Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Insights from New Entrants into Litigation Funding

December 20, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Insights from New Entrants into Litigation Funding

On Wednesday, December 15th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event featuring insights from new entrants into litigation funding. A panel featuring Charles Schmerler (CS), Senior Managing Director of Pretium Partners, Zachary Krug (ZK), Director of Signal Capital Partners, and Mark Wells (MW), Co-Founder of Almatura, discussed deal sourcing fundraising and hiring from a new entrant’s perspective.  Below are some key takeaways from the panel discussion, which was moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital: Broadly speaking, how do you view the current investor landscape for fundraising in the jurisdiction in which you’re involved? Also, what sort of goals do LPs have when approaching the litigation finance space, and how should new entrants into the space prepare when speaking to prospective investors? MW: Our first fundraise really was a slow burn between 2008 – 2010 when we closed the first fund. You’ll remember when we arrived in the market then, pretty much everyone was a first time manager. There was very little in the way of seasoned product, or to say nothing of the type fund 2 fund 3 type of opportunities. So the investors who were attracted in those days were the pioneering investors and they really had no choice but to commit themselves to first time managers. I think if we fast forward to 2021, it’s a much more mixed environment. There’s a lot more players. My experience is mainly on the European side, but I understand this is also true on the west side. And a number of the players have now matured and are on fund 3, fund 4, fund 5, so investors are presented with a more complete offering ranging from first time managers all the way through to repeat managers. ZK: In some respects, I think the high returns that are uncorrelated to the market remains, and is even a stronger factor in terms of investor appetite, particularly when you look at a landscape where many asset classes are at historically high valuations and it’s difficult to achieve the kind of multiple style returns that you can potentially achieve in litigation funding. So I think that attraction remains there and is quite strong. I think the difficulty for anyone who’s trying to raise money, there’s certainly a lot of money out there, and interest—but the difficulty is, if you’re a new entrant without a track record, you may be an excellent litigator with a long track record of trial victories, but I think without a track record of successful realizations, it can be difficult. Given the asset class and how it performs, it takes a while to develop a track record that’s worth anything because of the long tail risk in these assets. CS: My advice at first was ‘don’t try to raise a lot of money at the beginning of a global pandemic.’ But once you get past that, I think these are key points. Mark touched on something important in that there’s been a significant change in the way investors are able to approach the asset class from the way it was ten years ago. There’s much more data available right now. It’s not a mature industry yet, but there is empirical data out there. So investors are able to diligence this very carefully and they have a number of choices, there are a lot of players as Mark and Zach said. So I think anyone who is looking to raise capital has to be extremely well prepared. Let’s turn our attention toward deal sourcing. Where are you currently originating deals from, and to the extent that you’re willing and able to respond—what methods have you tried and what have yielded the best and worst results? MW: I think we’d say probably four channels of deal flow, the most important deals are from lawyers, and then the other sources would be claimants coming to us direct typically via advertising, LinkedIn, Google, media mentions, stuff like that. And then brokers and intermediaries; both specialist brokers and some of the ad hoc intermediaries. ZK: Mark hit on the key channels from my perspective. I do think it remains very much a relationship driven business, and in terms of what works and what doesn’t work. There is, I think in terms of the lawyers and even the brokers and intermediaries, and I suppose with the funders as well, an aspect where there’s a fair amount of relationship building, business development, what have you, that’s important to maintain those relationships. Let’s shift into a different topic: Hiring. How do you think about organizational design for your firms in terms of a combination of finance, legal, quants type of expertise. Mark, how do you tackle that, historically? MW: Yeah, that’s interesting how you list the financing and the legal and quantitative skills. I think I’d add one more characteristic which can really cut across all those disciplines—and that’s factual curiosity and factual inspection. In our experience over the years, when we look back and look very long and hard about why we lose cases., often it’s singular one-off factors. Something that we get a few times is that we lost the case because the facts that were eventually found deviated from what we’d assume when we were underwriting the case. I think really probing the facts and thinking about what can fill in any blanks in the claimant’s narrative is a really important part of the picture that needs to apply to everyone involved in underwriting the cases. ZK: It’s an interesting question, one that I’m grappling with as we speak, as a relatively new strategy within what is otherwise a very quantitative and numbers-driven organization. My experience is that most litigation funders are staffed by ex-litigators or have many lawyers on staff. They tend to bring that litigation mindset with them, which obviously is important from an underwriting and diligence perspective. But often when you put a bunch of litigators into a room to discuss a case, we can be very good at identifying the risks of what could go wrong, but less good at being creative about how to structure for those risks or to price for those risks, or be willing to take those risks. So my sense in terms of organization and hiring is—it’ll be more important to find folks who are creative about deal structuring and pricing more than simply smart lawyers. It’s more important to have that commercial acumen. Charles, can you comment about what the market for talent is like at the moment and what’s the general professional background that you’re seeing from some of your hires? CS: This feeds off the discussion you were just having with Mark and Zach. The market is good, there is always opportunity to find smart capable lawyers. We have a lot of analysts and quantitative people at the firm already. So we are less in need of hiring those. But I think you already touched on what is the ongoing debate—which is, where should you focus your energies? Should it be on the analytical side, the financial analytical side, or the legal side? We find that you can hire—but the question is: What’s the best way to go about hiring? So for us, we are looking more for people who are not just creative in structuring, but who understand how to recognize value. And that can mean different things in different contexts. For example, we have a particularly strong patent team. Between our two senior-most people, only one is a lawyer. Both have extensive experience monetizing patents over decades, and they understand how to assess the value of a portfolio in ways that most other people cannot.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.