Trending Now
  • La financiación de las acciones colectivas en el punto de mira
  • Funding of collective actions under the spotlight
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader, Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance, Alliant Insurance Services

By John Freund |

Community Spotlight: Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader, Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance, Alliant Insurance Services

Jason is a former litigation funder who now leads Alliant’s Global Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance team.  He designs and brokers bespoke policies that cover a range of legal and regulatory exposures, and he regularly assists litigants, law firms, litigation funders, private equity clients, and other stakeholders in structuring and obtaining cutting-edge contingent risk insurance solutions.

Jason is a Chambers Band 1-ranked litigation insurance broker and he has placed some of the largest and most creative contingent risk insurance policies, including multiple nine-figure policies. Jason frequently assists clients in monetizing contingent risk insurance policies and structuring transactions that incorporate insurance policies as investment collateral. Leveraging his background as a front-office finance analyst, Jason has helped clients obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing collateralized by contingent risk insurance policies.

Prior to joining the contingent risk insurance industry, Jason was a member of the Litigation Investing team at the D. E. Shaw group, a global investment and technology development firm with more than $60 billion in investment and committed capital. He is a former litigator at Susman Godfrey LLP, and a former law clerk for the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Company Name and Description:  Alliant Insurance Services is one of the nation’s leading distributors of diversified insurance products and services. We operate through a network of specialized national platforms and local offices to offer our clients a comprehensive portfolio of solutions built on innovative thinking and personal service. The business of managing risk is getting more complex, and Alliant is meeting this complexity head-on, not with more layers of management, but with more creativity and agility. Alliant is changing the way our clients approach risk management and benefits, so they can capitalize on new opportunities to grow and protect their organizations.

Alliant is recognized as a leading destination for top-tier brokerage talent in the U.S, attracting brokers and specialists across a diverse spectrum of disciplines who are eager to advance their careers. With the advantage of being majority employee-owned, professionals choose Alliant for autonomy, unparalleled resources, and a unique equity ownership opportunity. As a testament to our commitment to excellence, Alliant maintains an impressive 99% producer retention rate and has earned Forbes’ prestigious title of one of America’s Best Large Employers.

Company Website: https://alliant.com/

Headquarters:  Jason is based in New York, NY

Area of Focus:  
Litigation and contingent risk insurance 

Member Quote:  As a former litigation funder, I believe that litigation funding and contingent risk insurance are complementary products. Combining the two can unlock enormous value for funders and their counterparties.  And designing creative insurance solutions for litigation funders is one of the most rewarding parts of my job.

Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All

Inside India’s Insolvency Regime

By John Freund |

A new joint study by the Insolvency Law Academy and Burford Capital sheds light on how legal finance is gaining traction as a strategic tool in the India's insolvency processes. By enabling distressed entities and professionals to monetize contingent assets without exhausting limited estate resources, legal finance has the power to enhance liquidity and improve recovery outcomes for creditors.

An article by Burford Capital unveils how legal finance-backed structures can convert contingent claims into tangible value, supporting corporate continuity and delivering stronger creditor returns. The study highlights India’s unique factors: abundant untapped recoveries from avoidance claims and disputed receivables, widespread capital shortages faced by insolvency professionals, and the need for prompt liquidity solutions. It also references real-world case studies showcasing how legal finance facilitated strategic wins for firms like Hindustan Construction Company and Patel Engineering.

On the regulatory front, judicial rulings—such as in Tomorrow Sales v. SBS Holdings (2023)—have explicitly recognized the legitimacy of legal finance in India’s litigation ecosystem. Meanwhile, updates to the IBC now permit the assignment of “not readily reali[z]able assets” during liquidation, laying groundwork for integrating legal finance into the insolvency framework. Nonetheless, the regulatory landscape—including aspects of FEMA compliance and fund repatriation—remains cautiously permissive.

Emerging operational structures include direct estate financing, SPV‑based claim ring‑fencing, and creditor assignments for immediate value. The report urges a “light‑touch” regulatory approach, alongside the development of codes of conduct and educational efforts to arm insolvency professionals and creditors with the know‑how to deploy legal finance effectively.

Looking ahead, as India’s insolvency infrastructure matures, legal finance is poised to play a central role—unlocking value in distressed assets, bridging funding gaps, and aligning with global best practices.

Burford’s Law-Firm Investment Plan Draws Fire

By John Freund |

Burford Capital’s new push to take minority stakes in U.S. law firms is already meeting resistance from tort-reform advocates and insurer-aligned groups, who argue the structure could blur loyalties inside the attorney-client relationship. The plan, described by Burford’s chief development officer Travis Lenkner as “strategic minority investments” to help firms scale, would rely on managed service organizations (MSOs) that house back-office assets while leaving legal work to a lawyer-owned entity. Supporters cast it as a lawyer-friendly alternative to private equity; skeptics see a back-door end-run around state bars’ bans on non-lawyer ownership.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that critics, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute’s William Large, warn MSO-style deals could tilt decision-making toward investors focused on “big verdicts,” threatening firm independence and client interests. Only Arizona permits direct non-lawyer ownership today, and while Utah and Washington, D.C., have loosened rules at the margins, most states still enforce bright-line prohibitions.

The debate has sharpened as disclosure and licensing regimes proliferate: at least 16 states now require some level of third-party funding transparency. The Insurance Journal piece also notes a recent Texas Bar ethics opinion that green-lights MSOs for law-firm services under narrow conditions, though it doesn’t answer the broader question of outside investors’ influence. For its part, Burford says it understands the ethical guardrails and intends to be a passive investor focused on firm growth and operational support.

For the legal finance industry, the MSO path signals a pivotal test. If bars and courts accept these structures, capital could flow directly into firm operations—potentially accelerating portfolio origination, technology spend, and fee-earner leverage. If regulators balk, expect renewed calls for explicit rulemaking on ownership, disclosure, and control—alongside creative alternatives (credit facilities, revenue shares, and hybrid portfolios) to replicate MSO-like benefits without the governance controversy.

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.