Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Maz Ghorban, President, Rockpoint Legal Funding

By John Freund |

As President of Rockpoint Legal Funding, Maz Ghorban brings over 25 years of leadership experience spanning the legal services, call center, and software industries. With a proven track record of scaling private and public companies, Maz drives Rockpoint’s mission to empower plaintiffs by providing critical funding, accessible medical treatment, and operational efficiencies for law firms.

Based in Los Angeles, Maz oversees Rockpoint’s innovative offerings, which include pre-settlement and post-settlement funding, plaintiff and litigation funding, and medical lien purchases. He is also leading the launch of Rockpoint Probate Funding, a groundbreaking initiative aimed at providing financial relief to beneficiaries and executors navigating the complex probate process. This service enables heirs to access funds for urgent expenses such as medical bills, funeral costs, and daily living needs, bridging the gap during inheritance delays.

Before joining Rockpoint, Maz served as Executive Vice President and Business Unit CEO at Alert Communications, where he enhanced operational efficiencies for law firms nationwide by leading the largest legal-only intake call center in the United States. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Global Services at AbacusNext (now Caret), a premier provider of practice management solutions for law and accounting firms. His leadership roles also include serving as Vice President of Corporate Strategy and M&A at OnSolve, a leader in emergency mass notification solutions.

Earlier in his career, Maz held senior management roles at West Corporation and Raindance, where he focused on post-sale operations and corporate strategy. As Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy at MIR3, he spearheaded mergers and acquisitions, including the successful sale of the company to Veritas Capital. With a comprehensive understanding of the legal services lifecycle, Maz has dedicated two decades to supporting plaintiff and defense firms with case acquisition, case management, IT/technology solutions, and firm operations.

A recognized thought leader in the legal and financial services industries, Maz frequently shares his expertise on topics such as litigation funding, corporate strategy, and operational excellence. Outside of his professional endeavors, Maz is a passionate Pittsburgh Steelers fan who enjoys teaching boxing, playing musical instruments, and spending quality time with his family.

Under Maz’s leadership, Rockpoint Legal Funding continues to set industry benchmarks for innovation, excellence, and client satisfaction. His strategic vision and unwavering commitment position the company as a trusted partner for plaintiffs, law firms, and beneficiaries seeking comprehensive financial solutions in the legal sector.

Company Name and Description:  Rockpoint Legal Funding provides tailored financial solutions for plaintiffs and law firms, offering critical funding to individuals involved in litigation, including personal injury and employment cases. By bridging financial gaps during the legal process, Rockpoint empowers plaintiffs to access necessary medical care and living expenses while helping law firms streamline operations and maximize case outcomes.

Company Website: https://rockpointlegalfunding.com/

Year Founded: 2015

Headquarters:  Serving clients across the United States, with a strong presence and specialized focus in California.

Area of Focus: When individuals face financial challenges during the litigation process, Rockpoint Legal Funding provides essential solutions to bridge the gap. By offering pre-settlement and post-settlement funding, as well as medical lien purchasing, Rockpoint enables plaintiffs to access necessary medical care and cover living expenses without the financial strain.

Law firms also benefit from Rockpoint’s tailored funding solutions, which streamline operations and improve case outcomes. With a commitment to empowering plaintiffs and supporting legal professionals, Rockpoint Legal Funding plays a vital role in facilitating access to justice while driving efficiency and innovation in the legal funding industry.

Rockpoint continues to expand its impact through initiatives like Rockpoint Probate Funding, addressing financial needs during the complex probate process. For more information, visit Rockpoint Legal Funding.

Member Quote: “Don’t count the days, make the days count.” – Muhammad Ali

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

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.