Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with John Hanley, Member, McDonald Hopkins Business Department

By John Freund |
July 7, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with John Hanley, Member, McDonald Hopkins Business Department

John J. Hanley is a Member in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and a key contributor to the firm’s Litigation Finance Practice Group. He advises clients across the litigation finance ecosystem on the structuring, negotiation, and execution of complex funding arrangements and financial transactions. With more than 20 years of experience at leading law firms, John brings deep transactional expertise in first- and second-lien credit facilities, private placements, and the purchase and sale of loans, claims, and other illiquid assets.

His clients include litigation funders, specialty finance companies, business development corporations, hedge funds, CLO managers, SPVs, and other institutional investors. John’s practice bridges traditional lending and litigation finance, allowing him to deliver sophisticated, market-informed solutions that align legal risk with commercial strategy.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Hanley:

Your team is Chambers-ranked litigation finance deal counsel. How does that recognition reflect the value you bring to clients in structuring funding arrangements?

We appreciate the recognition from Chambers in a field as specialized and fast-moving as litigation finance. For us, that ranking affirms the trust our clients place in us to structure and close their transactions and the respect we’ve earned throughout the litigation finance ecosystem.

At McDonald Hopkins, we get deals done. We prioritize what matters by focusing on value, clarity, and results. Our approach is practical and efficient, guiding clients from NDA to term sheet to definitive documents and, finally, to funding with strategic precision.

You’ve worked extensively in both lending and litigation finance. How does that dual experience shape your approach to structuring deals that align interests across the table?

My lending background grounds me in negotiating and documenting deals designed to achieve client objectives while aligning incentives across counterparties. In litigation finance, those fundamentals still apply, but the environment is more nuanced. Every deal involves its own set of dynamics and considerations.

In lending, you have established credit models, conventional security packages, and repayment terms that follow predictable patterns. In litigation finance, we’re operating in a space where deal inputs aren’t standardized. Each transaction is built on a unique case or portfolio, layered with legal, factual, and procedural complexities that defy one-size-fits-all modeling. That nuance demands creativity and precision. There’s no single template that works for every matter.

At McDonald Hopkins, we recognize that underwriting is typically the funder’s responsibility. When representing funders, our primary role is to translate that underwriting into a legal structure that aligns with the deal’s risk profile and commercial objectives. From time to time we are also engaged to assist with due diligence on the underlying litigation to help ensure that the legal and procedural posture of the litigation supports the funder’s investment thesis.

When representing funded parties, whether claimants or their counsel, our focus shifts to protecting their upside, independence, and long-term position. That involves more than simply reviewing documents. We must understand how the funder views the case, the risk and return profile, and anticipate how the litigation may unfold. With that knowledge, we are equipped to negotiate terms that are fair, enforceable, and sustainable.

What are some of the key legal or regulatory pitfalls funders and claimants should be looking out for when drafting a funding agreement?

A few stand out:

  • Control: Excessive funder control can raise enforceability and ethical concerns. Decision-making authority must remain with the litigant in conjunction with their counsel. Overreach may implicate champerty or maintenance restrictions in jurisdictions where those doctrines are still active and may interfere with counsel’s duty of loyalty. Funders can and should monitor progress, but they shouldn’t steer litigation or settlement decisions. Of course, they can be a valuable sounding board.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Often underappreciated, this area can present serious risk. If privileged information is shared during diligence or monitoring, the NDA must preserve the common interest doctrine to try to avoid waiver. You can’t take shortcuts here.
  • Disclosure Risk: Courts and regulators are asking more questions, particularly in class actions, bankruptcies, and patent disputes. About 25% of U.S. federal district courts have local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. Several states have enacted similar laws. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, so agreements should be drafted with the expectation that some level of disclosure may occur. Clarity, compliance, and defensibility are essential.
  • Intercreditor Issues: In deals involving multiple funders or creditors, agreements should clearly define repayment priority, enforcement rights in default, and how proceeds are allocated. Settlement decisions must remain with the claimant and their counsel, but funders may seek consultation on resolutions that could materially affect anticipated returns. Well-drafted intercreditor provisions help align expectations and reduce the risk of disputes after funding.
  • Proposed Tax Legislation: The “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act” (S.1821), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis, would impose a 40.8% tax on profits earned by third-party funders. A revised 31.8% version appeared in the Senate’s draft of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but was removed on June 30, 2025, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it noncompliant with budget reconciliation rules.

While the tax is no longer part of active legislation, S.1821 remains under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, it could apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with significant implications for deal pricing, structure, and tax treatment.

We’re advising clients to build flexibility into agreements, revisit tax allocation language, and monitor developments to preserve deal economics.

Are you seeing shifts in who’s seeking funding and how their expectations are evolving?

Absolutely. Litigation funding is no longer niche. Fortune 500 companies and smaller businesses alike are seeking funding, often because litigation costs weigh heavily on their income statements. Unlocking capital tied up in long-running cases enables companies to redirect resources toward growth, such as hiring, R&D, and strategic initiatives, or to retain preferred counsel.

Law firms have evolved as well. Firms that historically operated on a billable-hour model (think Am Law 200) are increasingly open to contingency fee arrangements, often pairing them with third-party funding to manage risk and liquidity. We’re also seeing firms across the spectrum, from personal injury powerhouses and mass tort firms to elite litigation boutiques, monetize contingency receivables to accelerate growth, improve liquidity, or shift risk. What was once a strategy for cash-constrained firms has become a strategic capital tool for practices with high-value, contingent assets.

Consumers of litigation funding are recognizing that underwriting litigation is not their core competency and that money spent on litigation could be better deployed.

Expectations today revolve around speed, transparency, and deal customization. Funders with boilerplate offerings or long diligence cycles are struggling to keep up.

Given all that evolution, how is the role of deal counsel changing in this ecosystem?

The role of deal counsel has become highly strategic. We’re not just papering deals; we’re shaping term sheets, negotiating funding mechanics, and managing multi-party dynamics to get complex transactions across the finish line.

Funders and funded parties (whether law firms, plaintiffs, or otherwise) rely on us to identify friction points early, design around them, and close with minimal disruption. That’s the role of modern deal counsel in litigation finance.

But some fundamentals remain unchanged…

Exactly. Litigation counsel must remain independent, and the fairness of the legal process must be preserved. Our role as deal counsel is to support that framework, not interfere with it.

The strongest litigation finance deals are built on clearly defined roles, aligned incentives, and mutual respect for legal boundaries. When those fundamentals are in place, both the transaction and the underlying litigation stand on solid ground.

Secure Your Funding Below

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Ian Garrard, Managing Director of Innsworth Advisors

By John Freund |

Ian Garrard is the managing director of Innsworth Advisors Limited, the advisor and manager to the funds that provide third party litigation funding for high value claims in the UK, EU and US.

Claims under management include high profile and groundbreaking claims in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal against Meta and Amazon, claims in the Netherlands against Oracle and Salesforce, as well as claims against VW in Germany and Apple in the US.  Before moving into litigation funding, Ian was a lawyer in private practice (on financing, restructuring and litigation matters) as well as a founder of specialist law firms and an advisor to major oil & gas interests on exploration and production assets.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ian Garrard:

The claim against Rightmove alleges that the portal charged estate-agents “excessive and unfair” listing fees, and that the action will proceed on an opt-out basis for thousands of agencies. What specifically attracted Innsworth to fund this case, and how does it fit with your overall litigation-funding strategy? 

Your readers will appreciate that we can’t say too much at this early stage, but on our evaluation it is a strong case on its merits, with a considerable amount of harm caused to the proposed class of businesses. Jeremy Newman, the proposed class representative and a former CMA panel member has an excellent team supporting him, led by lawyers from Scott+Scott UK LLP. Innsworth is a committed funder of opt out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and this case fits squarely within our focus. More information on the claim is available at rightmovefeesclaim.com.

More generally, this is an exciting time for us. We are funding three other opt out claims in the CAT and we have just announced a claim on behalf of Uber drivers in the UK and Europe, which alleges that Uber has unlawfully used automated decision-making, including profiling, in its pricing systems to dynamically set driver pay by algorithm and reduce their take-home pay. If the claim doesn’t settle in the pre-action phase then the intention is to issue collective proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands. We also have lots of promising cases in our pipeline at the moment, working in collaboration with a range of London and EU based law firms.

Opt-out class actions in the UK’s competition-law space have historically faced procedural and payout-challenges. How is the funding arrangement structured in this Rightmove claim to align incentives across Innsworth, the claimants, and their legal counsel? 

There has been much said and written about the challenges the UK’s opt out regime is working through - including the need to balance reasonable certainty as to the level of returns a funder will derive and the desire to ensure that the regime delivers for the benefit of the class. The benefit of any recovery by the class comes at a cost - as in any commercial context – and the CAT to its credit recognises the importance of third party funding to the functioning of the opt-out regime. Recognising this and the interests of the class, the funding is structured in a way that seeks to align those interests.

From a business model perspective, Rightmove commands a dominant share of UK property-portal traffic and listings (reportedly over 80%). How do you assess the strength of the antitrust and competition arguments in the claim, and how does Innsworth evaluate the potential for a precedent-setting outcome if the tribunal rules favourably? 

The Rightmove fees claim announcement follows a series of English unfair pricing judgments which have gone a long way to clarify how an English court or tribunal will approach these kinds of cases. Rightmove uses its high market share as a marketing tool and has achieved sky-high margins over many years, achieved through regularly increasing its prices.  Many agents feel they have no choice but to be on Rightmove and Rightmove knows that. Commentary from industry figures following the announcement of the claim has highlighted how strongly many class members feel about Rightmove’s pricing.

Litigation funding in large scale opt-out claims is increasingly visible to institutional investors. How does Innsworth view its role as a funder in terms of transparency, reputation-risk management, and alignment with claimant-interests?   

We take our role as a stakeholder in the UK (and global) litigation funding community very seriously and we are confident in the value that our funding provides. The service we provide, of non-recourse funding, protects claimants against the costs of litigation.

If our funding unlocks redress for a class, that is a recovery for those harmed that would not otherwise have been achieved, so there is therefore a synergy between the interests of a funder and a class harmed by breach of competition law.  Innsworth is transparent about its funding and terms of funding in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

We do think there is a debate to be had about whether defendants should have access to financial information on e.g. a claim budget and funder commission. We think it’s fair that a defendant should be satisfied that a litigation funder can meet any adverse costs order made against it in an opt out claim (as England and Wales is a ‘loser pays’ jurisdiction). But currently defendants to these claims will scrutinise claim budgets and funding agreements in detail and use this to make opportunistic arguments, while claimants typically have no visibility on defendant budgets and funding. It’s an example of the information asymmetries which exist when seeking to hold dominant companies to account.

What is your take on the litigation funding market for opt out claims in England and Wales at the moment? 

We’ve seen a real slowdown in the number of claims being filed in the last year or so. A lot of this is due to uncertainty as to the level of return that the Competition Appeal Tribunal will permit a funder to receive, even if this has been freely agreed between a class representative and funder. Of course, the effect of PACCAR has made funding more challenging in England and Wales generally.

That said, Dr Kent’s recent success in her claim against Apple highlights the potential of the regime to hold dominant companies to account and to deliver meaningful redress to class members. The judgment is timely as the UK government is currently considering making reforms to the opt out regime in the face of a concerted lobbying effort from big business groups. We think the opt out regime is starting to deliver on its objective of improving competitiveness in the UK economy, so making any wholesale changes now would be counterproductive, but the prospect of reforms is adding to the uncertainty facing the regime.

LFJ Conversation

How Nera Capital Reached $150M in Investor Returns

By John Freund |
Aisling Byrne is a Director at Nera Capital, a leading litigation funder with a global footprint, where she plays a central role in driving the firm’s growth and strategic initiatives. With extensive experience in litigation funding and investor relations, Aisling focuses on building strong partnerships with law firms, funders, and stakeholders while overseeing the operational efficiency of the firm. Her leadership combines a pragmatic, solutions-driven approach with a deep understanding of both consumer and commercial claims.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Aisling Byrne:
Nera recently passed $100 million in investor repayments, citing a “data-driven approach to case selection and risk management” as a key factor. What specific data-centric approaches have contributed the most impact?
At Nera, we see data not as a supporting tool but as the backbone of our decision-making. Our proprietary models assess thousands of variables across historical case outcomes, jurisdictional nuances, law firm performance metrics, and even the efficiency of courts. By feeding this data into predictive analytics, we can more accurately model recovery timelines and probabilities. What’s been most impactful is combining quantitative scoring with qualitative oversight—data helps us remove emotional bias, while our team of experienced professionals ensures the analysis is grounded in real-world legal and enforcement dynamics. That dual approach has allowed us to deliver consistent investor repayments while scaling responsibly.
Nera has now reached $150m in investor returns.
You secured a £20 million funding line from Fintex Capital, bolstering Nera’s ability to support consumer claims and expand funding sources. How do such funding lines influence your ability to take on riskier or less predictable claims, including those where pre-judgment attachment might play a role in enforcement?
Regardless of how many new funding lines we secure, it doesn’t mean our approach changes. In the consumer division, our strategy of supporting proven, legal precedent set claim types and claim selection criteria remains exactly the same—and that high bar has been fundamental to our success and our ability to deliver substantial repayments to investors. The additional capital simply allows us to scale what we already do well, without diluting our standards.
For investors with a different criteria, the commercial division may be better suited. Those cases can sometimes have less predictable timelines, but also offer higher potential returns. In this way, we can align capital sources and timelines with the most appropriate claim types, ensuring consistency in performance while broadening the opportunities we can pursue.
Many financialized legal claims carry the potential for post-judgment or post-award interest and/or enforcement costs. Could you speak to how Nera evaluates the enforceability of judgments, including the likelihood of successful asset attachments (domestic or abroad), in structuring returns for investors?
Enforceability is as important as the merits of the case itself. A favourable judgment is meaningless without a realistic pathway to recovery. At Nera, we always seek to avoid claims where enforceability is in doubt. Before committing, we carry out a comprehensive enforceability assessment, which includes mapping the defendant’s asset profile, reviewing local enforcement regimes, and stress-testing recovery prospects. This rigorous upfront analysis is a cornerstone of our underwriting approach, and in our 15 years of business, we have not experienced enforcement issues—a strong validation of the discipline and prudence built into our process.
Given that litigation finance is often argued to be an “uncorrelated asset class,” how does Nera balance its portfolio of consumer mass claims, commercial disputes, and potential cross-border enforcement matters to provide both stability and high upside for investors?
Diversification is central to our portfolio construction. Consumer claims tend to generate steady, repeatable outcomes that provide stability and heavy settlement cash flows. Commercial disputes, on the other hand, carry larger ticket sizes and higher upside, but sometimes involve greater complexity and longer timelines.
When it comes to cross-border enforcement matters, we take a very cautious stance. We look to avoid supporting claims where enforceability could present difficulties and always conduct an upfront enforcement assessment. By working with leading lawyers and advisers in each jurisdiction, we ensure risks are fully evaluated and mitigated before committing capital.
Because these different claim types are not only uncorrelated with traditional markets but also with one another—thanks to variations in claim structure, jurisdiction, and duration—we can actively balance short-term liquidity against long-term growth. This layered approach allows us to deliver both stability and meaningful upside, while staying true to the uncorrelated nature of litigation finance.
 
As Nera has expanded into the Netherlands and joined the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA), what regulatory, ethical, or procedural hurdles have you confronted? How do these shape your funding models?
Europe presents both opportunities and challenges. In the Netherlands, collective redress mechanisms are still evolving, and with that comes heightened regulatory and judicial scrutiny. By joining ELFA, we’ve committed to the highest standards of transparency, governance, and ethical practice, which we see not as a constraint but as a competitive advantage.
One hurdle has been adapting our funding structures to meet jurisdiction-specific requirements, such as disclosure obligations and court oversight of funder involvement. These challenges have made us more deliberate in how we design our funding contracts and financial models, ensuring they are robust, compliant, and aligned with the long-term sustainability of the sector. Ultimately, we welcome this direction—it elevates the industry and builds trust with investors, law firms, and claimants alike.
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le of Siltstone Capital

By John Freund |

Jim Batson serves as Managing Partner, General Counsel, and Chief Investment Officer of Siltstone Capital’s legal finance strategy, where he leads investment origination, diligence, and portfolio management for global dispute-related opportunities. With over a decade of experience in legal finance, Jim brings a unique blend of legal expertise and investment acumen to Siltstone’s expanding platform.

Before joining Siltstone, Jim served as the Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors, a litigation finance advisory company, and before that, as the Co-Chief Investment Officer – U.S. at Omni Bridgeway, a global litigation finance fund manager. At Omni, Jim was instrumental in expanding the firm’s U.S. presence, implementing the U.S. investment strategy, and developing one of the most respected teams in the industry.

Jim began his career as a trial lawyer. He later became a partner at Liddle & Robinson in New York, where he handled groundbreaking cases, including the seminal e-discovery case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. His experience as both a litigator and investor enables him to evaluate risk and opportunity from multiple angles, making him a trusted partner to law firms, claimholders, and investors.

Robert Le is a Founder and Managing Partner of Siltstone Capital. Prior to founding Siltstone, Mr. Le was a Portfolio Manager at an investment platform of Millennium Partners, a hedge fund located in New York. Mr. Le managed a portfolio of public investments in the energy sector. Before Millennium, Mr. Le helped launch the E&P strategy at Zimmer Lucas Partners (“ZLP”), a Utility and Master Limited Partnership (“MLP”) focused hedge fund. During his tenure, the E&P portfolio became the top performing strategy.

Prior to ZLP, Mr. Le worked as an Analyst at Canyon Capital. Prior to Canyon, Mr. Le was an Investment Banking Analyst at Morgan Stanley in the Global Energy Group. Mr. Le graduated from the University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude and as a Benjamin Franklin Scholar. Mr. Le also received a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship for postgraduate studies in Sydney, Australia.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le:

How does Siltstone integrate legal considerations into your investment strategies, particularly in the niche asset classes you focus on?

At Siltstone, legal analysis is at the heart of every decision we make. Before we commit capital—whether it’s in complex commercial disputes, or intellectual property—we start by looking at the case through a legal lens.

We’ve also developed proprietary software that allows us to quantify and track those risks in a disciplined way. By integrating legal considerations directly into our financial models, we’re able to bridge the gap between legal strength and economic value. Bringing on Jim Batson further strengthens our focus on diligence, given his breadth of experience.

Siltstone emphasizes 'organically sourced alternative investment opportunities.' Can you elaborate on the process of identifying and securing these unique opportunities?

When we talk about “organically sourced alternative investment opportunities,” we mean opportunities that come to us through the network we’ve built and cultivated.  Over the years, we’ve developed deep relationships across the litigation finance ecosystem, including law firms, businesses, claimants, insurers, experts, and brokers.  Those connections give us access to opportunities early, often before they hit the broader market.

We’ve also worked hard to create platforms that connect the industry more broadly, most notably LITFINCON—the premier litigation finance conference. LITFINCON has become a central gathering point for funders, law firms, insurers, investors, and thought leaders. In January 2026, we’ll host our fifth iteration in Houston, where we will once again be at the center of conversations shaping the industry and making connections.

By combining long-term relationships, our collective experience, and the connections we form at LITFINCON, we’re able to consistently identify and secure unique, high-quality opportunities that align with our investment strategy.

Siltstone aims to provide 'uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns.' What strategies do you employ to ensure the portfolio remains uncorrelated and resilient to market fluctuations?

At Siltstone, when we talk about delivering “uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns,” we mean building a portfolio that’s insulated from broader market swings. Case outcomes move on their own timelines and are driven by judicial processes, not by macroeconomic headlines.

Our proprietary risk-assessment tools enable us to model duration, damages, appeal exposure, and recovery probabilities, which provides discipline in portfolio construction and helps keep correlations low.

This mix of uncorrelated assets, disciplined structuring, and diversified exposure makes the portfolio resilient, regardless of broader market fluctuations.

Could you share insights into any recent developments or trends you're observing in the legal finance sector, and how Siltstone is adapting to these changes?

One of the biggest developments we’re seeing in legal finance is the continued professionalization and institutionalization of the space. What was once a niche, under-the-radar asset class is now drawing attention from major investors who are looking for uncorrelated returns. That shift brings both opportunity and competition.

We’re also watching growth in secondary markets—funders and investors are increasingly finding ways to trade exposure midstream, whether through portfolio sales, insurance solutions, or securitized products. That liquidity dynamic is changing how capital flows into the sector and how risk is managed.

Another important development is the ever-changing landscape of insurance. The use of insurance to protect downside risk has become far more sophisticated, with products ranging from adverse costs coverage to judgment preservation insurance. For funders like us, insurance provides an additional tool to de-risk investments and expand our ability to structure creative solutions for clients and investors alike.

We’re also seeing the rise of technology and data-driven tools. From case analytics to AI-driven damages modeling, the sector is moving toward greater use of predictive insights. At Siltstone, we’ve leaned into this by building proprietary software to better quantify and track litigation risk, which enhances both origination and portfolio management.

Finally, the regulatory conversation is becoming more active. We’re paying close attention to potential disclosure requirements and other legislative proposals. Our approach is to stay ahead of the curve by structuring deals with transparency in mind and building flexibility into our agreements so that regulatory changes don’t disrupt performance.

LITFINCON has quickly established itself as a premier event in the U.S. Now that it’s expanding globally, what factors drove that decision?

LITFINCON has quickly become the premier litigation finance event in the U.S., and expanding globally was the natural next step. As we continue to deploy capital and evaluate opportunities, we’re seeing that the market is increasingly international as claims, structures, and counterparties are emerging across multiple jurisdictions. To stay at the forefront, we need to be engaged globally.

We’re also seeing greater diversity in both the types of cases and the investment structures being developed around the world. Expanding LITFINCON beyond the U.S. allows us to explore those innovations directly, while also connecting with new partners and perspectives.

That’s why, in addition to hosting LITFINCON Houston on January 14–15, 2026, we’ll be taking the event global—with a conference in Singapore this July and another in Amsterdam this Fall. Ultimately, going global is about building on the momentum we’ve created by expanding relationships, opening new doors, and growing a broader, more connected LITFINCON community.