Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Investor Perspectives

By John Freund |
March 31, 2025

Highlights from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Investor Perspectives

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?

JSi: 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.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.