LegalPay, India, and the Promise of Litigation Finance in Emerging Markets
Public
May 11, 2022
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 explainsthat 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. Acase 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:
Runaway judiciary freedoms andlack of transparency and accountability taints the judicial process in ways that may be more harmful to those of average means.
Likewise, corruption in the legal system erodes the public trust as well as access to justice.
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 directorSmriti 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 toprotect 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 hasenabled 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 areAmity 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.
The following article was contributed by Dr. Avv. Gian Marco Solas[1], founder of Sustainab-Law and author of Third Party Funding, New Technologies and the Interdisciplinary Methodology as Global Competition Litigation Driving Forces (Global Competition Litigation Review, 1/25). Dr. Solas is also the author of Third Party Funding, Law Economics an Policy (Cambridge Press).
There is an inaccurate and counterproductive belief in the litigation funding market, that the asset class would be uncorrelated from the global economy. That was in fact due to a much bigger scientific legal problem, that the law itself was not considered as physical factor of correlation, as instrument to measure and determine cause and effects of economic events in legal systems.
This problem has been solved, in both theoretical and mathematical terms, and in fact – thanks to technology available to date such as AI and blockchain – it looks much better for litig … ehm … legal third-party funders.
AI allows to detect and file claims that would otherwise not have been viable / brought forward, such as unlocked competition law claims[2], which represent the largest chunk of the market for competition claims. See funding proposal.
Human law as factor of correlation allows to calculate the unexpressed value of the global economy. Everything that, in fact, can be unlocked with litigation, allowing then a public-private IPO type of process to optimize legal systems[3].
Physical modeling of the law also allows to transform debt / liabilities into new investments, thus allowing to settle litigation earlier and with less legal costs, leaving more room to creativity to optimize the investments[4].
While it may be true that the outcome of one single judgement does not depend on the fluctuations of the financial economy, legal reality certainly determines the ups and downs of the litigation funding (and any other) market. Otherwise, we could not explain the rise of litigation funding in the post-financial crisis for instance, or the shockwaves propagated by judgements like PACCAR.
The flip side is that understanding and measuring legal reality, as well as leveraging on modern technologies and innovative legal instruments, the market for legal claims and legal assets is much bigger and sizeable than with the standard litigation financial model.
In order to test Litigation Funding 3.0, I am presenting the following proposal:
10 MILLION EUR in the form of a series A venture capital type of investment to cover one test case's litigation costs, tech, book-building and expert costs aimed at targeting three already identified global or multi-jurisdictional mass anticompetitive claims in the scale of multi-billion dollars, whose details will be provided upon request.
Funder(s) get:
Percentage of claims' return as per agreement with parties involved;
Property of the AI / blockchain algorithm;
License of TPF 3.0.
The funding does not cover: additional legal / litigation / expert / etc. costs.
AI: Artificial Intelligence ML: Machine Learning TPF: Third Party Funding
GENERAL SCENARIO FOR COMPETITION LAW DAMAGE CLAIMS – IN SHORT
Competition authorities around the globe are rapidly developing AI / ML tools to scan markets / economy and prosecute anti-competitive practices. This suggests a steep increase in competition claims in the coming years, in both volume and scope. AI also reduces the costs and time of litigation and ML allows to better assess its risks and merit, prompting for a re-modelling of the TPF economic model in competition claims considering empirical evidence of the first wave(s) of funded litigation.
Below is the abstract and table of contents from my research:
Abstract
This article aims at fostering competition litigation and market analysis by integrating concepts borrowed from physics science from an historical legal and evolutionary perspective, taking the third party funding (TPF) market as benchmark. To do so, it first combines historical legal data and trends related to the legal and litigation markets, discussing three macro historical trends or “states”: Industrial revolution(s) and globalisation; enlargement of the legal world; digital revolution and liberalisation of the legal profession. It then proposes the multidisciplinary methodology to assess the market for TPF: mainstream economic models, historical “cyclical” data and concepts borrowed from physics, particularly from mechanics of fluids and thermodynamics. On this basis, it discusses the potential implication of such methodology on the global competition litigation practice, for instance in market analysis and damage theory, also by considering the impact of modern technologies. The article concludes that physics models and the interdisciplinary methodology seem to add value to market assessment and considers whether there should be a case for a wider adoption in (competition) litigation and asset management practices.
-- 1. Italian / EU qualified lawyer and legal scientist. Leading Expert at BRICS Competition Law & Policy Centre (Higher School of Economics, Moscow). Ph.D.2 (Maastricht Law School, Economic Analysis of Law; University of Cagliari, Comparative Law) – LL.M. (College of Europe, EU competition Law). Visiting Fellow at Fordham Law School (US Antitrust), NYU (US Legal finance and civil procedure).
2. G. M. Solas, ‘Third Party Funding, new technologies and the interdisciplinary methodology as global competition litigation driving forces’ (2025) Global Competition Litigation Review, 1.
3. G. M. Solas, ‘Interrelation of Human Laws and Laws of Nature? Codification of Sustainable Legal Systems’ (2025) Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, 2.
US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.
According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.
The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.
Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.
For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.
A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.
An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.
Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.
This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
