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

CIO Roundtable: Art of the Deal from Terms to Returns

A panel consisting of Sarah Johnson, Senior VP and Co-Head of Litigation Finance at D.E. Shaw, Aaron Katz, Co-Founder and CIO of Parabellum Capital, David Kerstein, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer at Validity Finance, and Joe Siprut, CEO and CIO of Kerberos Capital Management, discussed the various investment aspects of litigation funding as an asset class. The panel was moderated by Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken.

The conversation began with new trends in the industry. Price compression came up early. Joe Siprut of Kerberos Capital Management noted he has witnessed price comparison over the past couple of years, including having seen multiple term sheets that were mis-priced. Litigation finance has always been about attractive risk-adjusted opportunities, yet if the risk remains the same and price compression remains, that reduces the attraction of the asset class. Moderator Steven Molo was surprised there hasn’t been more fallout in this regard.

Aaron Katz of Parabellum pointed out how things are opening up after COVID, and that helps a lot, given that a pipeline of cases awaiting trial quickly burns through ROI. Katz countered the price compression argument, stating that he hasn’t witnessed real price compression and hasn’t found his firm to be competing on raw price. Of course this depends on which segment of the market you are looking at.

The conversation then steered toward ESG, and David Kerstein of Validity noted how there are green shoots of funders getting involved in impact litigation. Yet for most commercial funders, ESG would maintain the same type of analysis as any other case–that said, funders like to have a ‘good story’ for the case, and ESG can bring that to the table. Aaron Katz mentioned Parabellum is very cautious about ESG in particular. “We think people need to be careful about labelling things incorrectly,” said Katz. There are real impact players out there, and litigation funders should be careful about loosely claiming the mantle.

The next question was pretty blunt: Is there a secondary market right now? Aaron Katz thinks not “I pray for it daily.” There is a network of well-resourced institutional players who like to look at claims, but the transactions are laborious (DD challenges, information asymmetry). The secondary participant is not going to be in a direct conversation with the counter-party, and that could cause complications.

One final point: Joe Siprut noted that the evolution of a secondary market is one of the main things that can really unlock a lot of investment for the industry. One of the main barriers to investment is the long lockup period investors are staring at, and if a secondary market were to materialize, that would make fundraising a much easier sell.

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.