Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3272 Articles

Emmerson Announces First Draw Down from $11m Litigation Fund

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As LFJ reported in January, a mining company’s investor-state dispute with the Moroccan government over a potash project has led the company to seek and secure third-party funding for its arbitration claim.

An announcement from Emmerson Plc reveals that the potash development company has drawn down the first tranche of its litigation funding, following the signing of an $11 million Capital Provision Agreement (CPA) with an unnamed litigation funder earlier this year. Emmerson explained that this initial draw down will cover all the company’s legal costs to date, whilst allowing its legal team to prepare and complete the next steps in the arbitration proceedings brought against the Moroccan government.

The announcement also detailed that alongside this first draw down, Emmerson and its subsidiaries in the UK and Morocco have “granted certain securities and charges over their assets to the funding counterparty in relation to amounts drawn down.”

The company explained that this is a normal action for litigation funding agreements, with the granting of these securities not to be enforced unless Emmerson fails to meet its obligations under the CPA.

Steve Din and Phil Hales Join Heirloom Fair Legal from Doorway Capital

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The beginning of 2025 has already been a busy few months for Heirloom Fair Legal, with the funder expanding to the UK through its acquisition of Hayes Connor Solicitors last month, and the legal finance company is continuing to build on that momentum through two new appointments.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the appointment of two senior executives at Heirloom Fair Legal (HFL), with Steve Din and Phil Hales joining the funder. Din has taken up the role of senior vice-president at HFL and Hales has been appointed to the position of vice-president of funding relationships, with both sitting on HFL’s investment committee alongside the company’s co-founders.

Both Din and Hales join HFL from Doorway Capital, with Din founding Doorway in 2015 and Hales having spent the last three years at the company as business development director. Commenting on his move to HFL, Din said that the funder’s “larger infrastructure and bespoke approach” would allow them to “provide more flexible structures and be more creative in designing funding packages that meet the legal ecosystem’s needs.”

These new hires form part of HFL’s ambitious growth strategy, with the funder planning to exceed $250 million in funding to law firms and claimants by the end of 2026.

Geoff Dover, co-founder of HFL, highlighted the experience that Din and Hales would bring to the company, pointing out that “at Doorway, they led the way in putting law firms large and small onto solid financial foundations.” Dover went on to add: “We look forward to their contributions toward partnering with law firms and service providers that share our goal of resolving disputes more quickly and cost effectively by combining technology, legal advice and finance solutions.”

CAT Certifies Asertis-Funded Bulk Mail Claim Against Royal Mail Owner

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst there is much discussion about what level of disclosure should be required around litigation funding, it is rare that outsiders to a claim can gain insight into the structure of these funding agreements. However, the certification of opt-out collective proceedings by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has offered a rare view of one such funding arrangement.

A judgment handed down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday granted the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the case of Bulk Mail Claim Limited v International Distribution Services Plc (formerly Royal Mail Plc). The Tribunal certified the opt-out collective proceedings, finding that the Proposed Class Representative’s (PCR) methodology “is sufficiently credible and plausible”, and further stated that it was “satisfied that there is at least a good arguable case that there has been an overcharge.”

The Bulk Mail Claim focuses on allegations that International Distribution Services abused its market dominance to overcharge customers for its bulk mail services. The proposed class is provisionally estimated to consist of 290,477 customers who purchased bulk mail retail services, with the value of the claim estimated to reach £1 billion. Mr Robin Aaronson, an economist specialising in competition policy, is acting as the director of the PCR and Asertis is providing litigation funding for the claim.

As part of its assessment of the CPO application, the CAT evaluated the terms of the litigation funding agreement between the PCR and Asertis, and found “that they do not appear to be unreasonable.” The judgment also offered some detail on the funder’s return as specified in the agreement, which is laid out below:

“In the event of success, the drawn funds will be repaid, plus a multiplier comprising two elements: a priority multiplier of 1.5x of the drawn funds and a balancing multiplier of 0.5x for the first 12 months. There is also an increase in the balancing multiplier of 0.1875 per every quarter. There is a cap of 5.75 overall, which applies to the aggregate of the priority multiplier and the balancing multiplier.”

The Tribunal also noted that the funding agreement had been amended to address its prior concerns that the agreement “did not expressly specify that prior to any settlement there should be a written legal opinion or memorandum on the proposed settlement.” Similarly, the Tribunal responded to concerns raised by the defendant that “Asertis would not be able to meet an adverse costs order”, finding that the PCR’s legal team had provided confirmation of Asertis’ financial position, bolstered by an ATE insurance policy with “a limit of indemnity of £15 million post-CPO”.

The CAT’s judgment can be read in full here.

More information about the Bulk Mail Claim can be found on its website.

Tenadio Corp Completes $60 Million in Financing for Patent Litigation Program

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Tenadio Corp, a consulting firm specializing in advising patent owners and inventors, announced it has completed an additional $60 million in financing for the Patent Capital Funding Program (“PCF”), a litigation finance program established by Tenadio’s founding principal, Michael Ciuffo. 

Waterford Capital, Inc., a Dallas, Texas based broker-dealer, was the sole placement agent for the transaction, which was privately placed with institutional investors. 

“The PCF Program is off to a great start for 2025. We are excited to have added new partners and participants in this round of funding and are very encouraged with recent events in patent litigation that will further strengthen our clients’ positions in defending the value in their intellectual property rights,” said Michael Ciuffo. 

“The Patent Capital Funding Program continues to be a reliable funding source for patent owners, having raised approximately $315 million in patent infringement litigation financing to date. We are so grateful for the collaboration of everyone involved, which is a key to the Program’s success, and we look forward to continuing its expansion,” said Dave Piotrowski, Managing Director of Waterford Capital. 

About Tenadio Corp

Tenadio Corp utilizes decades of experience in structured finance and litigation funding to develop optimal funding structures for patent holders and infringement litigation. Tenadio works with its advisors and partners to offer a full platform of patent litigation services, including patent valuation, monetization, funding options, and lead counsel selection. Tenadio provides a thorough evaluation of each patent infringement case, creating a structure that provides an attractive investment opportunity while simultaneously monetizing proceeds associated with future infringement cases. 

About Waterford Capital

Waterford Capital, Inc. is a leading arranger of litigation finance and other structured finance and asset securitization transactions. The firm arranges capital for clients in connection with patent infringement financing, asset-backed credit facilities, private placements of asset-backed securities, and whole loan sale programs. Waterford Capital is a registered broker-dealer and member FINRA/SIPC.

Oklahoma House Passes Foreign Litigation Funding Prevention Act

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As LFJ covered last week, we are continuing to see a push for new regulations governing third-party legal funding in the U.S., with more and more states moving forward with bills aiming to increase disclosure requirements.

An announcement from the Oklahoma House of Representatives details the passage of House Bill 2619, known as the Foreign Litigation Funding Prevention Act. Much like other bills progressing through state legislatures across the country, HB 2619 has a dual focus on increasing transparency around third-party funding, and on the involvement of foreign actors in domestic litigation. HB 2619 passed the House by a vote of 88-2.

The current draft of the bill requires any party to comply with disclosure requests and produce any commercial litigation funding agreements that they have entered into. Furthermore, the bill dictates that this disclosure must include a certification “as to whether any funds encumbered by the terms of the agreement have been or will be sourced from a foreign state or agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” This certification would also require the disclosure of the identity of the foreign funder. Consumer litigation funding agreements are exempt from these rules.

Representative Erick Harris, who authored the bill, explained the aims of this legislation in the following statement:

"We must ensure that our courts remain a place for justice, free from manipulation by foreign powers seeking to influence the outcomes of cases for their own benefit. This bill strengthens the integrity of Oklahoma's legal system and prohibits foreign adversaries, like Russia and China, from attempting to fund litigation that could undermine the fairness of our courts. This legislation will help preserve the sanctity of our judicial process and protect the rights of Oklahomans from external interference."

The full text of the bill can be accessed on the Oklahoma State Legislature’s website.

Juris Capital Joins the International Legal Finance Association

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, announced that Juris Capital has joined their association, adding to their rapidly growing membership base. 

Juris Capital is committed to delivering innovation solutions for financial stability for commercial litigation and arbitration along with investments in law firms through creative billing arrangements. Juris Capital’s team has over twenty years of experience investing in commercial litigation, all of their principals are licensed attorneys or certified public accountants. 

"Juris is excited to join ILFA to provide perspective from its over 15 years of operation," said David Desser, Juris Managing Director. 

"We believe the industry faces an inflection point, where the choice of policies will affect outcomes for businesses, consumers, and funders, and we will support ILFA's effort to secure sound policies in the United States and abroad." said Dane Lund, Juris Managing Director. 

Rupert Cunningham, Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement at ILFA, commented on Juris Capital joining ILFA, saying “I’m delighted to welcome Juris Capital to ILFA’s growing ranks. Juris’ team bring with them a great deal of experience in litigation finance and we at ILFA look forward to working with David and Dane, whose expertise will be invaluable in our efforts to support and represent the legal finance sector globally.”

About the International Legal Finance Association  

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

Trump’s Nominee for PTO Head Divides Opinion Over Past Ties to Fortress’ IP Fund

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The involvement of litigation funders in intellectual property and patent disputes has never been without controversy, with the President’s choice of nominee to lead the country’s patent office only serving to reignite the debate over the role of third-party funding.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the news that President Trump has nominated John A. Squires to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), with the article highlighting the key role Squires played in the founding of Fortress Investment Group’s Intellectual Property fund. Squires’ involvement with Fortress goes back a decade to his time as a partner at Perkins Coie, where he supported the company’s launch of a $4 billion fund dedicated to patent monetization.

The President’s decision to nominate Squires has provoked strong reactions, with Fortress’ billions of dollars poured into litigation funding and patent monetization being a divisive issue in the country’s patent industry.

Joe Matal, former acting director of the PTO, did not hold back in describing Fortress as “the antichrist of the patent world”, arguing that the investment giant “fund just the worst litigation against critical technology sectors and they won’t tell anyone who’s behind any of it.” Joshua Landau, senior counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, offered a more measured response but noted that Squires’ past involvement with Fortress IP finance group is “somewhat concerning.”

However, proponents of litigation funding for intellectual property and patent disputes welcomed the news of Squires’ nomination. Bryce Barcelo, director of intellectual property at Certum Group, said that Squires “has the real opportunity to bring IP litigation funding to the forefront and out of the darkness a little bit and highlight that this can be a good thing.” Sarah Tsou, global head of intellectual property at Omni Bridgeway, expressed hope that Squires “might be more in favor of bringing accessible and efficient processes for acquiring patents and other IP for smaller companies and startups”, but cautioned that his appointment would not “turn a weak patent into a strong one.”

A spokesperson from Fortress highlighted Squires’ work with the firm’s IP team, saying that his “counsel reflected a deep understanding of the intellectual property space”, and underlined the company’s “utmost respect for his intellect, objectivity and expertise.”

Legal-Bay Pre-Settlement Funding to Begin Funding Hawaii Wildfire Claims After Major Supreme Court Decision

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Legal-Bay, the Pre Settlement Funding Company, announces today that they are committed to funding their clients in Hawaii who are dealing with wildfire claims. In light of the Aloha state's Supreme Court ruling last week, a previously stagnant $4 billion settlement has now been allowed to proceed, providing financial assistance to numerous displaced Hawaiians still dealing with the after-effects of the deadly inferno.

The 2023 Lahaina wildfire on the island of Maui was the most devastating United States fire in over a century. It killed over 100 people and turned entire towns into ash. Thousands of lawsuits against those responsible for the blaze--including Hawaiian Electric, Kamehameha Schools, the state of Hawaii, and Maui County—soon followed. While the $4 billion offer doesn't come close to covering the $5 billion in property damage—not to mention the incalculable loss of life—attorneys accepted the offer amidst rumblings that the main defendant, Hawaiian Electric, might declare bankruptcy.

Between homeowners, renters, and businesses, insurance companies have already paid out $1.5 billion to victims and are expected to pay out close to $1 billion more. Monday's ruling is a good way for insurance companies to receive reimbursement as well as victims to receive future payouts, paving the way for all parties to move forward with their claims. The case is scheduled to be sent back to a Maui judge to determine what comes next.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "My personal connection to Lahaina and its residents makes seeing the devastation that much harder. We are committed to immediately funding wrongful death wildfire cases in large funding amounts for those families that need it. And we will be assisting renters who are displaced by getting cash advances to help them until a final settlement comes.  Our experience in California wildfire cases enables our underwriting team and staff to process approvals quickly for renters, homeowners, and commercial claims."

If you are a lawyer or plaintiff involved in an active wildfire lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance settlement loan against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Legal Bay has a long history dealing with wildfire lawsuits, as they've been a leader in almost every case over the past seven years. They were one of the first companies to fund PG&E plaintiffs during the California Camp Fire lawsuits back in 2018, and they've remained involved throughout every wildfire and natural disaster since. They are dedicated to supporting their clients in need of financial assistance, specifically those that are dealing with the aftermath of natural wild fire disasters in places like Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and California.

Numerous renters, homeowners, and business owners have been temporarily displaced, or seen their homes and companies destroyed altogether. Amidst the devastation and uncertainty, people who have been affected by tragedy need help and they need it now. In these circumstances, legal funding—sometimes referred to as "lawsuit loans" or "settlement loans"—can be immensely beneficial. Legal-Bay is leading the charge to provide loans for settlements to affected residents as soon as possible.

As a leading lawsuit funding provider, Legal-Bay knows that relocation efforts can cost their clients money they don't have. Some are looking into loan settlement options in order to fund basic living expenses while they get their lives back on track. A loan for settlement can also help bridge the gap of time it will take to receive that eventual check from the insurance company. Legal-Bay is proud of the numerous funding they've provided for their current crop of clients along with providing a multitude of loan on lawsuit options for any future financial needs.

If you're the plaintiff in an existing wildfire lawsuit and need an immediate advance against your anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

Legal-Bay lawsuit funding remains vigilant in helping clients who have seen their homes and properties damaged by recent events. Additionally, any new clients that have an existing lawsuit and need cash now can apply for regular settlement funding to help them get through their own crises. Legal-Bay funds all types of loans for lawsuits including personal injury, slips and falls, car accident lawsuit, property damage, commercial litigation, and more.

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit loan companies when it comes to providing immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loan funds aren't really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Mustang Litigation Funding Selects Theo Ai to Transform Case Underwriting with AI-Powered Insights

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Theo Ai, the first predictive AI platform for litigation, today announced a strategic partnership with Mustang Litigation Funding, a litigation finance company. By leveraging Theo Ai’s predictive engine to automate the case review process, Mustang can confidently select cases faster with a greater rate of success. On the heels of Theo’s $2.2M funding in November, this collaboration exemplifies Theo’s ability to provide strategic insights for a company’s existing portfolio, and it puts Mustang at the forefront of AI-powered advancements, utilizing their extensive proprietary database to create a custom-fit algorithm tailored just for their needs.

Mustang has funded over $170MM in cases across the U.S. to provide innovative litigation funding solutions. While demand for their services is high, reviewing thousands of cases quickly and accurately can lead to a bottleneck. Theo Ai solves this problem by delivering a tool that is capable of automating the task of finding “winners” and delivering insights into case probability. With AI trained on historical and proprietary data along with real-time analytics, Theo Ai boosts confidence in case selection, accelerates workflows and due diligence, and ensures compliance. Additionally, Theo Ai streamlines the review of case records to ensure comprehensive insights and improved accuracy in case evaluations. Included in the collaboration, Mustang will have access to the Theo Ai platform that identifies and unlocks new funding opportunities faster than ever before.

“At Mustang Litigation Funding, we’re always looking for the latest in tech-focused solutions to benefit our clients,” says Seth Rieger, CTO of Mustang Litigation Funding. “With Theo Ai, Mustang is advancing towards a future in which it will be able to consistently and reliably evaluate cases within seconds to pinpoint high-value opportunities. By harnessing the efficiency of AI, we believe we will be setting a new standard in litigation funding.”

“We’re thrilled to empower Mustang’s customer portfolio with Theo Ai. By automating compliance checks and reducing the risk of manual errors, Theo Ai can speed up the deal-closing process with confidence and improved accuracy,” says Patrick Ip, CEO and Co-Founder of Theo Ai. “By improving case selection by just 1% annually, Mustang and its partners will profit from increased ROI and additional revenue. Not only will this benefit Mustang when prospecting new cases but will also unveil strategic insights into their existing clientele.”

The partnership allows Mustang Litigation Funding to reduce losses by avoiding low-return cases and enhance revenues by focusing on high-probability, high-yield cases, all while saving valuable time with automation. This marks a pivotal step forward for law professionals and the legal industry as a whole. By combining Mustang’s commitment to supporting individuals and law firms seeking justice with Theo Ai’s groundbreaking predictive technology, the two are setting the benchmark for efficiency, precision, and success in litigation funding.

To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: Theo Ai

About Theo Ai

Theo Ai is the first predictive engine designed by technical and legal professionals to forecast the outcome of legal disputes. Its AI models are trained on historical case data and incorporate real-time analytics with predictive modeling to deliver accurate and actionable insights. Theo Ai is meeting the most critical need for legal professionals - offering accurate case outcome predictions, backed by data. To learn more and join the waitlist for Theo Ai, visit: https://theoai.ai/#product

About Mustang Litigation Funding

Founded in 2018 and headquartered in Wayzata, Minnesota, Mustang Funding is a leading litigation finance company dedicated to empowering justice through innovative and transparent funding solutions. With over $170 million funded across more than 3,000 unique cases and partnerships with over 1,000 law firms nationwide, Mustang Funding ensures financial constraints never hinder access to fair legal representation. Guided by their core values of transparency, integrity, and unwavering client support, Mustang Funding is committed to reshaping the legal finance landscape to make justice accessible for all.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Stephen Kyriacou, Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions, Willis Towers Watson

By John Freund and 4 others |

Stephen is a seasoned litigation and contingent risk insurance broker and former practicing complex commercial litigator who joined WTW in February 2025 as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Insurance.  In his role, Stephen evaluates litigation-related risks and structures bespoke litigation and contingent risk insurance policies for litigation finance, hedge fund, private equity, law firm, and corporate clients. 

Prior to joining WTW, Stephen was a Managing Director and Senior Lawyer in Aon's Litigation Risk Group.  Stephen joined Aon in 2019, and was the first insurance industry professional dedicated solely to the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, leading the Litigation Risk Group's origination and business development work, in-house legal diligence, efforts to advocate for coverage with underwriters, and negotiation and structuring of insurance policies.  During his time at Aon, Stephen was a three-time Risk and Insurance Magazine “Power Broker” (2022, 2023, 2024); spearheaded the development of judgment preservation insurance and insurance-backed judgment monetization as well as the synergy of litigation and contingent risk insurance with litigation finance; and was responsible for placing billions of dollars in total coverage limits – including the largest ever litigation and contingent risk insurance policy, and several policies that each provided over $500 million in coverage limits – and delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in premium to insurers.  Stephen additionally provided consulting and broking services on litigation-driven, insurance capital-based investment opportunities and sales of litigation claims, insurance claims, and subrogation rights as part of the Aon Special Opportunities Group.

Prior to joining the insurance industry, Stephen was a complex commercial litigator in the New York City office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner from 2011 to 2019.  While at BSF, Stephen amassed significant trial, appellate, and arbitration experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in the U.S. and abroad across a wide array of practice areas, including securities, antitrust, constitutional, insurance, first amendment, employment, government contracting, and criminal law, as well as in multidistrict and class action litigation.  Stephen's clients included banks and other major financial institutions, private equity firms, technology companies, foreign sovereigns, professional sports teams, television networks, insurance companies, corporate executives, and other high-net-worth individuals.  

Stephen earned his J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 2010, and is a member of the New York State Bar.  He also clerked for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Company Name and Description:  Willis Towers Watson

Company Website: https://www.wtwco.com/en-us

Headquarters:  Stephen is based in New York

Area of Focus:  Litigation and contingent risk insurance for litigation finance, hedge fund, private equity, law firm, and corporate clients

Member Quote:  “I have been working with litigation finance firms to insure their litigation-related investments since I first entered the insurance industry in 2019, and I view litigation finance and funder-backed plaintiff-side litigation as the most important growth areas for the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, as well as the areas where coverage can be most value additive for clients. 

I have also been bringing litigation finance firms into insurance transactions as financing counterparties since I first devised the concept of insurance-backed monetization for judgment preservation insurance clients back in 2020, which concept has since expanded to the point where litigation finance capital has become inexorably intertwined with all forms of plaintiff-side insurance coverage.  

As the market for this insurance pivots away from single-case risks and towards portfolio-based policies for litigation finance firms and the law firms that they fund, litigation finance clients can trust that WTW will be at the forefront of innovating new coverage structures and concepts to address their unique risk management needs and ambitious financial goals, will deliver best-in-class client service utilizing our incomparably strong and longstanding relationships with underwriters, and will be a vocal champion of litigation finance both within and outside of the insurance industry.”

Funding of Investor-State Disputes Attracts Criticism

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst litigation funders can provide the financial resources for individuals and companies to gain access to justice, the benefits that this service provides do not shield the industry from criticism; especially where lawsuits can be portrayed as putting business interests over social or environmental progress.

An in-depth article in The Guardian covers the growing trend of third-party funding supporting investor-state disputes focused on environmental regulations. In these cases funders are often backing companies who have seen their profits harmed by ‘green laws’, with a large potential upside for the funder due to the sizeable awards in play and the diminished risk of counterclaims being brought by governments.

Analysing the publicly available data from over 1,400 of these cases brought against nation states, The Guardian’s investigation details more than $120 billion in awards through claims in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts. As the article notes, this figure may be a severe underestimation of the true total, as only 34% of cases where a settlement or award was made had disclosed the financial value of the award.  Similarly, whilst the involvement of third-party funders is not always disclosed, The Guardian found at least 75 ISDS cases where such a party was involved, with more than half of those backed by investors in the UK, US or Canada.

This trend has been the target of some criticism from lawyers and arbitrators involved in these disputes, with Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah noting that it is often “developing countries” that are the targets of claims backed by investors who see the ISDS system as “big business.” Lisa Sachs, director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, also argued that the risk mitigation offered by having a funder cover the legal costs is effectively “removing a key deterrent to bringing weak or speculative claims.”

In response to its investigation, Burford Capital was the only funder who agreed to speak with The Guardian. The funder rebuffed the idea of supporting frivolous claims, pointing out that “legal finance provides a vetting function and weeds out meritless cases: we only get paid when our clients win their cases”. Burford’s CEO, Christopher Bogart, questioned whether these kinds of cases were unique, saying that he does not think “ISDS is any more high potential or lucrative than lots of other areas of litigation.”

Nera Capital Reaches $100m Milestone for Investor Returns

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

For any litigation funder, success is measured in favourable outcomes for the cases they support, as well as in their ability to deliver on the returns for investors who provide the foundational capital needed for these businesses.

An article on Insider Media highlights a new landmark for Nera Capital, as the litigation funder announces that it has now exceeded $100 million in repayments to its investors. This latest milestone comes off the back of a strong run of case investments, with the funder spotlighting its backing of a major hernia mesh claim in the United States where Nera supported claimants who suffered complications from defective mesh implants.

In addition to the successful mesh claim, Nera has also built a track record of investing in commercial cartel cases and personal injury claims, with two European anti-trust claims that have settlement values of over $20 billion. Building upon these investments, Nera is anticipating the launch of a new $75 million fund that will support the funder’s ambitious growth plans.

Aisling Byrne, director and co-founder of Nera Capital, said that “surpassing $100 million in repayments is a testament to the firm’s disciplined investment strategy and commitment to delivering on promises.” Speaking to the philosophy behind the company’s investment strategy, Byrne stated: “We are not just funding litigation; we are helping people achieve justice while ensuring our investors benefit from well-structured, high-value opportunities.”

Read more about Nera Capital in LFJ’s Community Spotlight with Aisling Byrne.

PIB Group expands its MGA division acquiring market-leading specialist litigation insurance MGA Litica

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

PIB Group Ltd (‘PIB’ or ‘the Group’), the specialist insurance intermediary group, has acquired market-leading litigation insurance provider Litica. 

Managing General Agent (MGA) Litica specialises in a range of insurance-backed solutions for private and corporate clients involved in litigation or arbitration.

Litica was founded in London in 2019 by co-founding directors Stephen Bolster and Steve Ruffle. It has since expanded its operations to Australia, the United States and Germany. The company has a large panel of insurer backers and is a Lloyd’s coverholder. This access to significant insurance capacity enables them to underwrite a range of complex and high value litigation types. 

Charles Burgess, CEO of Underwriting and Schemes at PIB Group, said: “Having Litica join PIB Group marks an exciting milestone, enabling our MGA division to enter the next phase of growth. Liticia’s operations in Australia and the United States provide our MGA business with a strong foothold in these markets, bringing a wealth of opportunity to the wider Group. We’re excited to have Stephen, Steve and their team join us - their experience will be invaluable.”

Stephen Bolster, co-founding director at Litica, said: “At Litica we have spent the last six years establishing ourselves as the UK's leading provider of specialist litigation insurance, and we are beginning to replicate that success across international markets. Joining an entrepreneurial and ambitious Group provides us with the capabilities we need to continue growing, while still providing our clients with the professional and diligent services we are known for.”

Steve Ruffle, co-founding director at Litica, said: “Being part of an ambitious, bold and fast-paced international Group will ensure we are positioned well to make the most of the opportunities the market continues to present. We are looking forward to leveraging PIB Group’s wide range of products, solutions and expertise in insurance and risk management.”

ILFA and ALF publish summary response to Civil Justice Council review

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

ILFA and the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales have submitted a joint response to the Civil Justice Council’s consultation on litigation funding.

Legal experts, representative bodies and law firms have also made their submissions public. While there are - of course - a range of views about the sector and possible reforms, there are two common threads: 

  • Firstly, all contributors are in unanimous agreement that litigation funding is a critical tool in the UK for enabling access to justice, from Sir Alan Bates and the subpostmasters in the Post Office scandal to equal pay for supermarket workers.
  • Secondly, the uncertainty facing the sector because of the 2023 PACCAR judgment is jeapordising that access to justice and must be urgently reversed. In their submission to the CJC, leading Oxford University civil justice academics said “there is a compelling and urgent need to reverse the effects”. The City of London Law Society said “this is an ongoing unsatisfactory state of affairs”. The Class Representatives Network said the current state of uncertainty is “untenable”. The Forum of Complex Injury Solicitors wants to “reinstate the position of prePACCAR”. It goes on. 

ILFA and ALF joint response 

ILFA and ALF’s submission is based on the views of its members who are among the largest and most experienced funders in England and Wales. 

In summary, the views of ILFA and ALF are as follows: 

  1. Litigation funding plays a critical role in enabling access to justice. For many claimants, including consumers and SMEs, it provides the only route to redress. For others, litigation funding allows businesses to use their capital to grow their core business and create jobs instead of tying up budgets for litigation costs.
  2. Litigation funding has worked well in England and Wales. As well as providing access to justice, litigation funding promotes equality of arms between parties. Funding also brings other benefits such as promoting the public interest through exposing corporate wrongdoing, driving good litigation behaviour and supporting the development of English jurisprudence. Commonly stated concerns about litigation funding supporting frivolous or vexatious claims are not supported by evidence; in fact, the evidence is that funders are highly selective in the cases they fund, providing a reality check which benefits parties beyond the funded client and helping direct resources towards meritorious claims.
  3. As well as enabling access to justice, litigation funding has developed into a crucial pillar supporting the UK’s leading global role as a legal and financial centre. To ensure this continues, urgent legislation is needed to address the uncertainty caused by the PACCAR judgment.
  4. In the absence of evidence of harm that needs to be addressed and given the detriment that would be caused by additional regulatory burdens, the current self-regulatory approach strikes the right balance. It will continue to evolve by, for example, potential updates to the ALF Code of Conduct in consultation with the CJC.
  5. Funders’ returns should not be capped. The existing, competitive funding market is best placed to assess and price the many risks involved and the practical effect of an (inflexible) cap would be to make fewer meritorious cases fundable and have a negative effect on access to justice.
  6. Litigation funding helps to control costs (via funder scrutiny and oversight of budgets) but costs are subject to many factors including the defendant’s conduct of the case. Arbitrators have discretion to order that the cost of litigation funding should be recoverable as a cost in proceedings. The courts should have the same discretion.
  7. Recoverability of adverse costs and security for costs applications increase the costs of litigation, costs that are ultimately borne by successful claimants. These costs restrict access to justice and diminish claimants’ net recovery. Permitting flexibility in how adverse cost risk is addressed is beneficial for access to justice.
  8. Funders have less control over proceedings than other third parties that provide economic support for litigation. Concerns relating to control by litigation funders are unfounded.
  9. Beyond representative proceedings in the CAT, there is no need to incur the cost, delay and uncertainty of having the court approve settlements of funded proceedings.
  10. Claimants in funded cases are always represented by lawyers, who owe duties to their client alone, which provides protection for claimants when entering a litigation funding arrangement and throughout their litigation. Measures to address conflicts are adequately reflected in best practices and professional regulation.

About the International Legal Finance Association

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

“Show Me the Money” – Diverse Teams are a Revenue Driver and Not Just the Right Thing to Do

By Molly Pease and 4 others |

The following article was contributed by Kirstine Rogers, Legal Director at Certum Group, and Molly Pease, Managing Director at Curiam Capital.

Both are also on the steering committee for Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF). WOLF is an organization intended to give women in and around the litigation finance field a space for support, mentorship and connections. WOLF holds quarterly zoom meetings focused on specific relevant topics and hosts various networking events throughout the year.  Please find out more through our LinkedIn page or by contacting any member of the steering committee. WOLF welcomes the support and participation of all industry members. 

--

As our country continues to debate the pros and cons of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the government and private sectors, the litigation finance industry would be well served by remembering that diverse teams make companies better.  Indeed, several studies have explored the link between diversity initiatives and increased profitability in organizations and found that a more diverse workforce can positively impact business performance, innovation, and profitability.

There are many reasons for this.  First, representation matters.  Whether it is getting a phone call for a potential new investment opportunity from a female general counsel who wants to see diversity in the team she might be working with or being able to hire top talent who want to work with a diverse team, better opportunities present themselves to litigation finance market participants when those firms present a diverse and capable team.  Second, a diverse team allows for more diverse networking opportunities, which encourages investment opportunities from a wide variety of sources.  And finally, and potentially most importantly, diversity of backgrounds, skills, and expertise allows for a risk assessment in underwriting investment opportunities that is less likely to miss potential risks or pitfalls that a more narrow-minded team might not see.  Better underwriting decisions result in better investments, which results in more revenue for the company.

Diversity need not be a mandate for it to be an intentional and profitable choice.

“If you build it, they will come.” 

Does your company reflect the world of your counterparty or their counsel?  

Research has shown that consumers are more likely to buy from or engage with businesses that appear to understand their specific needs, often through shared demographic traits like race, gender, or age.  Businesses that reflect their target consumers' characteristics and values are more likely to foster trust and client loyalty.   The same is true in commercial transactions with counterparties and their counsel.  In entering into a funding agreement, you are forming a potentially long-term partnership.  Communication and trust are essential to the success of that relationship.  You only maximize the likelihood of that success with the diversity of the decision makers on your team.   

Companies with inclusive environments are also more likely to attract top talent and retain employees.  Why wouldn’t a firm cast the widest net possible?

“Nobody puts baby in a corner.” 

Having a diverse workforce also increases opportunities for connection and visibility in the market.  It provides a vehicle for commonality – a shared experience, history, or perspective.  This is because similar backgrounds make it easier to communicate, share common goals, and find mutual interests, which in turn can lead to individual career opportunities and company-wide growth.

Diversity-based industry groups like the Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF) facilitate interaction between market peers, provide leadership and speaking opportunities, and lead to collaboration between companies seeking to work together.  Bar associations also frequently have smaller diversity-based committees that provide a smaller community from which to network and form connections.  Bigger fish. Smaller pond.  Stronger bond.  And these genuine connections formed on shared experiences can lead to exponential networking growth.  A familiar face at one industry event only leads to more familiar faces at the next one.  

This is true for thought leadership too.  If every member of a panel of speakers looks the same and does not reflect the different faces in the audience, there are people in that audience your panel is not reaching.  If every article is written from the same perspective, there are readers who are not listening.  

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

At its core, the litigation finance industry assesses risk.  The better a firm can do that – whether it is a funder, a broker, or an insurer – the more profitable it will be.  Risk assessment involves seeing things that others might miss and making sure no stone gets left unturned.  

There are many components of a due diligence risk assessment, including reviewing the strength of the legal merits of the claims, assessing the credibility and testifying potential of key witnesses, and predicting what arguments or defenses will be presented by opposing counsel.  A diligence team with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives will be better at identifying risks and assessing the value of potential claims.  For example, a funder will often speak extensively with key witnesses to assess how they would present testimony at trial and whether a jury would find that testimony credible and persuasive.  If a trial team were conducting a mock jury to test these points, it would assemble a diverse panel of men and women from different ages and backgrounds to get various views on the testimony.  Similarly, a funder trying to make its own internal assessment will be better served by a diverse team with a variety of perspectives.  If everyone in the room has the same basic background, characteristics, and experiences, they are likely to see things similarly and thus miss key factors that could be important in determining the impact of the testimony.  And this is only one aspect of a risk assessment.  Each step of the diligence and risk assessment process would benefit from analysis by a diverse team.  The biggest concern in the litigation finance industry is that a funder, broker, or insurer misses a significant risk in their assessment of a legal asset and finds themselves funding an investment that has a low chance of success in hindsight.  A diverse team will protect against this outcome and therefore drive revenue for industry participants.

"You talkin' to me?" 

At the end of the day, the value of meaningfully implemented diversity initiatives is clear.  Having the benefit of differing experiences and perspectives makes companies better.  And, as to litigation finance in particular, diversity without question strengthens the return on investments. 

But just having a diverse workforce does not necessarily result in a better company or improved profitability.  The company needs to foster an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives are valued and integrated into decision-making processes and where those selected as thought leaders demonstrate how diversity is implemented, prioritized, and integrated into company culture.

In honor of International Women’s Day, make this a call to action – what can you do at your company to ensure you have the broadest perspectives represented?  Ask yourself, does the panel you are sponsoring completely reflect your target client base?  Does your leadership team include those with different perspectives?  Does your company provide women with networking and mentoring opportunities? 

After all, diversity presents an opportunity for someone at your company to collaborate with other market participants to write an article just like this.  

About the authors:

Molly Pease is Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer at Curiam Capital, and Kirstine Rogers is Legal Director at Certum Group. They both serve on the Steering Committee for WOLF, the Women of Litigation Finance.  They can be reached at molly.pease@curiam.com and krogers@certumgroup.com

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner, Ignitis

By John Freund and 4 others |

Caroline Taylor is a Founding Partner of Ignitis, an early-stage litigation funder focused on developing cases to assess viability and prepare them for full litigation. With over a decade of litigation experience, Caroline brings a unique blend of funding expertise and strategic legal insight, leveraging an extensive professional network to support cases from inception to resolution. Ignitis partners with claimants, foundations, corporate clients, lawyers, experts, funders, and other legal professionals to ensure that each case has what it needs to maximize its chance of success.

Before founding Ignitis, Caroline was a partner at a leading international collective redress firm. She played a key role in expanding the firm’s European operations, including opening offices across several countries, assembling and leading teams, and driving case development and management. Her work in securing litigation funding helped support the development of over 30 cases across Europe and the UK. Caroline’s ability to seamlessly integrate operations between U.S. and European offices proved instrumental in advancing initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Her deep understanding of collective redress procedures in multiple European jurisdictions, combined with her experience taking cases from concept to resolution, makes her well-suited for her role at Ignitis.

During her time in private practice, Caroline specialized in class actions, complex litigation, and personal injury cases, gaining firsthand experience of the impact corporate misconduct can have on individuals. This exposure sharpened her litigation skills and solidified her commitment to justice. Caroline also served in several leadership roles, including as a Board Member of the American Association for Justice, Chair of its Railroad Section, and as a Board and Executive Committee Member of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association. She has received numerous accolades, including recognition by The National Trial Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, and Super Lawyers. Caroline is a frequent speaker at international legal conferences.

She is admitted to practice in Tennessee, Florida, and Kentucky state courts, as well as in numerous federal and appellate courts in the United States and England and Wales.

Company Name and Description: Ignitis AG is an early-stage funding company. Ignitis was founded to solve a critical challenge: parties often need initial capital to develop the case into something viable to attract larger litigation funders. Essentially, to secure funding, one must first invest capital. Drawing on decades of experience in litigation and institutional investment, we are uniquely positioned to provide the capital and expertise needed to kickstart cases and drive them toward resolution. We focus solely on early-stage funding, ensuring that quality cases get the financing they need to be successful while increasing access to justice.

Company Websitewww.ignitisag.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: Zug, Switzerland

Area of Focus: We focus specifically on initial case development and early-stage funding. We put our money in at initial, risky stages, to develop the case and prepare it for full funding and filing. We not only inject capital, but we also provide expertise and advice along the way to ensure that the case has the greatest opportunity for success.

Member Quote: "Too many meritorious cases never make it to court, not because they lack merit, but because the injured parties lack the financial resources or the know-how to move forward. At Ignitis, we are committed to improving access to justice by investing in cases that other funders might overlook and offering the expertise needed for thorough case development—ensuring more individuals have their day in court."

Administrators for VFS Legal Repay Millions to Creditors

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

For those litigation funders who achieve great success with their investments in meritorious claims, the financial returns can create the foundation for a long-term strategic growth. However, with the inherent risk at play in any legal funding enterprise, there will always be funders who do not survive in the market.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the status of the collapsed litigation funder, VFS Legal, with administrators having reportedly been able to pay back millions of pounds to the company’s creditors by recovering loans taken out by law firms. 

In the last six months, administrators have reportedly been able to return £3.9m to VFS’ one secured creditor, resulting in a total of £22.2m in payments made to investor OBS. In addition to these sums paid to the creditor, administrators have also fully repaid £74,000 to preferential creditors. Finally, unsecured creditors who were owed a total of £9m have been given a final dividend of 5.34p on the pound.

Alvarez & Marsal Europe LLP, as the firm appointed to handle the administration of VFS, have reportedly accumulated £284,000 in time costs, with their final fees expected to exceed the starting estimate of £1.5 million.

As LFJ covered in August 2023 when VFS Legal had confirmed the appointment of administrators, the funder had reportedly provided £150 million in funding to support over 25,000 cases across the last eight years, with law firms including Slater and Gordon having previously received funding. However, by 30 June 2022, VFS reportedly owed £38.7 million in repayments within the following year, primarily comprised of a bank loan for £35.6 million.

The Challenges Facing the Funding Market for Investment Treaty Disputes

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Although commercial disputes and class action claims tend to dominate the headlines around legal funding, the world of international arbitration remains a market that currently presents an equal balance of challenges and opportunities for those funders willing to take on the risk of these complex disputes.

In an interview shared by Erso Capital, investment manager Sarah Breckenridge speaks with Baiju Vasani, barrister and arbitrator at Twenty Essex Counsel, to discuss the current state of the funding market for investment treaty disputes. In the interview, Breckenridge raises the question of whether it has become more difficult to secure litigation funding for these investment treaty cases. 

Vasani explains that whilst in the past this was a stable market, this trend of a “hardened” funding market has emerged in recent years. He goes on to note that there has been a “tightening” on funding availability since the outbreak of Russia’s war with Ukraine, and that “geopolitical volatility has created uncertainty in the market.”  As a result of these factors, Vasani illustrates a situation where “funders are somewhat reticent to invest in cases in a certain region”, with the imposition of sanctions playing a role in this reticence.

Vasani also highlights an issue that is “systemic to the ICSID” as a reason for these difficulties in obtaining funding, that being the simple facts that “cases are taking too long, costing too much” and identifies “some fatigue in the funding market with that situation.” However, Vasani provides an optimistic outlook that we may be at the peak of this cycle of prolonged case durations and exorbitant costs, and expressed hope that the “tightening of the market” is temporary.

As a final note of hope for the funding market, Vasani argues that “there is never a tightening of the market for a fantastic case, so if you’ve got a great case there is money available for it.”

Chambers Releases Litigation Funding 2025 Practice Guide

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As the legal funding market continues to expand its influence across the globe, with the practice seeing growth across a diverse array of markets, understanding the nuances at play in these different jurisdictions has never been more important.

Chambers and Partners has released its 2025 practice guide for litigation funding, providing a fresh look at the latest information on the legal and regulatory framework around legal funding. The guide’s global overview highlights the most prominent developments and challenges in the last year, noting that the rising demand for legal capital is being driven by emerging markets, whilst growing calls for regulation across the UK, USA and Europe have presented fresh obstacles for the industry to tackle.

The practice also delves into 11 key individual jurisdictions around the globe, offering more detailed information and analysis on the current rules and regulations in those countries. In addition to this outline of the rules in these jurisdictions, Chambers has included an update on the latest trends and developments in the following six jurisdictions: Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA. In order to compile these useful insights on regional rules and trends, Chambers worked with the following legal professionals in each region:

  • Australia: Susanna Taylor, Lina Kolomoitseva, Helen Roins, Justin Ward (Litigation Capital Management)
  • Cayman Islands: Harriet Ter-Berg, Ellie Taylor (Appleby)
  • Germany: Ulrich Lohmann, Christian T. Stempfle, Stefan Heinrichshofen (Peters, Schönberger & Partner mbB)
  • India: Hiroo Advani, Justin M Bharucha, Sneha Jaisingh (Bharucha & Partners)
  • Italy: Giorgio Afferni, Lavinia Florimo (Delex Law Firm)
  • Japan: Kosuke Tsunashima, Shunsuke Domon, Shigeo Sato (Anderson Mori & Tomotsune)
  • Spain: Jesús Rodrigo Lavilla, Alipio Conde Herrero, Silvia Ochoa Pérez (PLA Litigation Funding)
  • Türkiye: Jonathan W Blythe, Gül Şengüler, Yasemin Akdeniz, Alp Göktuğ Kalmaz (Şengüler & Partners)
  • UAE: Ais Lidzhanova, Michael Neumann, Oliver Ciric (TA Advisory)
  • UK: Elena Rey, Tom McDonnell, Tracy Fisher (Brown Rudnick LLP)
  • USA: Charles Agee, Wendie Childress, Gretchen Lowe (Westfleet Advisors)

Chambers’ Litigation Funding 2025 practice guide can be read in full here

AALF Welcomes HKA Global and Vie Legal Insurance as Associate Members

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

In a series of posts on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) announced that it has welcomed HKA Global and Vie as its newest Associate Members. With the addition of these two new members, AALF now boasts a total of 20 Associate Members in addition to its eight Funder Members.

On March 5, AALF welcomed HKA Global as an Associate Member. The global consultancy works across risk mitigation, commercial dispute resolution, expert witness and litigation support services. HKA's multi-disciplinary practice provides services including expert, claims, and advisory services for the capital projects and infrastructure sector, as well as forensic accounting and commercial damages services. With a worldwide presence spanning five continents, HKA’s Australia operations include offices in Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. More information about HKA Global can be found on its website.  

On March 6, AALF then welcomed Vie Legal Insurance as an Associate Member. As a specialist legal insurance broker, Vie Legal provides tailored solutions to a range of clients include funders, law firms, insolvency practitioners, and inhouse counsel. Clients include Holmann Webb Lawyers, Phi Finney McDonald, Litigation Lending and Therium. Based out of Sydney, Vie Legal works across the legal insurance markets in both Australia and New Zealand. More information about Vie Legal can be found on its website

A full list of AALF’s funder members and associate members can be found here.

Pretium Raises $500 Million for its Inaugural Legal Opportunities Fund

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Pretium, a specialized investment firm with more than $57 billion in assets under management, has closed its inaugural Legal Opportunities Fund, securing approximately $500 million in equity capital commitments from a group of new and existing investors.

The Fund will provide liquidity to plaintiffs, entitlement holders and law firms pursuing a broad range of corporate claims, including patent infringement, anti-trust, and general commercial and contract litigation. For investors, the Fund offers the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns that are minimally correlated to traditional markets.

"The demand for this Fund underscores not only the evergreen opportunities in legal finance, but the strength of Pretium's investment approach," said Don Mullen, Founder and CEO of Pretium. "We are specialists in unlocking value in complex investments with high barriers to entry. Having developed that expertise through our work in residential real estate, we are applying it to legal opportunities, which we believe will create significant benefits for our investors."

Matthew Cantor, Senior Managing Director leading Pretium's Legal Opportunities strategy, added, "Intellectual property is the capital driving the growth of the digital economy and the development of legal finance. By providing bespoke capital solutions to fund the monetization of legal entitlements, we're supporting law firms, corporations, and other sophisticated parties to help more efficiently and effectively manage their legal risks."

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP served as legal counsel to the Pretium Legal Opportunities Fund.

About PretiumPretium is a specialized investment firm focused on U.S. residential real estate, residential credit, and corporate credit. Pretium was founded in 2012 to capitalize on investment and lending opportunities arising as a result of structural changes, disruptions, and inefficiencies within the economy. Pretium has built an integrated analytical and operational ecosystem within the U.S. housing, residential credit, and corporate credit markets, and believes that its insight and experience within these markets create a strategic advantage over other investment managers. Pretium's platform has more than $57 billion of assets, comprising real estate investments across nearly 90 markets in the U.S., and employs approximately 7,000 people across 50 offices, including its New York headquarters, Miami, London, Seoul, and Sydney. Please visit www.pretium.com for additional information.

ACL and CILEX Voice Support for Increased Regulation of Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Following the closure of the deadline for the consultation period in the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, we are beginning to gain a clearer picture of where different parts of the country’s legal industry stand on the issue of regulation.

Two articles from Solicitors Journal provide insight into the positions of leading UK legal industry bodies in response to the CJC review, as the ACL (Association of Cost Lawyers) and CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) expressed their support for increased regulation governing litigation funding.

The ACL voiced its overall positive view of the funding of meritorious claims, describing it as a “net positive” for the legal system and rejecting the idea that third-party funding increases litigation costs, but equally noted its concern that “the significant volume of funding coming into the market could have a negative impact”. In terms of the extent of independent regulation the ACL would like to see, proposed measures include a cap on funder’s fees, protections from excessive funder control of litigation, and increased transparency around the sources of outside funding.

However, the ACL also recognised legitimate concerns about some of these measures, noting that a funder’s return should reflect the significant risk being taken. If a suitable framework for a cap cannot be found, the ACL suggested that court of approval of funding agreements could provide an acceptable safeguard for clients. Jack Ridgway, chair of the ACL, emphasised that “Even opponents of third-party funding have to agree that it has increased access to justice and that ultimately is the litmus test.”

CILEX put forward its support for an improved regulatory framework for litigation funding, but suggested that the best approach may be through an expansion and improvement of the Association of Litigation Funders’ existing code of conduct. Like the ACL, CILEX advocated for greater transparency around litigation funding, and even went a step further, arguing for the mandatory disclosure of funding agreements. 

Simon Garrod, Director of Policy & Public Affairs at CILEX, acknowledged that litigation funding aims to “improve access to justice and it has achieved that in many cases”, but its impact on the legal system is significant enough to warrant “a more robust regulatory regime” to protect clients. 

The full article detailing the ACL’s position can be read here, and the article on CILEX’s view can be read here.

Henderson & Jones Awarded £2.15m for Assigned Breach of Confidence Claim

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

A decision handed down in the High Court earlier this week has demonstrated the potential value for funders in securing the assignment of a claim, providing the funder with more control over the litigation, and when a claim is successful, a direct return on investment through any eventual damages.

An article in Legal Futures covers the ruling from the High Court, where litigation funder Henderson & Jones has been awarded £2.15 million in damages in the case of Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors. Henderson & Jones took assignment of a claim by Tony Gifford in December 2021, a software inventor who had accused his early-stage investors of misusing confidential information shared in private meetings to develop their own software application. 

As a result of this breach of confidence, Mr Gifford claimed that he had been unable to secure funding from other investors, as Salica Investments and Dominic Perks had created competition through their own business. Mr Justice Calver’s ruling found in favour of Gifford’s claim, stating that it was “clear that Mr Perks stood to benefit personally financially from the misuse of the confidential information.”  Notably, the size of the eventual £2.15m award was made by the judge without any input from expert witnesses for the defendants, as they had failed to deliver expert reports prior to the deadline. 

Henderson & Jones’ managing director, Piers Elliott, provided the following comment on the judgment: “We’re very happy with the outcome and are delighted to have been able to assist Mr Gifford, who has been fighting for justice for many years.”

Hugh Sims KC and Jay Jagasia from Guildhall Chambers represented Henderson & Jones, instructed by Cardium Law Limited.

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

Westfleet Advisors Release Best Practices in Litigation Finance Guide

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

General awareness and understanding of litigation funding has been on the rise in recent years, however, the prospect of approaching and utilising these services can be a daunting task for those law firms who have never before worked with a third-party funder.

Today, Westfleet Advisors has released the latest edition of their publication, Best Practices in Litigation Finance: Law Firm Guide to Client-Directed Funding. The 27-page whitepaper provides a holistic overview of all aspects of legal funding for law firms, taking the reader from a basic outline of litigation funding all the way through to the important factors that need to be considered when securing a funding arrangement.

Whilst each section of the guide offers specific advice on the different aspects of funding, Westfleet Advisors also offers key takeaways for law firms to be aware of.  One of the most noteworthy is the possibility of conflicts of interest arising when litigation counsel is involved in securing funding for clients, suggesting that independent expert advisors should be brought into the dealmaking process. Of similar importance, the guide emphasizes the value in law firms understanding the individual funders in the market and building relationships within this space, to ensure that they can direct their clients to the most suitable funding partner for any given case.

To download the full whitepaper, visit Westfleet Advisors’ website.

Rightscorp Announces Strategic Expansion, Legal Momentum, and Introduction of Rightscan: An AI-Powered Copyright Data Aggregation Platform

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Rightscorp, Inc., a leader in digital copyright enforcement and data intelligence, is pleased to provide a comprehensive corporate update following its successful shareholder meeting. This update outlines the company's ongoing legal achievements, strategic growth initiatives, and the preview of its transformative Rightscan Data Aggregator platform.

Commitment to Shareholders

Rightscorp extends its sincere appreciation to all shareholders who participated in the recent shareholder meeting and exercised their voting rights on proxy materials. We are pleased to announce that all resolutions were approved, demonstrating strong investor confidence in the company's strategic direction. This support underscores a shared commitment to expanding Rightscorp's technological and legal capabilities to maximize long-term valuation.

Establishing Legal Precedent: Rightscorp's Pivotal Role in Copyright Enforcement

Rightscorp has consistently played a defining role in shaping legal precedent in copyright enforcement, delivering tangible results for rights holders. Over the years, the company has been instrumental in major litigation efforts that have established significant legal standards in the fight against digital piracy. Key legal milestones include:

  • BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications (2015) - A landmark case reaffirming ISPs' obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) resulted in a $25 million jury award and $8.3 million in attorney's fees for copyright holders, ultimately settling for an undisclosed amount. This set a pivotal precedent regarding the responsibilities of ISPs in mitigating piracy on their networks.
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC (2022) - A federal jury found Grande Communications liable for willful contributory copyright infringement, initially awarding $46.7 million in damages. The ruling reaffirmed that ISPs cannot claim safe harbor protection while failing to address widespread copyright violations on their networks.
  • BMG Rights Management v. Altice USA, Inc. (2022-2024) - A rapid and decisive legal action against Altice USA, one of the largest ISPs in the U.S. The case, built on overwhelming evidence provided by Rightscorp, resulted in a confidential settlement in record time, reinforcing the company's effectiveness in securing enforcement outcomes.

These cases underscore Rightscorp's ability to leverage sophisticated copyright data intelligence to support rights holders in enforcing their intellectual property rights through decisive legal action.

Legal Victory in American Films v. Rightscorp, Inc.

Rightscorp is pleased to report a significant legal victory in the case of American Films, LLC v. Rightscorp, Inc. The case, which stemmed from meritless claims against Rightscorp, was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, affirming the company's legal standing. Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of Rightscorp's entitlement to recover attorneys' fees and litigation costs. This outcome reflects the company's steadfast commitment to defending itself against unfounded legal challenges and reinforces the legitimacy of its operations.

Expanding Legal Initiatives Through Strategic Litigation Partnerships

To further strengthen its enforcement capabilities, Rightscorp is actively engaging with industry-leading litigation funders to scale its legal initiatives. These strategic partnerships will enable the company to pursue larger and more impactful copyright enforcement actions with increased efficiency. Additionally, Rightscorp's long-standing legal counsel-instrumental in previous landmark copyright litigation-remains actively involved and highly optimistic about the evolving legal landscape. With expanded funding and legal expertise, Rightscorp is positioned to drive enforcement actions on a scale never seen before, benefiting copyright owners across the industry.

Rightscan Data Aggregator: A Paradigm Shift in Copyright Intelligence (Coming Q2-Q3 2025)

Rightscorp is proud to introduce Rightscan, a cutting-edge AI-powered platform designed to transform the landscape of copyright enforcement and data monetization. Unlike conventional enforcement tools that rely on self-reported infringement data, Rightscan autonomously aggregates and analyzes vast datasets, offering unparalleled insight into copyright compliance, piracy trends, and enforcement opportunities.

To learn more about Rightscan and its capabilities, visit www.rightscan.co

Key Capabilities of Rightscan:

  • DMCA Compliance Monitoring - AI-driven tracking of ISP compliance, ensuring persistent enforcement regardless of corporate restructuring or name changes.
  • Comprehensive Copyright Registration Intelligence - Analyzes official copyright filings to identify works and highlight acquisition opportunities for investors.
  • Piracy Leakage Analysis - Provides API-driven insights to royalty collection firms and content owners, quantifying lost revenue linked to digital piracy.
  • Advanced Data Monetization - Leverages proprietary data analytics to provide actionable intelligence for private equity firms, digital rights managers, and ad-tech platforms.
  • IP-Based Audience Insights - Uses torrent-related data to offer alternative audience targeting solutions, bridging the gap between piracy monitoring and digital marketing optimization.

Continued Market Demand for Rightscorp's Legal Copyright Enforcement Platform

While Rightscan marks a significant leap in copyright intelligence, Rightscorp's legal enforcement platform remains integral to the company's core operations. The demand for traditional copyright enforcement remains strong among major record labels, private equity firms, and other entities that own extensive copyright portfolios.

The growing availability of litigation funding, combined with renewed interest from existing and prospective clients, is driving expansion discussions. The company is actively working with litigation funders, legal experts, and copyright owners to scale enforcement initiatives faster and more effectively than ever before.

Looking Forward: A Future Defined by Innovation and Enforcement

As Rightscorp continues to lead in copyright enforcement and data intelligence, our focus remains on technological advancement, strategic industry partnerships, and further legal precedents. By harnessing AI-driven copyright analytics, securing litigation funding, and reinforcing its market leadership, Rightscorp is setting the stage for sustained growth and enhanced value for its shareholders.

About

Rightscorp (OTC PINK:RIHT) monetizes copyrighted Intellectual Property (IP). The Company's patent pending digital loss prevention technology focuses on the infringement of digital content such as music, movies, software, and games and ensures that owners and creators are rightfully paid for their IP. Rightscorp implements existing laws to solve copyright infringements by collecting payments from illegal file sharing activities via notifications sent through Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The Company's technology identifies copyright infringers, who are offered a reasonable settlement option when compared to the legal liability defined in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA). Based on the fact that 24% of all internet traffic is used to distribute copyrighted content without permission, Rightscorp is pursuing an estimated $2.3 billion opportunity and has monetized major media titles through relationships with industry leaders.

Safe Harbor Statement

This shareholder update contains information that constitutes forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results described within the forward-looking statements. Risk factors that could contribute to such differences include those matters more fully disclosed in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking information provided herein represents the Company's estimates as of the date of the shareholder update, and subsequent events and developments may cause the Company's estimates to change. The Company specifically disclaims any obligation to update the forward-looking information in the future. Therefore, this forward-looking information should not be relied upon as representing the Company's estimates of its future financial performance as of any date subsequent to the date of this shareholder update.

CONTACT:

Markus Rainak
855-520-7448
Support@rightscorp.com

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Kishore Jaichandani, Founder and Managing Director, CAVEAT CAPITAL

By John Freund and 4 others |

Kishore Jaichandani is a founder and Managing Director of CAVEAT CAPITAL and an
expert in litigation funding and related advisory services globally. He has a unique
combination of financial and, legal acumen with having Bachelor of Law., Company
Secretary, MBA (Finance) and CIMA qualifications and have rich professional experience
working on these areas for more than 25 years.

He assists law firms, corporates, and individuals globally in obtaining non-recourse
financing for commercial litigation and arbitration cases. He is committed to creating value
for lawyers and, their clients to have access to the information and expertise they need
to negotiate fair funding agreements in the event of litigation in the competitive legal
market. His expertise includes developing financial solutions to help law firms and big
corporations to mitigate risk, and achieve their growth strategies, including using litigation
portfolios as collateral for off-balance sheet working capital, and monetizing litigation and
judgments.

Company Name and Description: CAVEAT CAPITAL arranges to provide litigation finance solutions
that address clients’ unique challenges. We manage entire litigation funding process, utilize our capital
sources and negotiate with various stakeholders for our clients. We arrange to meet
clients’ litigation costs to provide a better solution for P&L, working capital support, and
budgets to optimize recovery efforts to transform the legal cost from cost center to value
generator.

CAVEAT CAPITAL assesses the feasibility and options for obtaining legal finance /
litigation or arbitration funding. We are highly skilled and experienced in providing clients
with honest and reliable assessments of the funding opportunities of each case.

Company Website: www.caveat-capital.com

Year Founded:  2022

Headquarters:  Dubai, UAE

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding / Legal Finance / Third Party Funding 

Member Quote: “Transform your legal costs into Value Generation”

Georgia Senate Unanimously Approves Governor’s Litigation Funding Bill

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As LFJ reported last week, momentum continues to build behind state-level legislative proposals that seek to impose new rules governing the use of third-party litigation funding in the U.S. 

Reporting by the AP covers a new development in the Georgia state legislature, where the Senate has unanimously passed the second part of Gov. Brian Kemp’s legislative package aimed at tort reform and third-party litigation funding. Senate Bill 69, which passed the Senate last Thursday with 52 Yea votes, amends state law to include new provisions governing the involvement of litigation funders.

SB 69 requires third-party funders register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, as well as prohibiting any foreign individuals or organisation from funding litigation in the state. The bill also sets out disclosure requirements for cases where a litigation funding agreement is present and puts in place restrictions on a funder’s ability to control the litigation process.

Senate President Pro Tem John Kennedy, a sponsor of the bill, said that SB 69  “combats the growing foreign influence” in Georgia lawsuits, and argued that the new rules contained within the bill act as a “consumer protection measure”. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, which opposes these attempts at reform, stated that there is “still work to be done to ensure SB 69 fairly addresses its intended purpose”. 

SB 69 will now join SB 68, the part of Gov. Kemp’s package that primarily deals with tort reform, to be debated in the House and scrutinised by a bi-partisan subcommittee convened by House Rules Committee Chairman Butch Parrish. 

The full text and status of Senate Bill 69 can be accessed on the Georgia General Assembly website.

LCM Announces Filing of Appeal in Australian Energy Class Action

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

As LFJ reported in December 2024, an Australian class action funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) had received an unfavourable ruling in the Federal Court of Australia, with the judge ruling against the claim brought over claims that two government-owned entities engaged in market manipulation to create an artificially scarce supply and raise prices.

An announcement from LCM revealed that an appeal has been filed in the class action brought on behalf of Queensland consumers against the Stanwell Corporation LTD and CS Energy LTD. The funder’s brief announcement suggested that further details around the appeal would be released in due course, stating: “We look forward to engaging further with investors after our interim results have been published on 18 March 2025.“

In LCM’s release following the December ruling, CEO Patrick Moloney had said that their “expectation has always been that an appeal in this case was likely, regardless of the initial outcome” and that they “remain confident in the strength of the underlying claim.” The previous announcement also included a top-line overview of LCM’s involvement in the case, disclosing that the funder had provided A$25m in funding from its own balance sheet capital to support the class action.

The first instance judgment from Justice Dennington in the case of Stillwater Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Stanwell Corporation Ltd can be read here.

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces Closing of $10MM Senior Secured Notes

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Legal-Bay, the premier legal funding company, announced today the closing of $10MM in senior secured notes for their short-term growth plans. Legal-Bay, established in 2006 and one of the oldest legal funding firms in the "Lit Fin" industry, is now poised to aggressively fund car accidents, slip and falls, personal injury, sex abuse cases, sex harassment on job, wrongful termination, discrimination, Bard hernia mesh cases, Hawaii and California wildfire cases, and a slew of other cases with their increased capital commitment.

Chris Janish, CEO of the company, talked about the company's goals, "With this new capital commitment and consistent recurring origination flow each quarter, we are excited about the future. We have a target to become one of the largest legal funding portfolios in the industry over the next four years. This initial capital closing is a bridge for more substantial capital needs over the next twelve months with our business model projecting $25MM to $30MM in additional assets to absorb our anticipated sales growth." 

Legal-Bay is known as one of the best lawsuit funding companies in the industry for their 24-hour approvals and great customer service. They have enlarged their staff to take on the increased volume of clients applying for loans on lawsuits. 

If you are involved in a car accident or another lawsuit that is lagging in the courts and need cash today, you may apply right now for a cash advance on your case.

If you are a plaintiff or attorney involved in an active lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance lawsuit loan against an impending lawsuit settlement, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405.

Legal-Bay's loan settlement programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans on lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loan isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To apply right now for a loan on lawsuit program, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on AI & Technology

By John Freund and 4 others |

On Thursday, February 27th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall on AI and legal technology. The panel discussion featured Erik Bomans (EB), CEO of Deminor Recovery Services, Stewart Ackerly (SA), Director at Statera Capital, David Harper (DH), co-founder and CEO of Legal Intelligence, and Patrick Ip (PI), co-founder of Theo AI. The panel was hosted by Ted Farrell, founder of Litigation Funding Advisers.

Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:

Everyone reads about AI every day and how it's disrupting this industry, being used here and being used there. So what I wanted to ask you all to talk about what is the use case for AI, specific to the litigation finance business?

PI: There are a couple of core use cases on our end that we hear folks use it for. One is a complementary approach to underwriting. So initial gut take as to what are potentially the case killers. So should I actually invest time in human underwriting to look at this case?

The second use case is a last check. So before we're actually going into fund, obviously cases are fluid. They're ever-evolving. They're changing. So between the first pass and the last check, has anything changed that would stop us from actually doing the funding? And then the third more novel approach that we've gotten a lot of feedback

There are 270,000 new lawsuits filed a day. Generally speaking, in order to understand if this lawsuit has any merit, you have to read through all the cases. It's very time consuming to do. Directionally, as an application, as an AI application, We can comb through all those documents. We can read all those emails. We can look through social and digest public information to say, hey, these are the cases that actually are most relevant to your fund. Instead of looking through 50 or 100 of these, these are the top 10 most relevant ones. And we send those to clients on a weekly basis. Interesting.

I don't want you to give up your proprietary special sauce, but how are you all trying to leverage these tools to aid you and deliver the kind of returns that LPs want to see?

SA: We can make the most effective use of AI or other technologies - whether it's at the very top of the funnel and what's coming into the funnel, or whether it's deeper down into the funnel of a case that we like - is that we try to find a way to leverage AI to complement our underwriting. We think about it a lot on the origination side just making us more efficient, letting us be able to sift through a larger number of cases more quickly and as effectively as if we had bodies to look through them all, but also to help us just find more cases that may be a potential fit.

In terms of kind of the data sources that you rely on. I think a question we always think about, especially for kind of early stage cases is, is there enough data available? For example, if there's just a complaint on file, is that going to give you enough for AI to give you a meaningful result?

I think most of the people on this call would tell you duration is in a lot of ways the biggest risk that funders take. So what specific pieces of these cases is AI helping you drill down into, and how are you harnessing the leverage you can access with these tools?

DH: We, 18 months ago or so, in the beginning of our journey on this use case in law, were asked by a very, very big and very well respected personal injury business in the UK to help them make sense of 37,000 client files that they'd settled with insurers on non-fault motor accident.

And we ran some modeling. We created some data scientist assets, which were AI assets. And their view was, if we had more resources, we would do more of the following things. But we're limited by the amount of people we've got and the amount we get per file to spend on delivering that file. So we developed some AI assets to investigate the nearly 40,000 cases, what the insurers across different jurisdictions and different circumstances settled on.

And we, in partnership with them, improved their settlement value by 8%. The impact that had on their EBITDA, etc. That's on a firm level, right? That's on a user case where a firm is actually using AI to perform a science task on their data to give them better predictive analysis. Because lawyers were erring on the side of caution. they would go on a lowball offer because of the impact of getting that wrong if it went to court after settlement. So I think for us, our conversations with financiers and law firms, alignment is key, right? So a funder wants to protect their capital and time - the longer things take, the longer your capital's out, the potential lower returns.

AI can offer a lot of solutions for very specific problems and can be very useful and can reduce the cost of analyzing these cases, but predictive outcome analysis requires a lot of data. And so the problem is, where do you get the data from and how good is the data? How unstructured or structured are the data sets?

I think getting access to the data is one issue. The other one is the quality of the data, of course, that you put into the machine. If you put bad data in a machine, you might get some correlations, but what's the relevance, right? And that's the problem that we are facing.

So many cases are settled, you don't know the outcome. And that's why you still need the human component. We need doctors to train computers to analyze medical images. We need lawyers and people with litigation experience who can tell a computer whether this is a good case, whether this is a good settlement or a bad settlement. And in the end, if you don't know it because it's confidential, someone has to make a call on that. I'm afraid that's what we have to do, right? Even one litigation fund or several litigation funders are not going to have enough data with settlements on the same type of claim to build a predictive analytical model on it.

And so you need to get massive amounts of data where some human elements, some coding is still going to be required, manual coding. And I think that's a process that we're going to have to go through.

You can view the full panel discussion here.