Trending Now
  • Fenchurch Legal Launches Secured Litigation Funding Strategy for Fixed-Income Investors
Commercial Fundraising

Bloomberg Law on Historic ‘Secondary Deal Fund’ Landing $750M 

Bloomberg Law profiles Ashley Keller and Adam Gerchen as serial law entrepreneurs who have now raised $750M to fund the first secondary transaction litigation fund. Six years ago, Mr. Keller and Mr. Gerchen made headlines by selling their litigation finance firm for upwards of $160M to Burford Capital. Bloomberg Law reports that the secondary deal landscape for litigation finance is in its infancy. News of Keller and Gerchen’s new secondary market fund (under the banner of Gerchen Capital Partners) is being viewed as a signal of the maturing nature of litigation investment broadly. 

According to Bloomberg Law, $225M of proceeds from the fund have been dispatched. In one instance, funds were disbursed to purchase a 30% stake from Omni Bridgeway’s investment in an Australian class action. Sources say Omni was overweight with ‘combustible cladding’ claims in Australia and decided to offload some of the risk to the secondary market. 

Bloomberg reports that Gerchen Capital Partners submitted $19.5M to Omni for the stake. A regulatory filing discloses Omni banking a $16M profit for the transaction. Bloomberg’s insights suggest that Mr. Keller and Mr. Gerchen are looking to usher in a robust secondary marketplace for litigation investors.

Active debate around a robust secondary market for litigation finance is ongoing. Many suggest that savvy litigation funders would only offload assets if concerned about losing the claim, or not being able to enforce a successful outcome. However, others suggest the needs of litigation franchises change over time, as claims can often take years to reach resolution. Hence there may be a need for a secondary market in Litigation Finance.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Isn’t an ‘Anti-Woke’ Weapon, Says Consumer Advocacy Group

By John Freund |

A new opinion piece pushes back against recent cultural and political rhetoric characterizing third-party litigation funding as a partisan instrument, arguing instead that it remains a neutral financial tool in the legal system.

An article in the Consumer Choice Center emphasizes that while some political actors and commentators have portrayed litigation funding as a means to challenge so-called “woke” corporations, such framing misconstrues the role and function of funders. According to the piece, litigation funding serves a straightforward purpose: to provide capital to litigants—be they individuals or entities—who lack the resources to pursue claims. The authors argue that this mechanism is neither inherently ideological nor driven by political outcomes.

The article calls for clearer regulatory standards and heightened transparency to avoid potential abuses and maintain public trust. It warns against allowing litigation finance to be co-opted by political narratives, which could derail substantive policy debates around disclosure, ethical boundaries, and market oversight.

In a landscape increasingly shaped by culture wars, this intervention underscores a foundational point: litigation finance is not a proxy battlefield for partisan interests, but a tool with the potential to improve access to justice—provided it is governed with clarity and care.

Commercial

WSJ Editorial Calls for Ending Tax Breaks for Foreign Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal advocates for closing tax loopholes that allow foreign investment funds to avoid U.S. taxes on profits earned from financing lawsuits against American companies. The editorial argues that the current tax code inadvertently incentivizes predatory litigation funding practices by exempting foreign investors from taxation on lawsuit proceeds, thereby disadvantaging domestic businesses.

The article contends that this exemption creates an uneven playing field, enabling foreign entities to profit from U.S. legal actions without contributing to the tax base. It suggests that such practices not only strain the judicial system but also impose additional burdens on American companies, which must defend against potentially frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits financed by these untaxed foreign investments.

The editorial calls on Congress to reevaluate and amend the tax code to eliminate these exemptions. By doing so, it aims to deter exploitative litigation funding and ensure that all investors, regardless of nationality, are subject to the same tax obligations when profiting from the U.S. legal system.

The piece emphasizes that such reforms would promote fairness and protect domestic businesses from undue legal and financial pressures.