Trending Now
  • The Case for Nonlawyer-Owned Firms: Filling Consumer Justice Gaps Left by Big Law
  • Kansas Enacts Consumer Legal Funding Law, Offering a Bipartisan Regulatory Blueprint
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |
October 1, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled “Spotlight on Insurance.” The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren’t able to do that as a first-time manager, but it’s something we’d like to explore in the future. We’re currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to ‘yes.’

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I’m seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It’s very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders – an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn’t go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn’t be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you’ve got a policy with an insurer and you’re invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder– all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you’re not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you’re not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you’ll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the ‘divide and rule game’ with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we’ve been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) – things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won’t be insurable in the US. But we’re seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that’s where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we’ve been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Singapore Court Declines to Revive $14 Million Third-Party Funding Cost Recovery Bid

By John Freund |

A Singapore court has affirmed an arbitral award denying a successful litigant's attempt to recover more than $14 million in third-party funding costs, reinforcing the principle that funding expenses are generally not recoverable from the losing side. The decision offers important guidance for funded parties weighing the economics of dispute resolution in one of Asia's leading arbitration hubs.

As reported by Law360, the dispute arose from an arbitration over control of a fintech joint venture. The prevailing party sought reimbursement of the substantial fees it had paid to its litigation funder, arguing those costs should be shifted to its opponent as part of the award.

The court rejected that argument, characterizing the funding expense as "simply the product of a risk any party engaged in dispute resolution takes." By framing the cost as an inherent risk of pursuing a claim rather than a recoverable disbursement, the court declined to allow the funded party to pass its financing burden to the other side.

The ruling underscores a recurring tension in funded disputes: while third-party funding can make claims viable, the cost of that capital typically remains with the party that engaged the funder, even in victory. Counsel in the matter included Providence Law Asia, Rajah & Tann, and Duxton Hill Chambers, with the proceedings tied to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. For funders and funded parties alike, the decision is a reminder that recovery of funding costs cannot be assumed and must be carefully assessed when structuring the economics of a case.

Commercial

Op-Ed Urges New York to Close the ‘Champerty Loophole’ Exploited by Litigation-Funding Hedge Funds

By John Freund |

A new opinion piece is pressing New York lawmakers to close what the author calls a "champerty loophole," arguing that gaps in the state's centuries-old prohibition on financing others' lawsuits have allowed hedge funds and litigation funders to profit from the court system. The commentary adds to a broader policy debate over how, and whether, third-party litigation funding should be constrained.

As reported by the New York Daily News, the author contends that most New Yorkers have never heard of the champerty doctrine, yet its weakened application has helped turn the state's courts into what the piece describes as a playground for well-capitalized financial actors. Champerty, historically, refers to an arrangement in which an outside party funds litigation in exchange for a share of the proceeds, a practice long disfavored under New York law but now widely worked around.

The op-ed argues that the current framework permits hedge funds and litigation funders to bankroll claims for financial return while escaping meaningful regulation, raising concerns about the influence of outside capital over litigation strategy and outcomes. The author calls on the legislature to tighten the rules and restore limits the doctrine was originally designed to impose.

The piece lands amid intensifying scrutiny of third-party litigation funding nationwide, from federal disclosure proposals to state-level efforts to regulate consumer funding and non-lawyer ownership of law firms. As New York weighs its approach, the champerty debate underscores the enduring tension between expanding access to the courts and guarding against the commercialization of litigation.

Commercial

Litigation Funder Rocade Capital Acquires Law Finance Group, Creating $2.3 Billion Platform

By John Freund |

Rocade Capital has acquired litigation funder Law Finance Group LLC, the company announced Wednesday, combining the two firms into a platform with more than $2.3 billion in deployed capital. The deal marks a notable consolidation in a litigation finance market that continues to attract institutional interest as an emerging asset class.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Arlington, Virginia-based Rocade Capital specializes in credit-style funding for mass tort and contingency-fee law firms. Law Finance Group brings a more diversified portfolio spanning appellate, commercial, and single-case investments. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The acquisition broadens Rocade's reach well beyond its traditional mass tort niche. By absorbing Law Finance Group's book of business, Rocade gains exposure to additional practice areas and case types, positioning the combined firm to compete across a wider segment of the funding landscape.

Rocade Chief Executive Officer Brian Roth framed the transaction as a growth opportunity. "This is a great opportunity for us to grow and that's why we're bringing on the whole team and the whole portfolio," Roth said, indicating that Rocade retained Law Finance Group's personnel as well as its existing investments.

The deal reflects a broader pattern of consolidation within litigation finance, which Bloomberg Law characterized as "a niche but growing asset class." As funders scale their balance sheets and diversify across case types, combinations of this kind may become increasingly common, allowing established players to deepen their capital base and expand the range of claims they can support.