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
Commercial Deals

Litigation Lending Services Funding Queensland Health Class Action

By Harry Moran |

When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Releases Judgment Approving £200m Settlement in Mastercard Class Action

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

Announcements Commercial Deals

SIM IP Provides Funding and Strategic Advisory Services to Gene Pool to Drive Global Intellectual Property Monetization

By Harry Moran |

Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc ("SIM IP"), a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment, and monetization, today announced it has entered into a funding and strategic advisory agreement with Gene Pool Technologies.

Gene Pool Technologies ("Gene Pool") focuses on the development, aggregation, and licensing of advanced extraction and processing technologies, with a particular emphasis on solutions applicable to the cannabis and hemp industries. Gene Pool's intellectual property portfolio broadly covers innovations in plant extraction methods, equipment, and systems that enhance quality, safety, and efficiency for producers and manufacturers.

"We believe that Gene Pool brings a disciplined, technology-focused process to intellectual property licensing that aligns with SIM IP's commitment to efficient and transparent value creation," said Jennifer Burdman, Managing Director at SIM IP. "We look forward to collaborating to provide inventors with stronger protection and improved monetization opportunities, while offering industry participants with streamlined access to critical technologies through clear and equitable licensing terms."

Erich Spangenberg, CEO of SIM IP, commented, "Gene Pool is leveraging two key services provided by SIM IP, which includes capital support through a corporate investment and unparalleled, strategic advisory expertise. Gene Pool strategically chose to leverage our capital for both litigation and the anticipated acquisition of additional intellectual property, as well as our extensive expertise in global intellectual property monetization to support execution and business strategy."

Gene Pool partners with innovators and technology owners to ensure their innovations are protected, compensated, and accessible to operators through operator-friendly, non-exclusive licensing agreements. Gene Pool's licensable portfolio includes  over fifty patent assets, with approximately half owned by Gene Pool and the rest being in-licensed from key market innovators.

"Gene Pool was seeking a strategic partner capable of providing capital and supporting the execution of our intellectual property monetization strategy across multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe. We're pleased to have identified SIM IP as a partner and to have formalized our collaboration," said Travis Steffen, CEO of Gene Pool. "We met with numerous litigation funding firms; however, only SIM IP demonstrated strategic advisory service capabilities and meaningful experience in global enforcement strategies."

Over the last few years, Gene Pool secured significant legal victories against companies in the cannabis and hemp industries including defending key patent claims in three inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; defeating invalidity, non-infringement, and illegality challenges against these claims in U.S. District Court; and most recently obtaining summary judgment from the same court that the Defendants infringed these claims.

About SIM IP

Sauvegarder Investment Management, Inc. ("SIM IP") is a Miami-based firm focused on intellectual property-based financing, investment and monetization opportunities. SIM IP invests across IP as an asset class and across jurisdictions, primarily focusing on the US, Europe, and Asia. Further information is available at www.simip.io. Follow us on LinkedIn, X (Twitter), and Instagram. 

About Gene Pool Technologies

At Gene Pool Technologies, we believe in industry solutions that recognize inventors, incentivize ongoing R&D, and enable operating companies with seamless access to technologies that will be critical to the long-term success of the Cannabis industry. Our team brings decades of experience across Cannabis and intellectual property and is deeply committed to the success of the industry and the innovation that will continue to drive quality, safety, and efficiency.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made in this release are "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding SIM IP's strategy, plans, objectives, initiatives and financial outlook. When used in this press release, the words "estimates," "projected," "expects," "anticipates," "forecasts," "plans," "intends," "believes," "seeks," "may," "will," "should," "future," "propose" and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside SIM IP's control, that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. As such, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements.

Investors should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the "Risk Factors" sections of SIM IP's filings with the SEC, including the Registration Statement and the other documents filed by SIM IP. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements.