Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Special Features

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
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.