Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

By John Freund |
December 16, 2024

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

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
Commercial

Federal Judiciary Advisory Committee Moves Forward with Litigation Finance Transparency Rules

By John Freund |

A federal judiciary advisory committee agreed on Tuesday to develop transparency obligations for third-party litigation funders, advancing one of the most closely watched rulemaking efforts in U.S. civil procedure. The decision came despite what participants described as "vehement" opposition from segments of both the defense and plaintiffs' bars, underscoring how contentious disclosure of funding arrangements remains within the legal community.

As reported by Law360, the committee, which shapes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, signaled that it will continue drafting specific disclosure requirements rather than shelving the project, as some stakeholders had urged. Alongside the litigation finance item, the panel also advanced proposed updates to subpoena rules addressing remote testimony and service of process.

For funders, the development marks a significant shift in the regulatory conversation. Industry groups have long argued that existing discovery tools are sufficient to address concerns about control and conflicts, while proponents of disclosure contend that parties and courts need a clearer view of who stands to benefit from a case. The committee's decision indicates that federal rulemakers are prepared to put that debate to the test with concrete drafting, even as both sides continue to press their positions.

Next steps will involve developing rule text and further public input before any proposal moves up the Judicial Conference's rulemaking chain. Market participants will be watching closely, as any federal disclosure rule would likely influence how funders structure deals, negotiate with claimants, and manage portfolios across U.S. commercial litigation.

Commercial

Judge Preska Orders Argentina’s Economy Minister to Produce Texts in YPF Enforcement Fight

By John Freund |

A U.S. federal judge has ordered Argentina's economy minister to turn over text messages sought by plaintiffs pursuing enforcement of the multibillion-dollar YPF judgment, the latest development in one of the most prominent litigation finance-backed cases in the world. The ruling expands the discovery footprint available to creditors working to collect on the landmark award against the Republic of Argentina.

As reported by Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled on Tuesday that plaintiffs backed by Burford Capital are entitled to messages from Argentina's sitting economy minister. The decision continues a pattern in which Judge Preska has pushed Argentina to produce internal communications and financial information as the plaintiffs seek to identify attachable assets and pierce through sovereign defenses.

Burford, which funded the underlying claims brought by former YPF minority shareholders, has pursued a sprawling enforcement campaign following a 2023 judgment of approximately $16 billion plus interest. Argentina has resisted enforcement on multiple fronts, appealing the merits ruling and contesting asset-identification discovery, while the plaintiffs have sought turnover of Argentina's interest in YPF itself.

For the litigation finance market, the order is another marker of how far-reaching post-judgment discovery can be in high-stakes sovereign enforcement — and how central funder-backed plaintiffs have become to the mechanics of collecting against state defendants. The decision is likely to intensify the ongoing standoff between Argentina and its creditors in the U.S. courts.

Commercial

South Korea Recovers Record ISDS Legal Costs After Schindler Pays 9.6 Billion Won

By John Freund |

South Korea has recovered a record amount in investor-state dispute settlement legal costs, with Swiss elevator manufacturer Schindler paying approximately 9.6 billion won to satisfy a cost award following its unsuccessful arbitration claim against the Korean government. The payment marks the largest ISDS cost recovery in the country's history and offers a notable data point for parties evaluating the downside risk of treaty-based claims.

As reported by Chosunbiz, Jo Ara, head of the international investment disputes division at South Korea's Ministry of Justice, confirmed the recovery during a briefing on the government's handling of the case. Schindler had pursued a long-running claim tied to its investment in Hyundai Elevator, which the tribunal ultimately declined to sustain, exposing the investor to a substantial cost-shifting order.

The outcome highlights the growing willingness of tribunals to allocate costs against unsuccessful claimants in investor-state proceedings, a trend that has direct implications for litigation funders active in the international arbitration market. Cost awards of this scale can materially affect the economics of funding ISDS claims and are increasingly a factor in underwriting decisions.

For the broader litigation finance community, the Schindler payment underscores why funders evaluating treaty claims closely monitor both merits risk and cost exposure. As more states pursue aggressive recovery strategies after successful defenses, the downside profile of funded ISDS portfolios continues to evolve.