Trending Now
Commercial Deals

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

By Harry Moran |

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.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.