Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Day Two Recap of the LF Dealmakers Conference

October 1, 2021

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
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.