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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

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.