Trending Now
Commercial

Hedge Funds Showing Increased Interest in Litigation Claims

January 15, 2019

Hedge Funds Showing Increased Interest in Litigation Claims

It’s no secret that over the last several years, Wall Street has been pouring money into the litigation space – whether indirectly by capitalizing litigation funders, or directly via their own investments into the space. However the recent revelation of Baupost Group’s $1 billion purchase of legal claims against utility company PG&E illustrates both the scope and scale of the hedge fund world’s interest in the legal sector. As reported in Yahoo News, billionaire Seth Karman’s Baupost Group has long been one of the titans of the hedge fund world. Now Baupost is spreading its wings, having purchased $1 billion of legal claims against utility giant PG&E. Interestingly, Baupost appears to have purchased the claims as a hedge on its investment in PG&E stock. Klarman’s fund invested in PG&E, which subsequently plummeted over 80% after the California wildfires left the utility company $30 billion in debt and facing imminent bankruptcy. However, in a process known as subrogation, Baupost also purchased legal claims against PG&E, held by the utility company’s insurer. The hedge fund reportedly paid 35 cents on the dollar for those claims, and now maintains the right to sue PG&E, the very same company it invested in. Insurance claims are repayable in a bankruptcy proceeding, however Baupost may be in for a bumpy ride to recoupment, given their status as a general unsecured creditor. That classification essentially places them last in line. This is not the first subrogation claim Baupost has pursued, and it is currently engaged with another similar claim. Sometimes the hedge fund purchases a partial subrogation, and partners with an insurer in the litigation of an entity. All of this shows how far Wall Street is willing to go when it comes to capitalizing legal claims.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Merricks Urges UK Court to Reject Innsworth’s Challenge Over £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The class representative in the Merricks v Mastercard collective claim has urged a London court to reject litigation funder Innsworth Advisors' judicial review of the £200 million settlement distribution, in what observers describe as the first substantive test of a Competition Appeal Tribunal settlement decision.

As reported by Law360, Walter Merricks's legal team told the High Court on Wednesday that Innsworth has already received an adequate return from the CAT-approved settlement and that its challenge should be dismissed. Innsworth argued earlier in the week that the distribution scheme is "illogical" and "flawed," contending that the tribunal failed to properly assess the funder's recovery.

The CAT had divided the settlement into three pots. Pot 1, totalling £100 million, is ring-fenced for class members. Pot 2, approximately £45 million, covers Innsworth's litigation costs. Pot 3, approximately £55 million, allocates roughly £23 million to Innsworth as the profit element of its return, bringing its total recovery to around £68 million. Innsworth contends that this amounts to only a 0.5x return on more than £45 million invested, and disputes the methodology used to set the figure.

The case has drawn close attention from the UK funding sector. A judicial review of a CAT-sanctioned distribution could establish important parameters around how courts assess funder returns in collective proceedings, particularly at a moment when the tribunal has signaled heightened scrutiny of certification and take-up in entrepreneurial class actions.

Commercial

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice Imposes New Limits on Funders and Claim Aggregators in $590M Trucks Cartel Ruling

By John Freund |

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's Federal Court of Justice, has issued a closely watched judgment in the long-running Trucks Cartel litigation that upholds the use of collective claims vehicles in principle but sets significant guardrails around third-party litigation funding and claim aggregation.

As reported by Leaders League, the May 12, 2026 ruling addressed claims arising from the European Commission's 2016 cartel decision, brought on behalf of more than 3,000 entities across 21 jurisdictions and seeking approximately US$590 million. The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may be collectively aggregated and enforced by registered claims collection entities, reinforcing collective redress mechanisms in German private antitrust litigation.

The court imposed two material limits. First, third-party funders cannot exercise control that compromises the claims vehicle's obligation to act exclusively in the interests of the assignors, a conflict-of-interest standard that goes to funder governance rights. Second, claims aggregation cannot obstruct effective judicial review; excessive volume or complexity that renders proper assessment "impracticable" may violate the German Legal Services Act and result in dismissal for procedural abuse.

The BGH overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter, directing the lower court to examine whether the funding structure created incompatible conflicts and, if the assignments survive, to divide claims within six months. The decision is expected to shape the architecture of funded collective antitrust actions across Europe, particularly in jurisdictions modelling Germany's claims-collection framework.

Commercial

Michigan House Passes Third-Party Litigation Funding Bill 60–45, Sending Measure to Democratic Senate

By John Freund |

The Michigan House of Representatives has approved House Bill 5281, a Republican-sponsored measure that would impose registration, disclosure, and contracting restrictions on third-party litigation funders operating in the state, advancing the bill to a Senate where Democrats hold a narrow majority.

As reported by The Center Square, the bill cleared the chamber on a 60–45 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support: Tulio Liberati, Peter Herzberg, Angela Witwer, and Will Snyder. Sponsor Rep. Mike Harris framed the legislation in floor remarks by asking, "Who does it benefit to allow outside investors to influence decisions in Michigan courtrooms?"

The bill requires litigation funders to register with the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, pay a $10,000 application fee, and file annual reports on funding activity. It mandates a ten-day consumer cancellation window for funded contracts, prohibits kickbacks and referral fees, prohibits funder influence on case strategy, bans funding by foreign adversaries, and imposes caps on funder spending and recoveries from awards.

Backers cited industry analyses suggesting third-party litigation funding raises household costs through higher prices and lost tax revenue. The measure now heads to a Senate where Democrats hold an 20–18 majority and where the bill's path is uncertain. The House passage adds Michigan to the list of states considered most active on third-party funding regulation, alongside parallel efforts under way in Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania.