Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Blake Trueblood

November 8, 2023

Member Spotlight: Blake Trueblood

Blake Trueblood, a seasoned advocate and litigator, brings over eighteen years of experience to the forefront of the litigation finance industry. As co-founder of Invenio LLP, Blake has played a pivotal role in the firm’s dedication to the emerging litigation finance sector. His extensive background includes serving as General Counsel for a group of litigation finance and claims management companies, where he assisted plaintiffs and law firms in various practice areas, from personal injury to mass torts.
Blake’s entrepreneurial spirit led him to co-found and manage a Florida-based law firm, specializing in representing claimants in personal injury, discrimination, and commercial claims. His practice has catered to both individuals and businesses seeking just compensation. Beyond his legal expertise, Blake has earned the trust of entrepreneurs, Native American tribes, and media personalities. His insightful commentary on topics like litigation finance and Tribal economic development has solidified his reputation as a thought leader. Born in the Midwest and raised in Florida, Blake now splits his time between Washington, D.C., and Fort Lauderdale, where he has a home with his significant other Maria, their daughter Amber,  and his dog Bella, a chihuahua-beagle mix. As an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Blake is deeply connected to Native American culture and its economic development initiatives. In his free time, he’s an avid hiker, runner, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioner, holding a black belt since 2015, with a second-degree earned in 2021. Company Name & Description: Invenio LLP is a leading provider of legal services for those navigating the complexities of the litigation finance industry. Our founding partners have extensive experience in claimant funding, law firm lending, and litigation supported by third-party funding. We serve claimants, the law firms who advocate on their behalf, and the lenders and funders that provide the capital necessary to see justice through. Our lawyers bring a wealth of experience to the rapidly evolving litigation finance landscape. We’ve represented both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation, and immersed ourselves in venture start-ups and private equity ventures catering to plaintiffs, law firms, and claims development experts, giving us a unique blend of expertise suited to untangle the complexities of the litigation finance space and find solutions. Invenio is committed to increasing access to civil justice by helping plaintiffs of all types access courts and level the playing field against well-resourced defendants.  We believe litigation finance can be a force multiplier for plaintiffs and the firms that represent them. We aim to make the process of exploring and obtaining litigation finance clear, fair, and straightforward. Company Website: inveniolaw.com Year Founded: 2022 Headquarters: Invenio has joint headquarters in Washington, D.C. and Fort Lauderdale. Area of Focus: Invenio LLP is fully engaged in all aspects of the rapidly emerging litigation finance industry. The firm’s founding partners have each worked on multiple claimant funding and law firm loan transactions and have themselves litigated cases where law firm portfolio funding or third-party case funding was used. Our clients are law firms borrowing for their cases or portfolios, claimants seeking traditional third-party funding, lenders seeking assistance with underwriting and servicing of cases or portfolios of cases, and parties to disputes or workouts. We focus on Case & Portfolio Underwriting; Borrower & Claimant Side Representation; and Pre-Settlement, Post-Settlement & Medical Lien Funding. Member Quote: “We believe that litigation finance levels the playing field in the fight for access to justice, both for claimants and the attorneys and law firms that represent them on the front lines. Invenio LLP was founded on that principle, and we focus our efforts each day on ensuring that plaintiffs, their advocates, and the investors who fund their efforts get the guidance they need to navigate this complex industry.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.