Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Firm-Funder Partnerships

September 29, 2022

Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Firm-Funder Partnerships

This Day 2 panel featured Alex Chucri, CEO and Founder of Pravati Capital, Vincent Montalto, Partner at DLA Piper, and Ronald Schutz, Partner at Robins Kaplan. The panel was moderated by Kathryn Boyd, Partner at Hecht Partners. Discussion topics ranged from operationalizing firm decisions involving funding, to the best ways to structure a funding partnership or alliance. Not everyone knows about the various structures of relationships between law firms and funders, so the panel addressed the various models in play, including those that involve some form of recourse funding. Pravati has a debt structure in play, which founder Alex Chucri thinks makes the most sense for his firm’s structure. He believes in recourse to the firm, to the management team, and personal guarantees. This makes investors more comfortable, knowing that Pravati has skin in the game. Panelists also discussed having to monitor the capital structures, and being cautious about capital allocation. A lot of funders raise $100MM and need to put that capital to work, and so they finance claims the wouldn’t otherwise take on. This is concerning. “When you put capital into a deal, it changes the whole landscape of a deal,” according to Vincent Montalto. His firm has implemented internal structures to monitor capital expenditure and management. The panel also delved into some of the risks of partnering with funders, including whether funders will withdraw their funding – how and why would they do this? Where is funder money coming from – there are all types of investment structures out there, law firms have to be aware of those, so they can better understand the risk to the funder, which presents a downstream risk to them. These are things that the average lawyer in a law firm doesn’t appreciate, but it’s very important to know if the funder  has the capital on hand, is it subject to capital calls, etc. One final point on the tax implications of recourse funding: recourse funding can be clawed back, and so its treated as a loan and so it’s not taxed. Recently there was a legal standing that if the funding structure is non-recourse, that is treated as income, which means it is taxes. Often, there are a lot of emotions about getting a deal done, so they overlook the tax implications, and there is a real danger there.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Appoints Jonathan Edward Wheeler as Partner and Head of Mariana Litigation

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead law firm has appointed Jonathan Edward Wheeler as a partner and Head of Mariana Litigation, adding heavyweight firepower to the team driving one of the largest group claims in English legal history following the firm’s landmark liability win against BHP in the English courts.

Jonathan joins Pogust Goodhead from Morrison Foerster in London, where he was a leading commercial litigation partner, having served for seven years as office co-managing partner and for 15 years as Head of Litigation. A specialist in complex, cross-border disputes, Jonathan has extensive experience acting in high-value commercial litigation, civil fraud and asset tracing, international trust disputes, contentious insolvency and investigations across multiple jurisdictions.

In his new role, Jonathan will assume strategic leadership of the proceedings arising from the Mariana dam disaster against mining giant BHP, overseeing the continued development of the case into the damages phase and working closely with colleagues in Brazil, the UK, the Netherlands and beyond.

Howard Morris, Chairman at Pogust Goodhead said: “Jonathan is a heavyweight addition to Pogust Goodhead and to our Mariana team. His track record in running some of the most complex cross-border disputes in the English courts, together with his leadership experience, make him exactly the kind of senior figure we need after our historic liability victory. Our clients will benefit enormously from his expertise and judgment.”

Jonathan Wheeler said: “It is a privilege to join Pogust Goodhead at such a pivotal moment in the Mariana case. The recent liability judgment is a watershed for access to justice and corporate accountability. I am honoured to help lead the next phase of this extraordinary litigation and to work alongside a team that has shown such determination in seeking justice for hundreds of thousands of victims.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead said: “Bringing in lawyers of Jonathan’s calibre is a strategic choice. As we expand the depth and breadth of our disputes practice globally, we are investing in senior talent who can help us deliver justice at scale for our clients and build an even more resilient firm.”

The Mariana proceedings in England involve over 600,000 of Brazilian individuals, businesses, municipalities, religious institutions and Indigenous communities affected by the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Following the English court’s decision on liability on the 14th of November 2025, the case will now move into the next stage focused on damages and the quantification of losses on an unprecedented scale.

Commercial

APCIA Urges House to Pass Litigation Funding Disclosure Reforms

By John Freund |

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is renewing its call for Congress to advance two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF). According to a recent article in Insurance Journal, APCIA is backing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 1109) and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 (H.R. 2675) as key reforms for federal civil litigation.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up both bills, which would require disclosure of TPLF in federal cases, and in the case of H.R. 2675, bar foreign governments and sovereign-wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. APCIA’s senior vice president for federal government relations described the measures as bringing “needed transparency for one of the largest cost drivers of insurance premiums — third-party litigation funding.”

In support of its advocacy, APCIA cited research from the consulting firm The Perryman Group, which estimated that excess tort costs in the U.S. amount to $368 billion annually — with each household absorbing roughly $2,437 in additional costs per year across items such as home and auto insurance and prescriptions.

While tax reform efforts once included proposals targeting funder profits, budget-rule constraints prevented those from advancing.

Commercial

Burford Capital Underscores Data‑Driven Settlement Strategies

By John Freund |

Burford Capital and Solomonic explore how seasoned funders and advisers can bring precision to the settlement table in high‑stakes disputes.

An article on Burford’s website states that the joint webinar, hosted by James MacKinnon (Burford) and Edward Bird (Solomonic), featured experts from Herbert  Smith  Freehills  Kramer, Pallas  Partners and Dectech to discuss how analytics can reshape settlement strategy. The piece highlights that large‑value disputes often take far longer and face steeper odds of success — not because high‑value claims are inherently weaker, but because risk‑seeking behaviour tends to dominate when the stakes rise.

Burford explains its method of translating a multi‑headed claim into a “weighted average damages outcome,” then discounting for trial risk, appellate risk, enforcement risk and cost of capital to arrive at a present‑day valuation. In one example, a claim with a theoretical maximum of US$500 million was valued at just under US$76 million after risk‑adjustment — meaning a settlement at or above that number would objectively represent success given the circumstances.

The article also reflects on the evolving role of AI and analytics. While data models are improving, Burford cautions that predictive systems remain dependent on data quality and expert inputs — underscoring that modelling alone is not a substitute for judgment and experience.