Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Maz Ghorban, President, Rockpoint Legal Funding

By John Freund |
February 27, 2025

Community Spotlight:  Maz Ghorban, President, Rockpoint Legal Funding

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

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.