Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Digital Event: Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024

February 12, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJs Digital Event: Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024

On February 8th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled ‘Litigation Finance: What to Expect in 2024.’  The event featured Gian Kull, Senior Portfolio Manager at Omni Bridgeway, David Gallagher, Co-Founder of LitFund, Justin Brass, Co-CEO and Managing Director of JBSL, and Michael German, Co-Founder and CIO at Lex Ferenda. The event was moderated by Peter Petyt, founder of 4 Rivers. The discussion covered a range of topics pertinent to the litigation funding space. Below are some key takeaways from the event: Which areas are you particularly interested in investing in over this coming year?  MG: There is a supposition that this industry will continue to grow in 2024. All of the indicators suggest that the industry will continue to grow–nearly all of the funders are funding bankruptcy-related cases, and three quarters are funding patent cases. Those are areas of interest to us, and I think that will continue to make sense, given the types of commercial cases they are – complex cases that require significant amounts of attorney time and defendant time,  and yield significant costs to the litigaiton. JB: We’re going to see a continued expansion into the mass arbitration space. That is something that has been coming up with more frequency. Mass torts has been staying quite busy. And where we see a lot of potential is with the evolution of the secondary market. There are a lot of funders coming up with maturing cases, and it makes sense for those funders to redeploy that capital into other opportunities – not necessarily exit that case – but just sell a minority stake or a portion of it. We that in traditional fixed income classes, so we think that is going to continue in the funding market as well. Are you seeing any kind of appetite to invest in jurisdictions you haven’t previously invest in? Have some jurisdictions matured to the point where you now will give them a serious look?  GK: That’s a hard question to ask Omni Bridgeway as a whole, because we try to be in a lot of places. But from my own experience in Europe, we’ve gotten quite comfortable in the Netherlands, we have a very large investment in Portugal. Spain is next on the list. Italy is after that. The jurisdiction I’ve been most disappointed in – aside from the UK with the regulatory issues there – is Germany. For such a large economy, from a commercial collective redress perspective that is a dead end. As we move through Europe, I’ll be watching the regulatory regimes and how those are tested over the coming years. Are you seeing many requests for monetization of judgements or awards, or is that not an area that you are particularly interested in?  DG: We’re especially interested in that, largely because my partners have spent a lot of their careers making those types of investments. And just speaking from my own experience, that has always been an important part of the market, and continues to be an important part of the market. I think the availability of judgement preservation insurance makes funding more available and appropriate both on the funder’s side and the client’s side. In my view, it’s very interesting to see the number of people in the market moving into the insurance space. In my view quite a surprising number – it’s certainly indicative of a trend. LFJ just announced today that Ignite has launched a capital protection insurance resource. So there are a lot of interesting things happening here. Is it still early days for this space, because there are a lot of people moving into it with interest?  MG: I share the sentiment of having a general level of surprise with how many folks from the litigation finance industry insurance has drawn. From the Lex Ferenda perspective, insurance has proven to be a very expensive option, that ultimately my clients and I don’t feel is worth the cost. But the vast majority of our investments – from an insurer’s perspective – are probably the least good fit, so that’s probably why it’s reflecting in the price. JB: I think the insurance aspect of litigation finance is here to stay. There will be growing pains along the way. I think even as recently as last week, there were disclosures in the Affordable Care Act fee dispute where the law firm got an insurance policy related to its fee award. What was interesting there, was the law firm was seeking disclosure about the policy, and in essence how it worked. So not only is it new and here to stay, we’re seeing it become public. The risk to early-stage cases is the pricing can be expensive, but what will happen over time, is like anything else, the insurers will be tracking the progress on those cases, and as funders come back as repeat customers, they’ll be looking at you and factoring that relationship into their pricing, just like how a bank factors that into a credit score. I think the best path forward is figuring out how to work together and create a level of transparency and trust, because it’s not going away. For the full recording of the event, click here.

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.