Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

LegalPay, India, and the Promise of Litigation Finance in Emerging Markets

LegalPay is a Litigation Finance startup founded in India, an emerging market for third-party legal funding. Until recently, investing in legal cases was reserved for high-end investors. The advent of LegalPay allows retail investors—those of average means–to take advantage of the potentially large uncorrelated returns that have attracted savvy investors for years.

According to founder Kundan Shahi, LegalPay is the only formal player that offers third-party litigation funding for late-stage cases in India. One can’t help but wonder how this will influence the development of global Litigation Finance? Does LegalPay’s success foretell the rise of litigation funding in emerging markets? 

How Does LegalPay Work?

According to founder Kundan Shahi, LegalPay is a tech-focused, data-driven litigation funder which leverages a 15-point checklist proprietary algorithm in its underwriting process. The use of AI in diligencing cases is nothing new, however, LegalPay differentiates itself by enabling retail investors to commit modest amounts of capital as a means of participating in this uncorrelated asset class. Interest rates are competitive and offer high returns—plus investor and creditor interests are secured by the IBC.

There are other such “crowdfunding for Litigation Finance” platforms on the market, though LegalPay seems to be performing a balancing act between being a tech platform for the masses, and a large-scale commercial funder that invests in mega cap cases (at least, as far as the Indian legal market is concerned). In 2021, for example, LegalPay offered interim financing to Yashomati Hospitals, a private medical entity in insolvency. This is in addition to more than a dozen short-term secured loans to hospitals undergoing insolvency. The funds go toward operating costs and payroll to keep the hospital running from six months up to a year. Ravindra Beleyur explains that the term sheet was finalized in fewer than two weeks from initial contact.

LegalPay’s platform has worked out well for insolvent firms, and perhaps even better for the company’s spate of retail investors. A case involving Brain Logistics demonstrates the difference that backing from LegalPay can make. A bevy of delays and appeals by delinquent debtor Hero MotoCorp necessitated increased funding for Brain Logistics to continue fighting. This was provided by LegalPay, and allowed Brain Logistics to proceed with its claim against Hero MotoCorp. While the case has yet not resolved, it demonstrates how legal funding can expedite proceedings and allow for a more timely application of justice.

In addition to its funding platform, LegalPay aims to create specialized products in insolvency and interim business financing, as well as carve out a piece of the legal funding market in India for itself. For insolvent companies, LegalPay offers short-term lending products that are asset-backed and secured. 

Why is This Especially Important in India?

Though the Indian legal system has been refined in recent years, it is still lacking when compared to that of developed nations. The Supreme Court of India is the de facto head of its unified legal system. Its purpose is to interpret laws and defend the constitution, resolve disputes, and affirm basic rights for citizens.

Today, certain drawbacks of the Indian legal system make justice more difficult to achieve in a timely way. For example:

As far back as 2016, the Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court implored the Prime Minister to appoint more judges. Government inaction over judicial delays has caused significant hardships in all case types. Bloomberg Businessweek has affirmed that if India’s judges closed 100 cases every hour, 24-hours a day, it would take more than 30 years to clear the current backlog of pending cases. Ironically, there are pending cases from 30 years ago that are still unresolved.

Given the dearth of judges and astronomical wait times, many companies–and even wronged individuals or businesses–are reticent to sue in India’s courts. New cases must work their way up from lower courts, which means they often take years to reach completion. Given all of this, it’s clear that in India today, finding innovative solutions to the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied,” is more important than ever.

Who is Partnering with LegalPay?

The well-documented challenges in India’s legal market may dis-incentivize investors from getting involved in TPLF in India. At the same time, LegalPay is amassing impressive partnerships that will enable it to make offers to companies undergoing insolvency. LegalPay’s Series A funding, a special purpose vehicle, found itself oversubscribed in a short amount of time—demonstrating consumer confidence in the concept and in its implementation.

This first SPV was intended to diversify capital with a portfolio of 8-12 cases, and allowed retail investors to commit as little as Rs 25,000 in a single case. A second SPV will emphasize commercial disputes. These SPVs help investors diversify by investing in a basket of commercial cases that typically generate a pre-tax IRR of over 20 per cent. Incidentally, the entire investment process is digital and seamless, including signing investor documents, KYC, tracking of the basket of claims, and portfolio monitoring and analytics.

Among those partnering with LegalPay is Jumbo Finance, which provides secured interim financing. Managing director Smriti Ranka explained that there are many benefits to investing in distressed debt assets. US hedge fund Hedonova is another LegalPay partner that, according to Shahi, will enhance LegalPay’s plan to aggressively grow its Indian market.

Naples Global is also onboard with LegalPay, launching a $5MM fund that’s expected to protect the interests of founders in the event of disputes among the board. With disputes between founders and investors on the rise, this development may be crucial in attracting new investors and adding a sense of security to the opportunities LegalPay provides.

The current $20 billion legal expense market in India has enabled seed funding led by 9Unicorns and Accelerator VC, along with LetsVenture, and angel investor Ambarish Gupta. Much of these funds will be deployed toward late-stage litigation—currently plentiful given that delays are rampant due to COVID. Also among LegalPay’s list of partners are Amity Technology Incubator and Venture Catalysts.

What’s the Next Step?

How will innovators like LegalPay alter the Litigation Finance landscape? 

The complexities of global litigation funding make predictions like this difficult. As noted earlier, the Indian legal market is full of challenges, as are all emerging markets (heck, even most mature legal markets can be labyrinthine at times). But those challenges keep competitors out of the fray, which means funders willing to take the plunge typically have their pick of the litter in terms of cases. Lack of competition can present itself as a blue ocean of opportunity, as early entrants into the US and UK litigation funding markets can attest. And India certainly has a lot of untapped potential. The prospect of getting in on the ground floor of a maturing legal market that is home to over 1 billion people may be too enticing for some funders to pass up. 

While LegalPay’s emergence may encourage more partnerships between larger funders and retail investor platforms, it’s unlikely we will see funders dive head-first into emerging markets like India any time soon (for example, opening an office in Bangalore). That type of commitment will take time, as there are less risky jurisdictions out there where the TAM has yet to be saturated (like Japan, South Korea and Israel–where Woodsford maintains an office and Validity Finance recently opened shop). 

Yet established funders in Australia, the US and UK would do well to keep an eye on Shahi’s startup, given how its numerous strategic partnerships and technological capabilities enable both large-scale case investment, and promising returns for retail investors. Any company leveraging AI to effectively source and/or diligence cases deserves a second look, and one doing that in an emerging market like India deserves extra consideration. 

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.