribunal ultimately accept Almaden’s valuation theory, the claim could deliver a meaningful multiple on invested capital. More broadly, the update highlights steady demand for funding in the ISDS channel—even as governments scrutinize mining concessions and environmental permitting—suggesting that cross-border resource disputes will remain a durable pipeline for commercial funders and specialty arbitrations desks alike.

Commercial

Legalist Expands into Government Contractor Lending

By John Freund |

Litigation funder Legalist is moving beyond its core offering of case-based finance and launching a new product aimed at helping government contractors manage cash flow. The San Francisco-based firm, which made its name advancing capital to plaintiffs and law firms in exchange for a share of litigation proceeds, is now offering loans backed by government receivables.

An article in Considerable outlines how Legalist’s latest product is designed to serve small and midsize contractors facing long payment delays—often 30 to 120 days—from federal agencies. These businesses frequently struggle to cover payroll, purchase materials, or bid on new work while waiting for disbursements, and traditional lenders are often unwilling to bridge the gap due to regulatory complexities and slow timelines.

Unlike litigation finance, where returns are tied to legal outcomes, these loans are secured by awarded contracts or accounts receivable from government entities. Legalist sees overlap in risk profiling, having already built underwriting systems around uncertain and delayed payouts in the legal space.

For Legalist, the move marks a significant expansion of its alternative credit offerings, applying its expertise in delayed-cashflow environments to a broader market segment. And for the legal funding industry, it signals the potential for funders to diversify their revenue models by repurposing their infrastructure for adjacent verticals. As more players explore government receivables or non-litigation-based financing, the definition of “litigation finance” may continue to evolve.