Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner of Ignitis
Commercial Special Features

Cesar Bello of Corbin Capital Discusses Litigation Funding as an Investment

On the most recent episode of the Litigation Finance Podcast, Cesar Bello, Partner and Deputy General Counsel of Corbin Capital, explained how he evaluates litigation finance investments, what his ROI expectations are, and how funders can mitigate risk. Below are some key takeaways from the discussion.

What about the funding industry drew your attention and your interest? The stock answer here is that it’s non-correlated compared to a lot of other alternative assets. What else can you say about this asset class that really draws your interest—especially when compared to other alternative assets.

Obviously that’s a big part of it. It’s differentiated—it’s particularly attractive in times of market volatility. When you expect more fat tails, we think there’s a good chance that that type of environment will persist in the near term. We’ve seen over the last year those kinds of spikes with meme stocks, heightened government intervention, obviously the pandemic, political climate, etc. So it was nice for us, we had some good outcomes last March and April when everything else was not working so great. So it really helps the portfolio.

Beyond the uncorrelated nature of it, obviously the opportunity to earn outsized returns. Single case risk is generally structured to make a 3-5x return—so you’re getting paid well for the risk. Private lending for the more credit-oriented type of LitFin plays—you’re still getting paid, or overpaid since the sector is still largely underbanked—although increasingly less so. The underlying collateral is not well understood by traditional lenders.

Back to the market as a whole, it’s still, I think, growing. The legal services industry is a $1 trillion industry worldwide. Litigation Finance has grown a lot. There’s a growing awareness among mainstream corporates, if they have assets on their balance sheets that they can monetize, Fortune 500 companies are awakening to this possibility of using Litigation Finance to bring cases without sucking up the budget or disrupting their cashflows. 

How important is ESG to investors such as Corbin, and also to your LP investors? 

Obviously, we do a lot more than just Litigation Finance, but with respect to Litigation Finance in particular, the easiest way to think about it is not necessarily equal access to justice in our legal system. Right? Litigation Finance helps level the playing field, so David can go after Goliath. That’s obvious and simple to understand. But it kind of flows through and manifests itself in different ways. Take mass torts—environmental cases, for example—there’s a long history of poor minority communities being used as toxic dumping grounds. We have opioids, we have sexual abuse cases, etc, so from an environmental, socioeconomic, social justice perspective—there’s a clear angle there.

But back to how we think about it more broadly, our approach to ESG is focused on the thoughtful application of ESG factors to enhance our business and it takes a lot of work. We’ve been working on it over the last 2-3 years. With the help of leading experts in the space and consultants to help us navigate what remains of a pretty fragmented information environment.

We believe in meaningful integration of material ESG factors that can lead to a more complete picture of risk and opportunity, driving more informed decision-making with the opportunity to get better risk-adjusted returns. 

Let’s say I’m a commercial litigation funding manager. I approach you for an investment opportunity. Is there anything you wish these fund managers did more of or less of? Any advice you can give to them?

I think it’s important to have a real understanding and self-awareness of where you sit in the marketplace and to be commercial—it’s hard to raise money. The safe thing to do is to give money to the bigger players, particularly if you’re just starting out. We’ve seen a lot of people try to raise funds with unrealistic expectations, and refusing to partner with people in creative ways because they want a fund and don’t want to do co-investments—not thinking about the long game, and not realizing the best path to unlock capital may not be the one that they came into the meeting with. So really listening and trying to figure out where that happy medium is, to find a way to work together.

Back to the point about most of the money coming in is going to established players, that’s the nature of the asset management industry as a whole. So we also like people who can talk through a bad outcome—lessons learned—that buys some goodwill. … Find a way to get in the door, build trust, and hopefully everybody gets more comfortable and it becomes easier to build a relationship. 

When you look at this industry, what opportunities are you seeing down the road for the funding industry? How do you see this industry developing in the coming years?

Good question. I think everybody would tell you it’s probably going to grow and there’s probably going to be some price compression as the asset class matures. Maybe something you won’t hear as much—I really would like it to evolve into having a more active secondary market, which would help with the duration issue. As anything that helps generate liquidity, we would view as a positive. And obviously, it would help with valuation price discovery as well.

So there’s a lot of activity now in private equity funds and private credit funds in terms of secondaries and continuation funds, as some of the older vintages are getting long in the tooth. It would be interesting to have some growth there, and I think similarly there’s a good amount of the bigger funds that are running up against the end of their fund life and they’re going to be motivated to sort of solve for that.

I think there are some characteristics here that are going to make it harder for secondary markets to flourish in the marketplace. This stuff is idiosyncratic and hard to underwrite. You’re not buying IBM bonds. But it’s doable, and I think it’ll happen eventually. When it does I think it will be a very positive signal for the asset class.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

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.