Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner of Ignitis
Commercial Deals Special Features

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities.

The initial panel discussion was titled “State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook.” The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:

  • Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
  • Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
  • Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
  • Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital

The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in:

Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before.

Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential.

Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before.

The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table.

In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here.

At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims.

The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here.

Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow.

The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on “How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey,” featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs.

Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value.

MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services.

All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

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.