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

Day Two Recap of the LF Dealmakers Conference

Day two of of the two-day event saw a trio of panels that covered topics such as investment strategy and risk management, the interplay between fund types, and litigation finance as a tool for ESG.

The first panel of the day was titles “CIO Roundtable: Focus on Investment Strategy & Risk Management,” and was moderated by Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken. Panelists included:

  • Patrick Dempsey, Chief Investment Officer, US, Therium Capital
  • Sarah Johnson, Co-Head Litigation Finance, The D. E. Shaw Group
  • Aaron Katz, Chief Investment Officer, Parabellum Capital
  • David Kerstein, Chief Risk Officer & Senior Investment Manager, Validity Finance

The conversation began with the rise of business interruption claims. Patrick Dempsey of Therium hasn’t seen much in the way of business interruption claims that have been successful yet.  There was an initial interest in this case type, but then a lot of negative decisions came out of federal courts, and so interest waned. That said, you can build a portfolio of these claims and hedge your risk going forward.

Aaron Katz of Parabellum noted how his firm hasn’t been active in the business interruption space, though the pace of all other claim types is picking up, with interesting new product areas being developed, including credit-like structures, different stages of cases being presented, lower risk investment types, and even partial recourse feature investment.

Sarah Johnson of D.E. Shaw commented on the emergence of new entrants into the litigation funding space. Competition does affect pricing, and this has more of an impact in creative structuring—with new tranches of risk being created. David Kerstein of Validity jumped in to parse this out. He has seen more competition in pricing in larger size deals, however not so much in the more modestly-sized deals. There is still competition there, as claimants are approaching a lot of funders, just not as much price pressure in these types of claims.

The conversation then turned to bankruptcy. This was a very quick distressed cycle—given that there was a lot of sophisticated money chasing these deals, there wasn’t as much of a need for litigation funding. However, we may soon begin to see bankruptcies driven by litigation, which could prompt claimants to approach funders for partnership or monetization. And smaller cases might be a place for funders, given that these bankruptcy claims are typically underfunded. As David Kerstein of Validity noted, “When there are bankruptcies that are based on litigation assets or issues, litigation funders are well placed to come in and provide value.”

And on the issue of insurance, Aaron Katz noted that judgments are being protected with insurance, products are out there to preserve capital or even back some of the profit in a deal. That said, Parabellum hasn’t seen it as part of the bread and butter of their work. Yet Katz feels it’s only a matter of time before insurance permeates the space, but we’re not there yet.

Patrick Dempsey chimed in on his experience with insurance in UK-based claims. Adverse costs insurance is inherent in the jurisdiction there, and so insurance on a portfolio basis was being considered very early on. That was ultimately deemed unnecessary, but that discussion is starting to return, and will likely come back in full force. Therium only uses insurance for judgment protection in the U.S.

On the issue of regrets, Sarah Johnson noted how she wishes she had been more aggressive at the outset—doing more deals, and being less price sensitive. Having worked previously in distressed investments, she was used to price sensitivity being an issue, but she found that the industry grew a lot faster and provided much better returns than perhaps even she expected. This speaks well to the industry’s continued growth potential.

Later in the day, a pair of panels tackled topics such as fund types, deal structures and costs of capital, as well as ESG and impact investing. One interesting takeaway from the former discussion came from Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Finance Group at Stifel. Lieber commented on the large commercial bank syndication model that her firm is structured with. What Stifel does is essentially a merchant banking model—they use their own balance sheet and originate their own transactions. When they approach a partner, whether that is a litigation funder, insurance company, private equity or multi-strategy firm, they choose their partner based on the return profile. And they can syndicate their partnerships within a larger deal construct. Stifel generally operates in the $50MM+ range, and can take on multiple co-investors with various tranches. So Stifel operates in cooperation with many other in the space, in a syndicated investment model.

Stifel’s very presence in the market is emblematic of how prominent the funding industry has grown, and how much it has matured over the past few years. Doubtless there will be further maturation ahead, and likely more funding entities which enact a similar merchant banking model. As Tets Ishikawa Managing Director of LionFish noted (on the same panel discussion): “When the market started in the last 15-20 years, it really started as a litigation funding industry—as one single entity. But I believe this market will become like the commercial real estate market. There are many different types of real estate, just as there are many different types of litigation, so in the end there will be many different types of litigation finance investors.”

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.