Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Andi Mandell, Partner and Co-Head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group

By John Freund |
October 9, 2024

Community Spotlight: Andi Mandell, Partner and Co-Head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group

Andi Mandell is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group, where she advises on the tax aspects relating to structured finance, securitization and fund formation. Her practice is focused on esoteric assets, including litigation funding, structured settlements, lottery receivables, secured and unsecured consumer loans and timeshare loans.

Andi has over 30 years of experience providing skilled tax advice to the securitization industry. In addition to her work in the esoteric space, Andi is recognized as an authority in the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and real estate structured finance, including the structuring of REO-to-rental financings, servicer advance facilities, debt re-packaging, securitization of non-performing and re-performing mortgage loans, re-securitizations, distressed asset funds and MSR purchases and sales.

Andi works with other industry leaders who are shaping the securitization industry as a member of the Board of Directors of the Structured Finance Association (SFA), and is serving her fifth year as the co-chair of the Tax Policy Committee.

Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.    

Company Website: https://www.srz.com/

Year Founded: 1969  

Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.  

Area of Focus: Tax, Finance, Structured Finance  

Member Quote: “Navigating the intricacies of litigation funding requires a deep understanding of both the financial and the legal landscape. As a tax lawyer, my role is to ensure that funding arrangements are properly structured to allow a broad range of investors to participate as funders in this asset class in a tax efficient manner. Litigation funding presents unique tax challenges to non-US investors and tax exempts and having the tax expertise to help guide our clients allows for greater participation in this space.”

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
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.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Proposed TPLF Bill Sparks Privacy Concerns Across Legal Landscape

By John Freund |

A new legislative push to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has ignited concern over the potential erosion of individual privacy rights, especially for plaintiffs involved in sensitive litigation. While the bill aims to shed light on opaque funding arrangements, critics warn that it could open the door to broad and unnecessary disclosures of personal data.

An article in The Hill notes that among the more controversial aspects of the proposed bill is its requirement that plaintiffs and their attorneys disclose the details of any litigation funding agreements. These disclosures could go far beyond identifying funders, potentially revealing case-specific facts, medical or financial histories, and other personally identifiable information. There is no clear guidance on how such disclosures would be protected, raising the specter of public filings that expose vulnerable claimants to undue scrutiny or retaliation.

The breadth of the bill has drawn particular criticism. While aimed at foreign or undisclosed financial backers, its language is sweeping enough to encompass nearly any financial relationship, including arrangements with U.S.-based funders operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Legal observers worry that plaintiffs—especially those with lower means—may be discouraged from pursuing meritorious claims due to the fear of invasive data exposure.

Privacy advocates argue that without significant revisions, the bill risks creating a litigation environment in which strategic intelligence gathering by adversaries, funder interference, and reputational harms become routine. Several industry experts are calling for narrowly tailored disclosures limited to material funding terms, coupled with robust confidentiality protections and strict limits on public access.