Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from IMN’s 5th Annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance

June 8, 2023

Key Takeaways from IMN’s 5th Annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance

On Wednesday, June 7th, IMN hosted its 5th annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance conference. LFJ attended the event and covered various panel discussions on topics ranging from key trends and developments, ESG initiatives and insurance products. Below are some key takeaways from the event. The first panel of the day focused on broader trends and developments impacting the Litigation Finance industry. The panel consisted of Douglas Gruener, Partner at Levenfeld Pearlstein, Reid Zeising, CEO and Founder of Gain (formerly Cherokee Funding & Gain Servicing), William Weisman, Director of Commercial Litigation at Parabellum Capital, Charles Schmerler, Senior Managing Director and Head of Litigation Finance at Pretium Partners, and David Gallagher, Co-Head of Litigation Investing at the D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Andrew Langhoff, Founder and Principal of Red Bridges Advisors. One of the most interesting back-and-forths came on the issue of secondaries, as Doug Gruener noted that ‘There were a large number of investments made five to seven years ago, so the opportunity is ripe both on the demand side and supply side.” Andrew Langhoff, the moderator, responded that there are major hurdles involved in facilitating a secondaries market, such as questions around pricing, execution and management of the claims, to which other panelists agreed. However, Charles Schmerler pointed out that this industry is like any other capital markets industry, and to the extend that a secondaries market can provide liquidity and be a useful resource, he would be surprised if five years from now we’re not all reminiscing about how we once questioned the efficacy of a secondaries market in Litigation Finance. Perhaps the most timely panel of the day was on insurance, and its impact on the Litigation Finance market. The panel consisted of Brandon Deme, Co-Founder and Director at Factor Risk Management, Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Litigation Finance Group at Stifel, Megan Easley, Vice President of Contingent Risk Solutions at CAC Specialty, and Jason Bertoldi, Head of Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. The panel was moderated by Stephen Davidson, Managing Director and Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk at Aon. Brandon Deme pointed to the rapid growth of the industry: “The insurance market is expanding. We’ve got insurers that can go up to $25MM in one single investment. When you put that together with the six to seven insurers who are active in the space, you can insure over $100MM. And that wasn’t possible just a few years ago.” One interesting point of discussion was on how to engender more cooperation between insurers and litigation funders, given that the two parties are at odds on issues relating to disclosure and regulatory requirements. Jason Bertoldi of Willis Tower Watson noted that almost every carrier who offers this product will have some sort of interaction with funders, either directly or indirectly. And while there is opposition to litigation funding from insurers around frivolous litigation and ethical concerns, there are similarly concerns amongst insurers around adverse selection and information asymmetry. So the insurance industry has to get more comfortable with litigation finance, and vice versa. The panel on ESG consisted of Viren Mascarenhas, Partner at Milbank, Nikos Asimakopoulos, Director of Disputes at Alaco, and Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. The panel was moderated by Collin Cox, Partner at Gibson Dunn. This discussion touched on the opportunities afforded to funders by ESG efforts, as well as the challenges this emerging sector presents, such as diligence problems and confusion around how multinational ESG initiatives might impact state and local laws. Examples were provided around whistleblower claims, international arbitration efforts, supply chain issues in foreign jurisdictions. Other panels included discussions on the economics of the Litigation Finance market, strategies for mass torts investments, regulatory issues, and a small group meeting on women in Litigation Finance. Overall, IMN’s 5th annual Litigation Finance event highlights the growth and maturation of a nascent industry, and the range of interested parties in attendance (from funders to law firms to insurance providers to asset allocators) underscores the sector’s long-term sustainability.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Triple-I Launches Consumer Campaign Against Litigation Funding in Texas and Kentucky

The Insurance Information Institute has opened a new front in the fight over third-party litigation funding, launching a consumer-awareness campaign in Texas and Kentucky ahead of both states' 2027 legislative sessions. The push adds two more targets to a state-level reform wave in which more than 20 states have already enacted funding disclosure laws.

As reported by Insurance Business, Triple-I is framing the campaign around the transmission of litigation costs into insurance premiums. Michel Léonard, the organisation's chief economist, put the argument bluntly: "Litigation is outgrowing the economy. That gap doesn't stay in the courtroom. It lands in claims, reserves and premiums." Critics of such measures counter that disclosure mandates and funding restrictions limit access to justice for claimants who cannot otherwise afford to litigate.

Casualty pricing is the evidence Triple-I points to. While commercial property rates declined over the past year, casualty lines have stayed elevated, with umbrella and excess liability recording the sharpest increases and commercial auto under sustained pressure.

The underlying cost data comes from several Triple-I studies, including work with the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Casualty Actuarial Society. U.S. tort costs reached $579.7bn in 2023, nearly double the $299.7bn recorded in 2014. Other liability accounted for $249.3bn and personal auto liability for $188.1bn. Triple-I estimates that legal system abuse added between $231.6bn and $281.2bn to liability losses across the decade to 2023.

Commercial

Proposed DIFC Arbitration Law Reforms Would Impose Express Third-Party Funding Disclosure

Dubai's financial free zone is moving toward a statutory disclosure obligation for litigation funders. The proposed 2026 reforms to the DIFC Arbitration Law—the most substantial overhaul since the statute was enacted in 2008—would introduce express disclosure requirements for third-party funding arrangements in arbitrations seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre.

As reported by SCC Online, the reforms were examined during Dubai Arbitration Week 2026, in a session on the proposed changes to the DIFC Arbitration Law and the new DIFC Mediation Law. Justice Michael Black of the DIFC Courts framed the funding provision as a measure to strengthen transparency and accountability in arbitral proceedings. The panel, moderated by Graham Lovett of the DIAC Arbitration Court, also included DIFC Courts Chief Justice Wayne Martin, DIAC Registrar Robert Stephen, and counsel from Akin.

The funding disclosure requirement sits within a broader package. Other proposed changes would cut the window for set-aside challenges from three months to 30 days on a non-extendable basis, permit summary determination of unmeritorious claims, allow peremptory orders backed by sanctions, give statutory recognition to emergency arbitrator decisions, and extend confidentiality to the existence of proceedings. A standalone Mediation Law would make mediated settlements binding and court-enforceable.

The reforms follow a DIFC consultation that ran from 11 June to 10 July 2026. Arbitration volume at the DIFC Courts underscores the stakes: the courts handled 54 arbitration matters in 2025 and 45 by early November 2026, roughly one-third of the Court of First Instance workload.

Commercial

Federal Court Removes Hellyer Metals Liquidator, Citing Failure to Pursue Litigation Funding

The Federal Court of Australia has removed the liquidator of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, finding a lack of independence and criticising his handling of litigation funding offers that could have financed an investigation into a disputed asset transfer.

As reported by ABC News, Justice Shaun McElwaine delivered orders and reasons on 10 November 2026 in Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1676, removing Liam Bailey of O'Brien Palmer and appointing Adam Johnston in his place, with all books and records to be handed over. The judgment records that the parties behind the share transfer under scrutiny had appointed Bailey, who then retained as his solicitor the lawyer who had introduced them. He also provided a draft statutory liquidation report to directors the court described as intimately involved in the transaction, conduct the judge called "a serious error of judgement and demonstrative of a lack of independence."

The funding findings were central. Time records showed 30.35 hours of investigative work between January and May 2026, of which just 12 minutes were spent on litigation funding. From March 2026, two companies offered to discuss funding an investigation, but the court found he failed to engage meaningfully. A funding agreement was signed only after the removal proceeding had commenced, following an approach from lawyers acting for two bankrupt former directors.

Hellyer Metals entered voluntary administration in January 2026, with Bailey appointed liquidator on 22 January. Assets had been transferred to associated company Celestial Group around the time the Tasmanian government ordered the Hellyer Gold Mine temporarily shut over unpaid debts. Goshawk Mining and Saxby Capital, which obtained a Supreme Court order freezing $36.4 million, are pursuing damages exceeding $36 million. The court described the transaction as prima facie highly questionable and said removal was indeed required.