Trending Now

First Annual DealFlow Event in NYC Brings Together Industry Participants and Potential Regulators

Last Thursday, DealFlow Events held their first annual Litigation Funding Forum in New York City. Industry participants gathered at the TKP Conference Center in midtown Manhattan to network and discuss the most pressing issues facing the industry today.

The opening panel, titled “State of the Litigation Funding Market,” featured a diverse cross-section of industry participants. Moderator Ben Ruzow of distressed investment firm Argo Partners, and panelists John Kelly, Managing Director of the American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), Jake Cantrell of law firm lender Armadillo Partners, and Scott Mozarsky of litigation funder Vannin Capital shared the dais.

The first question focused on the role that public policy plays in the litigation finance industry, and actually kicked off a bit of a back-and-forth between two of the panelists. John Kelly underscored the notion of certainty when it comes to securitization. Capital markets want to know “am I participating in an asset class that will be around in 20 years?” As a result, the greatest risk in regard to public policy is headlines. Bad headlines (in some cases driven by industry opponents) can influence policymakers who simply don’t understand how the industry works, or don’t even know that the industry exists (this turned out to be a prescient statement – more on that below).

In response, Scott Mozarsky of Vannin Capital countered that although there have been some minor policy setbacks in states like Wisconsin and West Virginia, overall the regulatory push has been unsuccessful. Clearly, the issue of disclosure is what’s in play at the moment (as opposed to issues around work product and confidentiality, which have basically been resolved), but given the limited imposition of mandatory disclosure by state legislatures, “I wouldn’t call the Chamber’s efforts successful,” Mozarsky said (alluding to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the entity behind the regulatory push).

Yet Kelly took issue with Mozarsky’s point of view, claiming that while the impact so far has been minimal, any trend towards regulation can be enough to instill anxiety in the hearts of prospective investors. “If you look at the last 15 years, there’s been no law on [litigation funding]. Now over the last couple of years two states have a law. So capital markers look at that and say, ‘Is there certainty?’ There was certainty for a long time, but now it’s changing.”

Mozarsky then highlighted Vannin’s position on disclosure, which is that limited disclosure be mandated in all cases (‘limited disclosure’ being disclosure of the fact of a funding agreement, and the identity of the funder), but any further disclosure – such as the terms or cost of capital – be expressly prohibited. As discussed in a recent podcast episode on LFJ, Vannin views this compromise as a means of nipping the regulatory push in the bud, by landing on a comfortable middle ground that will likely be the end result of all of this lobbying anyway.

At this point, Jake Cantrell jumped in and offered up a fresh perspective: that it’s not just about disclosure, but what’s done with the disclosure. In international arbitration for example, if disclosure is mandated, that could be used to force the claimant to post a $10MM bond in order to proceed. If there are multiple claims pending, that can add up to a pretty hefty capital commitment, even for a large firm.

Everyone on the dais agreed.

In the end, when Ruzow asked panelists where they see things headed in the space as relates to regulation, Kelly reaffirmed his position that change is on the horizon. The Chamber is continuing its push, and while he doesn’t see federal legislation being a threat, he worries that regulation is moving through the states and could impact the prospect of securitization, simply due to uncertainty. Kelly also pointed out that there is a greater risk for the commercial side, since consumer funding has already been in play for a long time, so it has been examined and reexamined extensively. Commercial funding is getting looked at with a fresh set of eyes, and therefore the outcome is less predictable. Kelly suggested that both consumer and commercial funders join forces and work in concert to push back against the Chamber. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” he exclaimed.

It’s worth noting that there are currently two lobbying organizations on the consumer side, and none on the commercial side (at least not in the U.S.). It will be interesting to see if funders take up Kelly’s call to arms, and join forces across industry lines.

Ruzow then turned to the issue of defense-side funding. Scott Mozarsky pointed to three instances where defense funding has come into play. The most basic is where an asset is involved, in that a company is sued over the rights to a patent or JV. Funders can back the case for a portion of the asset over a certain period of time, or up to a certain benchmark. The second is portfolio funding, where funders may do deals with large multinationals and fund 3-5 claims. Most of those are plaintiff-side funding, but the funder may offer up a defense-side claim as a loss-leader of sorts, assuming the funder believes the plaintiff-side claims will cover the defense-side fees and expenses. The third example is perhaps the most complex: this would be a situation where “winning is defined as losing less.” In other words, say a company is sued for $1bn. Counsel may know that number is absurd, yet they may assess that the company is on the hook for something on the order of $200MM. In that case, they may secure funding with the aim of “losing less,” and the funder would take a piece of the delta between the two numbers. It’s unclear how many of these defense-side structures have so far been implemented, but it is extremely interesting to hear how they can be positioned.

For the final segment of the first panel, Mozarsky was asked about the state of Legal Technology. After deftly plugging his latest podcast episode on LFJ where he discussed that very topic (check is in the mail–), Mozarsky explained that while the predictive analytics aren’t quite there yet, AI can help benchmark law firms and jurisdictions. “Analytics are being used for development purposes and to assess risk around cases,” Mozarsky said. “That will only grow and grow. The data is getting stronger, and we’re witnessing an acceleration in the space as Tech firms enhance their products to meet the needs of the industry.”

Both Cantrell and Kelly agreed, stating that predictive analytics is the future of the industry, and also not that far away.

The first panel provided a nice overview of the industry as a whole, and paved the way for the next pair of speakers at the event. First up was New York State Senator Robert Ortt. Ortt, who represents the Buffalo and Niagara Falls region, was due to speak in person, but inclement weather prevented his plane from taking off, so he delivered his speech via Skype. Ortt isn’t the most beloved figure in litigation funding circles, given that he has put forth legislation which seeks to cap rates on funding agreements, among other things. So it was interesting to have him participate at the event.

Ortt began by explaining that he first learned of litigation funding through news stories he read in the New York Times and New York Post. This seems to validate John Kelly’s earlier point that headline risk is the greatest threat to litigation funding where public policy is concerned. Indeed, here was a legislator admitting to a room full of funders that his introduction to the industry was via the negative news stories in the press.

That said, Ortt seemed to strike a conciliatory tone. He admitted that he took an openly hostile stance against the industry, but has since learned that there are many benefits to funding, and so his position has softened – at least a little. Ortt framed his bill – SB 4555 – as one the industry can and should get behind. The bill issues a maximum cap of 36% on rates charged by funders. It also allows for fees to be charged, and for the assignment of financing. Ortt asserts that his bill is more robust than SB 4478 – a similar bill that has been proposed – which doesn’t allow for those measures, and seeks to mandate a 25% annual maximum rate.

According to Ortt, regulation should be enacted in order to keep bad actors out of the litigation funding game. Should one or two of those bad actors make headlines, legislation could come down that’s far more onerous. “If we don’t regulate,” Ortt warned, “I worry about an agency that comes along that is far too intrusive. In Indiana, both sides came together because they saw what happened in Arkansas.” In other words, the funding community should get on board with legislation because in the long run, it is in the funding community’s own best interest to be regulated. “The goal is to take ‘predatory’ out of this industry,” Ortt insisted.

There were no questions after Ortt finished speaking. One could surmise any number of reasons why.

Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, one of the two consumer funding lobbyist organizations, spoke directly after Ortt. Schuller began by clearly illustrating all of the states where legislation has taken place, and exactly what type of legislation has been implemented.

Indiana, Arkansas, Tennessee and now West Virginia have rate caps. The first two at 36% + 7% (fees), with Arkansas at 17% and West Virginia at 18%. Wisconsin and West Virginia have mandated disclosure, and Nebraska, Vermont and Maine have mandated that funders must disclose to regulators what their rates are. There have also been numerous states where legislation was introduced (though not passed) which sought to cap rates. Alabama, Missouri, Rhode Island, New Jersey and yes, even New York, all fall under that category. New York even had a bill which sought to place funding under The Martin Act, thereby making it a criminal activity.

On the issue of disclosure, Schuller agreed with John Kelly from the first panel, in that the two states which passed legislation recently are ‘innocuous’ in and of themselves, however, the fact that they passed legislation at all proves that The Chamber of Commerce is gaining traction. Schuller also pointed out that the Wisconsin and West Virginia bills were purposefully vague on the issue of disclosure, in that they don’t stipulate specifics, just that funding must be disclosed. A similar bill was recently introduced in Florida, so Schuller sees a trend forming. Texas has also introduced a bill which would leave the issue of disclosure up to the Supreme Court. That bill is held up in committee.

When asked if he would support any rate cap at all – ostensibly in rebuttal to Sen. Ortt’s proposed 36% cap – Schuller pointed out that any cap arbitrarily squeezes out all consumers whose risk profiles place them above that rate. His industry can survive within certain high rate caps, but in the states that have implemented those, there has been a marked decrease of industry activity, and that hurts consumers.

Admittedly, it would have been nice to see Schuller spar with Ortt in person, perhaps via some direct Q&A from one to the other. Alas, due to inclement weather, it was not to be.

The event continued with additional panels, from “Litigation Funding in Class Actions vs. Arbitration” to “Comparison Shopping: What Counsel Should Look for in Identifying the Right Litigation Financing Firm for Their Clients.” In the former, Lisa Richman of McDermott Will and Emery and J. Richard Supple of Hinshaw and Culbertson explained how arbitration funding poses certain unique challenges. For example, contrary to popular belief, arbitrations aren’t confidential, they are private. The distinction being that (unless otherwise stipulated by the parties), each party can disclose information about an arbitration publicly. Given that reality, there is a concern about how much information should be shared with a funder in an arbitration matter. The latter panel featured a broad swathe of funders, as well as one law firm. They discussed the issue of commoditization, and how funders will need to differentiate along lines of relationship building and flexibility of terms. Much of the funding process boils down to communication and trust. “It’s like dating,” one of the panelists said. I, for one, am waiting for Litigation Funding Tinder app…

All told, the DealFlow event provided an opportunity to assess the current state of the industry, and hash out some differences between funders and industry experts on a range of topics. It was nice to see the appearance of an industry opponent (though Sen. Ortt would likely classify himself as a proponent of the industry, albeit a more regulated industry). And it was valuable to see an exact breakdown of industry regulation by state, as delivered by Eric Schuller.

So here’s looking forward to the next DealFlow event. I am told one is already in the works for 2020.

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Dean Gresham, Managing Director, Certum Group

Dean Gresham is a Managing Director who oversees the evaluation, underwriting, and risk management of all the company’s risk transfer solutions, including litigation finance and contingent risk insurance. With 25 years of experience in complex litigation and legal risk analysis, Dean ensures rigorous underwriting standards and strategic risk mitigation across the company’s risk transfer solutions.

Before joining Certum Group, Dean was a trial lawyer for more than 21 years handling complex commercial, catastrophic injury, qui tam, and class action litigation across the country. While practicing, Dean litigated on both sides of the docket and developed a keen ability to analyze and assess risk from both the plaintiff’s and defendant's unique perspectives.

In 2020, Dean was awarded the Elite Trial Lawyer of the Year award by the National Law Journal for his trailblazing work on a complicated wrongful adoption case. Dean is consistently chosen by his peers as a Texas Super Lawyer (2009-2024); one of the Best Lawyers in Dallas by D Magazine (2009-2024), one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Texas by the National Association of Trial Lawyers (2011-2024), and in the Nation’s Top One Percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel (2019-2024).

Dean is the 2025 Chair of the Dallas Bar Association's prestigious Business Litigation Section and sits on the DBA’s Judiciary Committee.

Company Name and Description: Certum Group offers a next-generation litigation risk transfer platform that provides bespoke solutions for companies, law firms, and funders facing the uncertainty of litigation. Latin for “certainty,” Certum represents the core benefit the company delivers to its clients across its entire suite of risk transfer solutions.  Certum is the full-service funding and insurance partner for law firms and their business clients.

Company Website: www.certumgroup.com

Year Founded: 2014 

Headquarters:  Plano, Texas

Area of Focus: Member: Head of Underwriting and Chair of the Investment Committee.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding doesn’t just fuel cases—it fuels justice. Power should never trump merit.”

Highlights from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Investor Perspectives

By John Freund and 4 others |

On March 27th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key industry stakeholders giving their perspectives on investment within the legal funding sector. Our esteemed panelists included Chris Capitanelli (CC), Partner at Winston and Strawn, LLP, Joel Magerman (JM), CEO of Bryant Park Capital, Joe Siprut (JSi), Founder and CEO of Kerberos Capital, and Jaime Sneider (JSn), Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group. The panel was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Below are highlights from the discussion:

One thing that piqued my interest recently was the recent Georgia jury that awareded a single plaintiff $2.1 billion in one of 177 lawsuits against Monsanto. What is your perspective on the health of the mass tort litigation market in general?

JSn: Well, I think nuclear verdicts get way more attention than they probably deserve. That verdict is going to end up getting reduced significantly because the punitive damages that were awarded were unconstitutionally excessive. I think it was a 30 to 1 ratio. I suspect that will just easily be reduced, and there will probably be very little attention associated with that reduction, even though that's a check that's already in place to try to prevent outsized judgments that aren't tied as much to compensatory damages. I expect Monsanto will also likely challenge the verdict on other grounds as well, which is its right to do.

The fact is, there are a whole number of checks that are in place to ensure the integrity of our verdicts in the US legal system, and it's already extraordinarily costly and difficult for a person that files a case who has to subject himself to discovery, prevail on motions to dismiss, prevail on motions for summary judgment, win various expert rulings related to the expert evidence. And even if a plaintiff does prevail like this one has before a jury, they face all sorts of post-trial briefing remedies that could result in a reduction or setting aside the verdict, and then they face appeals. The fact is, I think corporate defendants have a lot of ways of protecting themselves if they choose to go to trial or if they choose to litigate the case.

And I think, oftentimes when people talk about the mass tort space, their disagreement really isn't with a specific case, but with the US Constitution itself, which protects the right to juries, even in civil litigation in this country. The fact is that there is a rich tradition in the United States that recognizes tort is essential to deterring wrongdoing. And ensuring people are fairly compensated for the injuries that they sustained due to unsafe products or other situations. So, broadly speaking, we don't think in any systematic a way that reform is required, although I suspect around the margins there could be modest changes that might make sense.

Omni has made a number of recent moves involving secondary sales and private credit to improve their earnings and cash flow. What is your sense of how much pressure the industry is under to produce cash flow for its investors?

JM: I think there is some pressure for sure, but more than pressure, I think it's a natural thing for self-interested managers to want to give their investors realizations so that they can raise more capital, right?

So, even if no one had ever told me, boy, it would be nice to get money back at some point in the future, that would obviously still be what I'm incentivized to do because the sooner I can get realizations and get cash back, the sooner people can have confidence that, wow, this actually really works, and then they give you 2x the investment for the next vehicle.

So the pressure is, I think, part of it. But for a relatively new asset class like litigation finance, which is still in middle innings, I think, at most, you want realizations. You want to turn things over as quickly as you can, and you want to get capital back.

In terms of what ILFA is doing, do you feel like they're doing enough for the industry to counter some of the attacks that are coming from the US Chamber of Commerce and others?

CC: I think there has been a focus from ILFA on trying to prevent some of the state court legislation from kind of acting as a test case, so to speak, for additional litigation. So there's been, you know, they've been involved in the big stuff, but also the little stuff, so it's not used against us, so to speak.

So I think in that regard, it's good. I wonder at what point is there some sort of proposal, as to if there's something that's amenable, is there something that we can all get behind, if that's what's needed in order to kind of stop these broad bills coming into both state legislatures and Congress. But I think overall, the messaging has been clear that this is not acceptable and is not addressing the issue.

Pretium, a relative newcomer to the market, just announced a $500 million raise. At the same time, it's been rumored that Harvard Endowment, which has traditionally been a significant investor in the commercial litigation finance market, is no longer allocating capital to the Litfin space. What is your sense of where this industry continues to be in favor with investors, and what are some of the challenges?

JSi: On the whole, I think the answer is yes, it continues to be in favor with investors, probably increasing favor with investors. From our own experience, we talk to LPs or new LPs quite frequently where we are told that just recently that institution has internally decided that they are now green lighting initiatives in litigation finance or doing a manager search. Whereas for the past three or four years, they've held off and it's just kind of been in the queue. So the fact that that is happening seems to me that investors are increasingly interested.

Probably part of the reason for that is that as the asset class on the whole matures, individual managers have longer track records. Maybe certain managers are on their third or fourth vintage. And there are realized results that can be put up and analyzed that give investors comfort. It's very hard to do that on day one. But when you're several years into it, or at this point longer for many people, it becomes a lot easier. And so I think we are seeing some of that.

One of the inherent challenge to raising capital in the litigation finance asset class is that even just the term litigation finance itself is sort of shrouded in mystery. I mean, it's very unclear what that even means and it turns out that it means many different things. The media on the whole, not including LFJ obviously, but the media on the whole has not done us many favors in that regard because they often use the term litigation finance to mean one specific thing, oftentimes case finance, specific equity type risk on a single case, when in fact, there are many of us who do all kinds of different things: law firm lending, the credit stuff, the portfolio finance stuff. There's all kinds of different slivers. And so the effect of that is that an LP or factions within an LP may have a preconceived notion about what litigation finance is, which is completely wrong. And they may have a preconceived notion of what a particular manager's strategy is. That's completely wrong.

I also think that litigation finance provokes an almost emotional reaction sometimes. It's often the case that investments get shot down because someone on the IC says that they hate lawyers, or they got sued once, and so they hate lawyers. And so they want nothing to do with litigation finance. And so whether that's fair or unfair is irrelevant. I think it is something that is a factor and that doesn't help. But I'd like to think that on the whole, the good strategies and the good track records will win the day in the end.

The discussion can be viewed in its entirety here.

Manolete Partners Announces New Revolving Credit Facility with HSBC Bank

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Manolete Partners Plc (AIM:MANO), the leading UK-listed insolvency litigation financing company, is pleased to announce it has signed a new Revolving Credit Facility ("RCF") with its existing provider, HSBC UK Bank Plc ( "HSBC"). 

The new RCF provides Manolete with the same level of facility as the previous arrangement, at £17.5m. However, the margin charged to Manolete by HSBC on the new RCF is at a reduced rate of 4.0% (previously 4.7%) over the Sterling Overnight Index Average (SONIA) and has a reduced non-utilisation fee, from 1.88% to 1.40%. 

The new RCF is a 3.25-year facility with an initial maturity of 27 June 2028. Manolete has the option to further extend the facility on its current terms by an additional year. 

The covenants remain unchanged except for the Asset Cover covenant which has been relaxed for the next six months. 

Steven Cooklin, CEO commented: "We are delighted to have secured a new long-term commitment to the business from HSBC, which is testament to the strong partnership we have established since 2018. The improved terms of the facility demonstrate confidence in the Manolete business." 

This announcement contains inside information as defined in Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation No. 596/2014 ("MAR").