Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Innovations in Litigation Funding

On Wednesday, November 10th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital conference titled Innovations in Litigation Funding. The event featured a panel discussion on disruptive technologies within Litigation Finance, including blockchain, AI and crowdfunding platforms. Panelists included Curtis Smolar (CS), General Counsel of Legalist, David Kay (DK), Executive Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Liti Capital, Cormac Leech (CL), CEO of AxiaFunder, and Noah Axler (NA) Co-founder and CEO of LawCoin. The panel was moderated by Stephen Embry (SE), founder of Legal Tech blog TechLaw Crossroads. 

Below are some key takeaways from the panel discussion:

SE: All of you seem to have an interest in taking litigation funding out of the back rooms and making it more mainstream so that anyone can invest. I want to ask each of you to briefly explain your specific approaches in trying to accomplish this goal.

CS: Basically, what Legalist does, is we use artificial intelligence and machine learning to reduce the potential for adverse selection and hazards that may exist in the Litigation Finance field. By reaching out to those who have valuable claims, we’re able to select the cases we want, versus simply having cases presented to us and sold to us. This has been extremely valuable to us, as we get to really pick the best cases based on criteria that we are selecting.

DK: I think we’re getting pretty close to it already being in the mainstream. I think adoption has grown a lot over the last ten years. In terms of moving it forward, our view on it at Liti Capital is that we are trying to democratize the availability of Litigation Finance both from the people who finance it and the people who have access to it.

CL: What I really see AxiaFunder doing is connecting investors with a new asset class, and at the same time, providing claimants with a new source of flexible funding. AxiaFunder in a nutshell is a funding platform that connects investors with carefully vetted litigation investment opportunities on a case by case basis. The capital is put to work immediately, and then when the case (hopefully) resolves positively, we return the capital with a return. So there’s little or no cash drag. We see it as an obvious win-win.

NA: What we’re seeking to do is open Litigation Finance, like some of the other folks on the panel, beyond the institutional space into individual accredited investors and also to retail investors. The additional value add we have, is that we fractionalize the investments as digital assets, or what are sometimes called tokens, using the Ethereum blockchain. We think ultimately that by doing that, we can bring liquidity to the Litigation Finance space and beyond Litigation Finance as well. We’re not the only ones securing this in the private security space.

SE: One of the questions we often see with cryptocurrency, whether it’s right or wrong, is that it’s used to hide who is paying what to whom. How does that concept square with the growing concern of many investors (and to some extent, the judiciary) about transparency in terms of funding agreements and the identity of funders?

DK: I think the key here is consistency, which is to say ‘who is the funder?’ and I think that’s an important distinction that gets a short shrift from a lot of these discussions. To put it another way, if Liti Capital is the funder, then it’s obviously very important to know who Liti Capital is, and who are any majority or control holders within Liti Capital. And we, like other companies on the blockchain, are still required to do KYC and other rules with our investors to ensure that we’re compliant with domestic and international law. So I think that piece is much ado about nothing. But what I will add, is that I do think litigation funders should be held to the same standard as companies, and whether or not an arbitrator has an investment in our company is important to know, or a decision maker has an investment in our company is important to know. And disclosures in the same way that’s required in US Federal Court makes perfect sense. This is not a new issue. I think where we fall prey to the people that are against litigation funding…we’re falling prey to this argument that somehow everything and everyone must be known—or it’s evil. Access to justice is not evil. Being able to compete with people with large amounts of capital is not evil.

NA: I second a lot of the things David said. At LawCoin, we’re selling securities. We’re very upfront about that. That’s a hot button issue in crypto, whether or not a particular token is a security. We have a separate white list that exists off of the blockchain, which might in some cryptocurrency circles lead to criticism that we’re not a decentralized operation in the way that a lot of cryptocurrency evangelists argue that cryptocurrency is most suited for. We embrace the obligations that go with issuing securities, so as a result…there’s no issue with respect to our platform with having anonymous investors that haven’t gone through a KYCAML process.

SE: Given the volatility of cryptocurrencies that we’ve all seen…how do you mitigate against a severe price drop or price increase, and what do you tell investors in that regard?

DK: How does Blackstone or Apollo mitigate against market crashes or change in the underlying value of their equity? Volatility and movement in price just exist—in terms of value of the corporation. In terms of funding the cases, we’re not funding cases in Bitcoin or Ethereum. We’re not a cryptocurrency, we’re a company that’s listed on the blockchain. Our token trades on the blockchain, but our token represents the underlying equity of the company. The money that we raise, 90% of it is dollars, some small percent is in Ethereum, but…our expenses are paid in dollars, we raise money in dollars, our revenue comes in dollars. There is some currency risk in anything we would keep in Ethereum, but we manage it. … You really just have to be aware and manage the fact that you’re operating in two currencies.

SE: Given the way litigation sometimes drags on, especially in the US, given the unexpected twists and turns—what happens when you have to go back to your investor pool and say, ‘we need some more money?’ How do you manage that and how are the terms structured?

CL: There are two aspects to it. First of all, before we actually issue a claim, there’s no adverse cost risk for the claimants or our investors. But once you issue the claim, you potentially have adverse costs risk for the claimants. If the claimants can’t pay, our investors could potentially be liable for the adverse costs risk, which we’re obviously not comfortable with. Before we will fund a case where the claim is going to be issued, we basically get a cost budget through trial, and make sure we have enough money to see the case through to the end of trial. Having said that, the cost-budget is always an estimate. So sometimes you need to come back and get more capital from investors.

Litigation Finance Journal produces numerous digital events throughout the year. Please subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to stay informed about future events. 

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.