Trending Now
Commercial Deals

JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace Launches Phase 1 Rollout with over $70 Million in Litigation Funding Opportunities

By Harry Moran |
March 19, 2025

JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace Launches Phase 1 Rollout with over $70 Million in Litigation Funding Opportunities

The JurisTrade Platform soft-launched last week with over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities in single cases, funding mass tort dockets and law firm refinancing.

The JurisTrade Litigation Asset Marketplace (“JurisTrade’) provides a transparent electronic platform which facilitates both primary funding opportunities in litigation finance, as well secondary sales of such interests.

The potential market for litigation finance ranges in the several $100s billions, of which only $30 billion is currently funded. JurisTrade is designed to unlock this large unmet demand through its liquid and transparent marketplace.

The litigation finance ecosystem has been clamoring for years for this type of market solution. Similarly to many other major asset classes, JurisTrade was built on a foundation of industry standardization, transparency and process streamlining, which eliminates uncertainty and, thus, attracts liquidity for litigation finance, a bona fide uncorrelated asset class.

Clients of JurisTrade include institutions, law firms, litigation finance funds, and family offices.

JurisTrade’s Phase I rollout includes nine diverse investment opportunities including a high-profile single case, a judgment monetization case, a law firm debt refinancing case, and several mass action-related cases. An OTC service desk is being offered to assist our clients in negotiating terms and structuring all manners of trades and vehicles, among other things. Other market features, technology, and analytics will be offered soon.

Typhon Capital Management, Larry Hite, and two notable family offices are sponsors of JurisTrade, and JurisTrade will be leveraging their collective expertise and experience. Typhon, in particular, provides trading operations on JurisTrade. Clients can use JurisTrade to directly engage in claims trading, such as bankruptcy and mass tort, then leverage Typhon to invest in or create custom passive funds holding any manner of litigation interests or loans, and actively managed funds, such as thematic claim trading, market making, or activist litigations. Typhon can also structure insurance wrappers around litigation-focused investments.

The senior management team of JurisTrade includes James Koutoulas as CEO, Kevin J.P. O’Hara as Chairman, Shawn Hartpence as Chief Commercial Officer, and Andrew Barroway and Larry Hite as strategic limited partners.

“Mr. Koutoulas is a seasoned hedge fund manager and attorney with a unique skillset encompassing derivatives-trading, complex bankruptcy and class action litigation, and software development making him the perfect CEO to bring the emerging asset class of litigation assets to a wider audience. He and I share similar philosophies on structuring vehicles with asymmetric, positively-skewed, and uncorrelated return profiles which will be much appreciated in the litigation investing world,” said Larry Hite, Founder of Hite Capital.

“Similarly, Mr. O’Hara’s previous C-suite roles at NYSE, CBOT, Archipelago and Gulf Finance House, and as an attorney at the SEC and his financial markets development in Eastern Europe, provide JurisTrade with one of the most accomplished exchange experts to steer our growth.”

“Larry Hite is a pioneer of two assets classes – commodity trading and litigation assets. Larry is an original ‘Market Wizard’ and we are humbled to have him as a founding partner and advisor to JurisTrade,” said James Koutoulas, CEO of JurisTrade.

Please sign up to view our initial inventory and be kept up to date at www.juristrade.com.

About Larry Hite:

Larry Hite is a legendary commodities trader and one of the founders of systematic trading. Mr. Hite founded Mint Capital, which was the largest CTA in the world by AUM in 1990. He has since been an active investor in litigation assets where he has invested in thousands of cases.

About Typhon Capital Management:

Typhon Capital Management, led by CEO James Koutoulas, is a multi-strategy hedge fund and platform specializing in tactical futures, quantitative, and cryptocurrency trading. Typhon creates custom portfolios and structured products for institutional investors and wealth management firms and is headquartered in Miami Beach. Mr. Koutoulas also was lead customer counsel in the MF Global bankruptcy, leading the recovery of all $6.7 billion in customer assets.

About Kevin J.P. O’Hara:

Kevin J. P. O’Hara has a decades-long career in business, law and regulation, entrepreneurship, technology, international, investing, and post-graduate teaching. Mr. O’Hara is an active angel investor with several successful exits, including sales to LinkedIn, PayPal, and IQVIA. He has a plethora of private and public company board and governance experience.

He was previously: (1) a C-suite member at CBOT, NYSE, Archipelago, and Gulf Finance House (Bahrain); (2) an attorney at the SEC, DOJ, and a major Chicago law firm (products liability and mass tort defense)(3) a law and business school lecturer at Northwestern University and Loyola University; and (4) an in-county financial and economic advisor in Eastern Europe in 1990s.

About Shawn Hartpence:

Shawn Hartpence has over a decade of experience advising law firms, litigation fund managers and institutional investors on capital formation and litigation investment. Areas of expertise include mass tort portfolio funding, secondary mass tort portfolio trading, single-case funding, portfolio funding, single-case monetization, and capital introduction for niche litigation strategies. Mr. Hartpence is a partner at Ocasio Mass Tort Law, a DC Law Firm and a Board Member of a cutting-edge AI Litigation assessment company.

About Andrew Barroway:

Andrew Barroway is a distinguished litigator and hedge fund manager with a proven track record of success in the investment world. He previously built Barroway, Topaz, Kessler, Meltzer, & Check, LLP, the second largest securities class action firm in the country, and helped lead the $3.2 billion settlement of Tyco Ltd. International. At Merion Investment Management, Mr. Barroway invented the appraisal rights arbitrage trade where he managed $1.2B in the near-riskless strategy, annualizing 13.25% net for 12 years. Mr. Barroway is a strategic limited partner in JurisTrade and the senior portfolio manager of our upcoming Cerus Litigation Fund.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.