Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Dane Lund, Managing Director, Juris Capital

By John Freund |

Dane Lund has built a career at the intersection of law and finance, bringing a distinctive blend of legal acumen and financial expertise to the evolving world of litigation funding. He began his professional journey after graduating from Harvard Law School as a litigation associate at Willkie Farr & Gallagher in 2012, where he gained firsthand experience navigating complex commercial disputes and understanding the strategic nuances that drive legal outcomes.

Eager to broaden his perspective, Dane transitioned into investment banking, joining the Financial Sponsors Group at Barclays. There, he developed a rigorous foundation in evaluating risk, structuring deals, and analyzing the dynamics of capital markets—skills that would later prove invaluable in the realm of legal finance.

Following his time at Barclays, Dane pursued investment roles focused on equities, private debt, and legal finance, deepening his expertise across both traditional and alternative asset classes. This diverse background positioned him perfectly for the litigation finance space, where legal strategy and capital management intersect. In 2024, he joined Juris Capital as Managing Director, where he helps shape the firm’s approach to funding commercial litigation.

At the core of Dane’s investment philosophy is a simple yet powerful belief: “Patient capital wins.”

For Dane, this isn’t just a tagline—it’s the guiding principle. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, often requiring strategic persistence and disciplined, long-term thinking to achieve the best outcomes. In an industry where quick returns are rare, Dane emphasizes that success comes from having the foresight to invest thoughtfully and the patience to see cases through to their full potential.

“We’re experiencing a sea change in how law is practiced,” says Dane. “Legal finance isn’t just a funding mechanism—it’s a catalyst for innovation within the legal sector.”

Company Name and Description: Juris Capital provides funding for commercial litigation claims. The firm collaborates with businesses and law firms to support the financial aspects of pursuing complex legal matters. Dane notes that Juris’s approach is shaped by its understanding of legal processes and the financial considerations involved in managing long-term investments. Its focus spans a variety of case types, including breach of contract disputes, corporate governance issues, and antitrust matters.

Website: https://www.juriscapitalcorp.com/

Founded: 2009

Headquarters: Chicago

Member Quote: “Legal finance is expanding beyond traditional litigation into areas like legal tech, contingent risk management, and law firm operations. It’s not just about funding cases anymore—it’s about unlocking value in legal assets that were previously considered illiquid or inaccessible. That’s where the future lies.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

LFJ Podcast: Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet

By John Freund |

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1ef7ZhgVw
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Insurers Intensify Offensive Against Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Shields Haptic’s Litigation-Funding Files From Apple

By John Freund |

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.