Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Steve Shinn

On the latest episode of the LFJ Podcast, Steven Shinn, founder of FinLegal, described the solutions his platform provides for both funders and lawyers, and explains his company’s points of differentiation with other third party platform providers.

Q: Why move into litigation funding and after-the-event insurance? Can you explain how FinLegal’s offerings are different than those of traditional funders?

A: Absolutely. I think one of the challenges is that the litigation funding market could grow a great deal. But there are challenges where lawyers don’t necessarily understand litigation funding, and there are a lot more funders that you can go to. So you want to help educate people who are new to litigation funding and ATE about how to access it and how it works.

There are more funders joining, which is increasing the number of claims that get funded. So whereas before you might have only had funders looking to deploy $5 million to a claim, you now find situations where there are funders who want to deploy as little as $100,000 or less. So there’s a much broader range of funders…and it’s hard to go to all of them individually and it’s hard to know who’s in the market.

We thought, let’s build a sticky platform which provides the law firm with visibility and control over those funding requests, and let’s give them an online process (to write the best possible funding request) in terms of how it’s positioned to the funders so that it does get funding. With lots of funders to navigate, let’s build a platform to help lawyers navigate them, help them understand it—and let’s help them put forward the request with the best possible positioning.

Q: You mentioned getting involved in group actions (the UK version of US-style class actions). What got you interested in that space particularly, and does your technology background in any way penetrate that space?

A: Definitely. It started out as me seeing the VW group claim, and also seeing cartel claims, price-fixing on football shirts, and things like this. With my technology background, I thought ‘Well, how are law firms doing this?’

I saw that they had a lot of off-line case management platforms, they use a lot of spreadsheets. You know these systems didn’t talk to each other. There’s a lot of manual effort and no mobile interfaces for claimants to interact with the law firm. So I thought, ‘We can build a platform that will enable that.’ Essentially, we’d be taking a completely fresh look at it. With a technology and software development background and a product development background. How do we build/provide something that enables lawyers to spend the least time possible working with each claim. We know that’s important to the economics of the claim—not having to spend a lot of manual effort on each claim.

So that’s what we produced, a solution that works on a management by exception basis, so essentially the claimant goes through an automated set of steps. And where they fall out of those steps or where they don’t meet certain criteria, only then do they need to get picked up by the law firm.

Q: I know you offer a claim automation solution, can you explain what this solution does?

A: The main benefit of the solution is that it increases the volume of clients. So what you tend to find, is if there’s a bad claimant experience, people fall out of the process. You’ve spent money on acquiring that claimant, you spend advertising pounds or dollars to get them into your funnel, to start working with them. But they become disenfranchised from your process, right? Or they don’t like getting a lot of phone calls, or they feel like the process is insecure and it happens via Email without clear instruction. So if you have a good online process, it increases the volume of clients. That’s the first thing.

And it reduces the amount of time spent per client also, because…the law firm is only working with clients who fall out of the automated process. It’s also plug-n-play, so if you want to start work on a new type of matter it might be that this week you’re building a book of emissions claimants, and the following week you want to launch a shareholder claim.

You can launch that from the platform in a matter of days and start book building. You’re not having to have lots of different contractors and different systems that you have to modify to start doing something new or different. You talk to us, we set it up for you, and then you manage it through an interface that you’re very familiar with.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Commercial Deals

Ramco’s Cristina Soler on the Benefits of Monetizing Arbitration Awards

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered yesterday, the availability of legal funding is having a significant impact on the world of arbitration, with funders offering a variety of services from financing the initial claim to supporting claimants through the enforcement of awards.

In an interview with Confilegal, Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding, discusses the growing use of award monetization in arbitral proceedings and the increasing adoption of litigation funding both in Spain and across Europe. Confilegal spoke with Soler at the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje in Madrid, where she participated in a panel discussion with Emma Morales (Simmons & Simmons), Damian Vallejo (Dunning Rievaman & Macdonald LLP), Carlos Iso (SACYR). Lourdes Martínez de Victoria Gómez (Departamento de Arbitrajes Internacionales), and María Rodríguez (ACCIONA).

In the interview, Soler highlights that the end of any arbitration proceedings is never marked simply with a party obtaining an award, as the enforcement of that award is often a long and expensive process. Soler explains that funders like Ramco can provide support in one of two ways: either by providing the financing to cover the legal costs of enforcement, or through the monetization of an award where it is sold or assigned to the funder for an upfront payment.

Soler emphasises that the main benefits of award monetization are the immediate provision of liquidity to the claimant and the mitigation of any risk involved in the complex enforcement process. She also goes on to explain that award monetization has become more sophisticated with different payment structures available and a growing secondary market where these awards are bought and sold.

More insights from Soler are available in the full interview on Confilegal’s website.

Commercial Legal Innovation

JurisTrade CEO Discusses Litigation Asset Marketplace Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in March of this year, JurisTrade launched the first phase of its Litigation Asset Marketplace offering over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities, with the aim of bridging the gap between available capital and active cases in need of financing.

In an interview with Global Finance, JurisTrade’s CEO, James Koutoulas discusses the company’s new marketplace, explaining the benefits it offers to both investors and plaintiffs who find themselves in need of additional funding during a case. 

Koutoulas describes the platform as “the first secondary marketplace for litigation assets”, with the marketplace designed to allow investors to buy and sell these opportunities just like tradeable securities. Koutoulas says that this will generate “two or three turns on these cases”, with the flexibility of this model allowing “investors to pick when they want to come in, like VC investors pick the A-round or C-round.”

Koutoulas also clarifies that the marketplace is not targeting retail investors, as the minimum stake is set at $500,000. Instead JurisTrade’s platform is focused on offering these opportunities to institutional investors and family offices, highlighting that due to the variety of cases “every investment is very bespoke.”