Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: James Koutoulas, CEO, JurisTrade & Typhon Capital Management

March 27, 2025

Community Spotlight: James Koutoulas, CEO, JurisTrade & Typhon Capital Management

James Koutoulas is the CEO of JurisTrade as well its asset management affiliate, Typhon Capital Management, which is a multi-strategy hedge fund with US and Cayman private fund platforms. He is also Managing Member of Koutoulas Law, LLC, a law firm specializing in high-profile financial services litigation.

James founded Typhon in 2008 and it has since grown to 25 staff members, 15 (including many award-winning) trading strategies with operations in 4 countries and 8 cities. While running Typhon, he served as lead customer counsel in the MF Global bankruptcy, leading the recovery of all $6.7 billion in customer assets.

He has successfully litigated a multi-billion cryptocurrency fraud class action, a statistical arbitrage IP theft arbitration, a breach of contract jury trial against a billion-dollar asset management, and a capacity-rights guarantee contract dispute against a quantitative hedge fund. He is a frequent contributor to CNBC, thestreet.com, CoinDesk, and other prominent media outlets. He served on the Board and Executive Committee of the National Futures Association, the derivatives self-regulatory organization, where he helped implement the Dodd-Frank rules on the multi-trillion-dollar swaps market and has advised Congress on commodity and bankruptcy laws and regulations.

James has a JD from the Northwestern University School of Law with a securities concentration.

Company Name and Description: JurisTrade has designed a Litigation Asset Marketplace (operated by trading affiliate, Typhon Capital Management) to package and/or securitize litigation finance solutions to law firms, owners of bankruptcy, mass tort, and other litigation claims, and third-party investors looking for exposure to the asset class. JurisTrade offers a new and disruptive solution: it allows law firms, plaintiffs, and/or those with a financial interest in litigation the opportunity to sell or assign an interest in litigation outcomes to qualified investors in a much more efficient manner than is currently available.

Typhon Capital Management is a multi-strategy hedge fund specializing in tactical trading strategies designed to be uncorrelated to traditional markets under most market conditions and have strong negative correlation during periods of stress. Typhon dedicates itself to developing unique strategies that are truly differentiated and perform when almost everything else fails. Typhon uses unique, modular strategies as building blocks to design bespoke products to meet each investor’s individual needs.

Company Website: https://juristrade.com/ & https://typhoncap.com/

Year Founded: JurisTrade – 2023 & Typhon – 2008  

Headquarters:  1691 Michigan Ave Suite 200, Miami Beach, FL 33139

Area of Focus:  JurisTrade – Litigation Finance & Typhon Capital Management – Finance, Alternative Investments

Member Quote: “By adding standardization, liquidity, and transparency to the nascent but growing litigation finance market, we will institutionalize one of the final frontiers in asset management.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.