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 LFJ’s Special Digital Event “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives”

On Thursday April 4th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives.” The panel discussion featured Bobby Curtis (BC), Principal at Cloverlay, Cesar Bello (CB), Partner at Corbin Capital, and Zachary Krug (ZK), Managing Director at NorthWall Capital. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

If you were to pinpoint some factors that you pay particular attention to when analyzing managers & their track records, what would those be?

BC: It’s a similar setup to any strategy that you’re looking at–you want to slice and dice a track record as much as possible, to try to get to the answer of what’s driving returns. Within litigation finance, that could be what sub-sectors are they focused on, is it intellectual property? Is it ex-US deals? What’s the sourcing been? How has deployment been historically relative to the capital they’re looking to raise now?

It’s an industry that is starting to become data rich. You have publicly-listed companies that have some pretty interesting track record that’s available. I’m constantly consuming track record data and we’re building our internal database to be able to comp against. Within PE broadly, a lot of people are talking about DPI is the new IRR, and I think that’s particularly true in litigation finance. If I’m opening a new investment with a fund I’ve never partnered with before, my eyes are going to ‘how long have they been at it, and what’s the realization activity?’ There is also a qualitative aspect to this–has the team been together for a while, do they have a nice mix of legal acumen, investment and structuring acumen, what’s the overall firm look like? It’s a little bit art and science, but not too dissimilar from any track record analysis with alternative investment opportunities.

Zach, you’ve got a bit more of a credit-focus. What are you looking for in your opportunities? 

ZK: We want to understand where the realizations are coming from. So if I’m looking at a track record, I want to understand if these realizations are coming through settlements or late-stage trial events. From my perspective as an investor, I’d be more attracted to those late-stage settlements, even if the returns were a little bit lower than a track record that had several large trial wins. And I say that because when you’re looking at the types of cases that you’ll be investing in, you want to invest in cases that will resolve before trial and get away from that binary risk. You want cases that have good merit, make economic sense, and have alignment between claimant and law firm, and ultimately are settleable by defendants. That type of track record is much more replicable than if you have a few outsized trial wins.

What are things that managers generally do particularly well in this asset class, and particularly poorly? 

CB: I don’t want to paint with a broad brush here. With managers it can be idiosyncratic, but there can be structuring mistakes – not getting paid for extension risks, not putting in IRR provisions. Portfolio construction mistakes like not deploying enough and being undercommitted, which is a killer.

Conversely, on the good side, we’ve seen a ton of activity around insurance, which seems to be a bigger part of the landscape. We also welcome risk management optionality with secondaries. Some folks are clearly skating to where the puck is going and doing more innovative things, so it really depends who you’re dealing with. But on the fundamental underwriting, you rarely see a consistent train wreck – it’s more on the other stuff where people get tripped up.

How do you approach valuation of litigation finance portfolios? What I’m more specifically interested in is (i) do you rely on manager portfolio valuations, (ii) do you apply rules of thumb to determine valuations, (iii) do you focus your diligence efforts on a few meaningful cases or review & value the entire portfolio, and (iv) do you use third parties to assist in valuations? 

CB: If you’re in a fund, you’re relying on the manager’s marks. What we do is not that – we own the assets directly or make co-investments. We see a lot of people approach this differently. Sometimes we have the same underlying exposure as partners and they’re marking it differently. Not to say that one party is rational and the other is not, it’s just hard to do. So this is one we struggle with. I don’t love mark-to-motion. I know there’s a tug toward trying to fair value things more, but as we’ve experienced in the venture space, you can put a lot of valuations in DPI, but I like to keep it at cost unless there is a material event.

Check out the full 1-hour discussion 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.