Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: 2024 Recap & 2025 Outlook

By John Freund |

Last week, LFJ hosted its final virtual town hall of the year which covered an array of key developments and trends in the legal fundng sector. Panelists included Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director of LionFish, Boris Ziser (BZ), Co-Head of the Finance Group at Schulte Roth and Zabel, William Marra (WM), Director at Certum Group, and Sarah Johnson (SJ), Head of the Litigation Investing Team at The D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are the key takeaways from the event.

RB: What are the key changes that have effected the regulatory landscape of litigation finance in 2024, and how do you think those changes have affected deals in the industry this year?

TI: There’s been quite a few symbolic moments over the past two years. There was a proposal [The Voss Report] saying that litigation funding should be regulated and there should be a cap on fees. In the UK, there as a Supreme Court decision in the case of PACCAR that considered litigation funding agreements to be damages-based agreements, basically making a lot of litigation funding agreements unenforceable. And that has triggered an industry-wide review of the litigation funding industry in the UK by the Civil Justice Council. And that is ongoing, with a report expected next year, and the government may act on those recommendations and enact legislation.

In addition to all of that, there was a report written by the European Law Institute, which is probably the most interesting thing to focus on. Rather than the usual high level narratives of what’s good and bad about litigation funding, it actually proposed principles on the back of research and feedback that it got on all sides of the argument. And it was written by some really highly regarded judges and academics. And the report was quite balanced. But what was really interesting about the report was that it set a tone for the direction of how the UK should really be thinking about litigation funding. The key themes coming out of it are that 1) there is no one size fits all solution-litigation funding has many different parts to it, and 2) that regulation is not just something one does, but there needs to be a real identifiable problem that regulation resolves, otherwise there could be a lot of adverse consequences, and that recognition is key. There is also the recognition that funders do run commercial businesses, so there has to be an economically viable solution.

RB: Deal structures evolve as time goes on, and certainly have evolved in our industry. Boris, can you speak to any particular deal structures that have become less popular this year than they were before, or have started to fall by the wayside?

BZ: I wouldn’t say any have fallen by the wayside, I think that there has been a little bit of a shift – if you go back a number of years, you would see there were more debt deals than equity deals, and that was for various reasons, some of it was preference, some was tax-driven, some was based on an analysis of whether you would be splitting legal fees and things like that – and I think over the last couple of years, you have seen more of a shift where more parties are comfortable with equity deals, particularly with the introduction of alternative business structures in Arizona and Utah. So I don’t think that anything has gone by the wayside, but there has been more comfort and more development on the equity side of the business.

RB: Will, do you see that too? What do you think about that?

WM: Yeah I think that’s right. What’s interesting is, there hasn’t been that much development on the question of which provisions in litigation funding contracts may or may not be enforceable, or the big question of tax clarity. I think Boris makes a very good point about Rule 5.4, the debate around that has largely settled. So you do see an increase around law firm deals. I think this question is also tied up with the increasing diversification of products available, and if you start too think about insurance, and insurance-backed debt, and debt plus equity in these deals, we’re seeing a lot of that. We’re also seeing an increase in acquisitions to the extent that claims are alienable and can be acquired. I think that a lot of claim holders are seeing a lot of benefits entering into those sorts of arrangements.

RB: Sarah, what deal structures do you think are growing in popularity, and why do you think that is happening?

SJ: We’ve seen something similar in the shift from debt to equity. I might characterize it though as a move away from debt to law firms, where your collateral is a lot of cases. I think we’ve seen those deals – especially the ones that happened before Covid – there were a lot of different risks that were introduced rather than just the underlying litigation. The amount of OpEx that the law firm needed to survive, and when you’re debt financing for the whole firm, it gets very complicated. So we’ve seen a shift away more to – I won’t say single cases – but perhaps smaller portfolios with a law firm, so you can target your exposure and share more of the risk and OpEx with the law firms themselves.

We’ve also seen a bifurcation in terms of the size of deals. We’re seeing some more very large deals, like $100MM+ deals, and also small single cases, than perhaps we saw in previous years. We’re just seeing a lot of one-off single case deals where funders can share the risk, vs. entire portfolio monetizations.

To view the entire discussion, join the event page on LinkedIn (you must register for the event to view).

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial Deals

Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 Signs Non-Binding LOI with Cartiga, LLC

Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 ("Alchemy"( (Nasdaq: ALCY), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Cartiga, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Cartiga" and together with Alchemy, the "Parties"), in connection with a potential business combination ("Business Combination").

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm using advanced data analytics to drive investments in litigation finance. By integrating legal and financial data, Cartiga leverages proprietary information and deep domain expertise to predict litigation outcomes, optimize asset allocation and investment performance, and deliver case and business management insights to law firms.

Its analytics-driven strategy enables claim valuation, tech-enabled case monitoring, and dynamic risk adjustment. Cartiga streamlines the origination and investment process in a manner designed to mitigate risk and maximize returns. By investing in legal claims and legal services businesses, Cartiga continually improves its data advantage and value proposition to customers while delivering attractive non-correlated risk-adjusted returns(i). Cartiga believes that it is optimally positioned to drive growth by leveraging direct distribution and machine learning tools to both accelerate originations and deploy business optimization tools for law firms.

As a public company, the pro forma business plans to opportunistically consolidate the fragmented litigation finance market through the intended acquisition and integration of complementary companies and assets. This strategy is designed to enhance scale, operational efficiency and market presence, driving long-term growth for shareholders. 

Investment Highlights of Cartiga

  • Proven Track Record: More than $1.6 billion in lifetime originations and $1.6 billion in cash realizations since inception in 2000, demonstrating strong performance and profitability across market cycles.
  • Comprehensive Platform: A multi-product alternative asset management and direct origination platform investing in the U.S. litigation and legal services market.
  • Data-Driven Success: Advanced data analytics and bespoke technology enhance underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management.
  • Large Addressable Market: Large $300 billion+ addressable market representing approximately 1.4% of US GDP with a limited number of scaled competitors and meaningfully underpenetrated by traditional capital providers.(ii)
  • Strategic Relationships: Longstanding partnerships with lawyers supported by 20-person in-house sales and business development team.
  • Robust Data Moat: Proprietary claims and outcomes database provides durable competitive differentiator.
  • Experienced Leadership: Led by seasoned, long-tenured professionals with domain expertise in the legal, finance and asset management industries.
  • Financial Strength: Profitable, well-capitalized, scalable business with diversified portfolio of non-correlated assets generating predictable shorter duration cash flows.
  • Institutional Backing: Supported by over $250 million in committed equity capital from blue chip investor base.

Other Key Metrics

  • Proprietary Database: Contains over 250,000 individual litigation-linked asset fundings diversified across 8,000+ unique lawyers and law firms
  • Investment Track Record: 20+ year track-record originating assets exhibiting non-correlated risk(iii) and outsized risk-adjusted returns versus traditional private credit(iv)
  • IT and Product Development Investment: Over $20 million invested since 2020
  • Team Size: Approximately 95 employees
  • Structured Finance Expertise: Four rated securitization transactions completed – three have been fully realized.

Leadership Commentary

"We view Cartiga's platform as an attractive alternative investment, offering a return profile that is uncorrelated with other asset classes. This sector is massive and rapidly expanding," said Mr. Vittorio Savoia, Co-CEO of Alchemy.

Mr. Mattia Tomba, Co-CEO of Alchemy, added, "We believe Cartiga and Alchemy make a compelling partnership. As funding, disclosure, and regulatory standards evolve, we expect the interest for publicly traded litigation finance asset management companies to grow. We believe a Nasdaq listing will put Cartiga in a leadership position in the industry by enhancing transparency, reducing the cost of capital, and expanding access to flexible funding. "

Cartiga's CEO, Mr. Sam Wathen, remarked, "Combining with Alchemy aligns perfectly with our goals. Leveraging a Nasdaq listing would enable Cartiga to establish new industry guidelines with full transparency and utilize its public currency to drive growth and acquire complementary businesses. Enhanced transparency would ultimately lower funding costs, benefiting companies like ours."

About Cartiga, LLC

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm that leverages advanced data analytics to drive decision-making in the litigation finance sector. Cartiga combines capital with proprietary technology to help law firms and their clients achieve better litigation outcomes. The company applies a data-driven approach to underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management, utilizing proprietary data, structured and unstructured legal and financial information, and continuously updated datasets from ongoing capital deployment. This iterative process enhances Cartiga's predictive capabilities and strengthens its competitive edge.

Advisor to Cartiga, LLC

B. Riley Securities is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Cartiga, LLC. 

About Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Alchemy is a "special purpose acquisition company" or "SPAC," commonly known as a blank-check company, incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands as an exempted company for the purpose of completing a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses, with a focus on companies acquiring, processing, analyzing, and utilizing data acquired from a variety of systems and sources.

Advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, A Stifel Company, is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1. 

Important Information and Where To Find It

This press release is provided for information purposes only and contains information with respect to a potential Business Combination described herein. If the Parties enter into definitive documentation regarding a Business Combination, a newly formed holding company intends to file relevant materials with the SEC, including a Registration Statement on Form S-4, that includes a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, and when available, a definitive proxy statement and final prospectus. Promptly after filing any definitive proxy statement with the SEC, Alchemy will mail the definitive proxy statement and a proxy card to each shareholder entitled to vote at the Extraordinary Meeting relating to the transaction. INVESTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF ALCHEMY ARE URGED TO READ THESE MATERIALS (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION THAT ALCHEMY FILES WITH THE SEC IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT ALCHEMY, CARTIGA AND THE BUSINESS COMBINATION. Any definitive proxy statement, preliminary proxy statement and other relevant materials in connection with the transaction (if and when they become available), and any other documents filed by Alchemy with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov).

Participants in the Solicitation

Alchemy and its directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from Alchemy's shareholders with respect to the Business Combination. A list of the names of those directors and executive officers and a description of their interests in Alchemy will be included in any proxy statement for the Business Combination and be available at www.sec.gov. Information about Alchemy's directors and executive officers and their ownership of ordinary shares is set forth in Alchemy's final prospectus, dated as of May 4, 2023, and filed with the SEC (File No. 333-68659) on May 5, 2023, as modified or supplemented by any Form 3 or Form 4 filed with the SEC since the date of such filing (the "Prospectus"). Additional information regarding the interests of the participants in the proxy solicitation will be included in the proxy statement pertaining to the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. These documents can be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov).

Cartiga and its managers and executive officers may also be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Alchemy in connection with the proposed Business Combination. A list of the names of such managers and executive officers and information regarding their interests in the proposed Business Combination will be included in any proxy statement for the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. 

Sources

i Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

ii Source: GDP Figure based on the legal services market size as per the Beaureau of Economic Analysis. Underprenetration as measured based on the ratio of GDP contribution to US banking sector assets; US banking sector data as per the US Federal Reserve. 

iii Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

iv Based on asset performance measured versus the Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI) for 12/31/2019 through 12/31/2024

Case Developments Commercial

Federal Judge Threatens Sanctions for Attorney Who Shared Netflix’s Source Code with Litigation Funder

By Harry Moran |

A patent infringement case being brought against one of the world’s largest streaming companies would on its face be considered a significant matter. However, this case may have added implications for the world of litigation funding, as a judge has indicated that sanctions may be imposed on an attorney who shared sensitive information with the case’s funder.  

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers new insights into an ongoing patent lawsuit being brought against Netflix, as a federal judge looks set to impose sanctions on the plaintiff’s attorney for sharing the streaming service’s source code and company financial information with a litigation funder. The development came during a hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, following Netflix’s complaint that attorney Bill Ramey shared information disclosure during discovery with AiPi LLC.

AiPi is the party that has funded the patent infringement case brought by Lauri Valjakka, a Finnish inventor who sued Netflix in 2022. AiPI Solutions’ website lists ‘IP Litigation Finance’ as one of the core services it offers to clients, which include corporate patent holders, law firms seeking alternative financing arrangements, and investors looking to invest in lawsuits.

Netflix’s complaint stems from allegations that Ramey shared information that was designated “attorneys eyes only” with AiPi, and that this information had been shared before Netflix had been informed of the funder’s involvement in the lawsuit. Sarah Piepmeier, an attorney at Perkins Coie representing Netflix, argued that having access to this sensitive company data “could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or that could inspire them to bring new cases.”

Whilst Ramey tried to argue that the case’s protective order allowed for information to be shared with affiliates, and that the four lawyers at AiPi he had shared the information with fell under this designation, Judge Jon S. Tigar strongly disagreed with Ramey’s suggestion that this “is a situation of no harm”. Judge Tigar not only suggested that substantial “attorneys’ fees as a sanction are going to be appropriate”, he also said he was considering ordering Ramey to hand over any communications with the four individuals at AiPi. Furthermore, the judge indicated that he would be considering referring Ramey to a disciplinary body such as the California State Bar.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

ASP Report Says Litigation Funding’s National Security Threat ‘Must be Taken Seriously’

By Harry Moran |

Among the criticisms leveled at the legal funding industry, one critique that has gained significant traction lately in the United States is the idea that the funding of patent infringement poses a unique risk to national security.

A new report released by the American Security Project (ASP) looks at the arguments around the use of third-party litigation funding in the United States, and whether its involvement in the legal system presents a threat to the country’s national security. ASP’s analysis draws on a variety of sources including public databases, a review of pre-existing literature on the subject, and interviews with individuals from both sides of funded cases.

Whilst the paper’s title, ‘National Security Implications of Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing’, would suggest that this analysis covers the entire breadth of funded lawsuits, it is primarily focused on patent litigation which is regularly identified as a high risk area for national and economic security. The report’s contents include an overview of the potential risks around third-party funding, the competing arguments on its use, a series of findings from the research, and four public policy recommendations. 

The recommendations put forward by ASP include a universal disclosure requirement for funders, similar to those measures that have recently been introduced in several state legislatures. The paper also suggests that an additional disclosure should be required where a case ‘implicates national or economic security’, with courts then given special discovery rules to project sensitive information as part of this additional disclosure.

The last two recommendations take a wider scope, with one idea being the introduction of mandatory sanctions for those found to have disclosed sensitive information as part of these funded cases. ASP’s final recommendation calls for a comparative study of patent litigation in foreign courts, to assess whether funded cases in foreign courts are targeting U.S. economic assets or national security information.

The National Security Implications of Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing report can be read in full here.