Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Maros Kravec

November 27, 2023

Member Spotlight: Maros Kravec

Maros founded LitFin in 2018 after spending several years as a business director of a successful property development company in Manchester, the United Kingdom. As LitFin’s managing partner, Maros handles its day-to-day activities, business strategy and investments. Lately, his primary focus revolves around LitFin SICAV, a recently established fully-regulated fund, perhaps the first of its kind within the EU area focused on the litigation finance industry. In 2019, Maros was honored as part of Forbes’ 30 Under 30, a testament to his entrepreneurial skills and influence in the business world. Furthermore, Maros is a Chambers-ranked individual for 2023 in the EU. Maros’ education includes graduating with distinction in law, which he studied in Manchester (the UK) and Lund (Sweden). His international educational background has played a crucial role in shaping his career and business strategies. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Maros enjoys a variety of personal interests. He is known for his love of swimming and traveling, however, most of all he cherishes spending weekends at his countryside mansion nestled in the hills, where he can relax and unwind from his busy work schedule. Company Name and Description: LitFin Capital Company Website: https://litfin.capital/ Year Founded:  2018 Headquarters:  Prague, Czech Republic Area of Focus:  LitFin is a European complex litigation funder with a special focus on funding follow-on cases related to the private enforcement of damages within the realms of EU competition law. Member Quote: “Our mission is to use litigation funding in order to help injured individuals, companies, insolvency dispute stakeholders, and others to achieve justice, and provide our investors with outstanding returns. From the position of the pioneer in the region, LitFin shortly became one of the most considerable players in the EU funding space. We partner with investors who aim to diversify their investment portfolios while promoting positive social impact, as well as with law firms, which benefit from the potential to offer their clients alternative fee arrangements while minimizing associated risks.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Legal Bay Funding Agreement, Rejecting Statutory Challenges

A New Jersey appeals court has upheld the enforceability of a consumer legal funding agreement, ruling that state insurance and medical-lien statutes do not limit a privately negotiated contract between a funder and an injured plaintiff.

In Viglianti v. Blue, decided July 14, 2026, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a trial court's order directing that $166,382.30 in settlement proceeds be paid to Legal Bay, LLC. The New Jersey-based funder had advanced $90,000 to cover spinal-fusion surgery and related care for Michael Viglianti, who had exhausted his personal injury protection coverage after a 2020 automobile accident. Under the agreement, Legal Bay would be repaid with interest only if Viglianti recovered in his underlying suit, which later settled for $250,000.

After the settlement, Viglianti argued the agreement was unenforceable because it conflicted with New Jersey's PIP medical fee schedules (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and 39:6A-4.6) and a statute capping physician and dentist liens at 25% (N.J.S.A. 2A:44-39). The panel rejected each argument, reasoning that those provisions govern claims against tortfeasors and payments by insurers — not a private agreement voluntarily entered by a represented party. The court also emphasized that the agreement paid for medical care rather than the litigation itself.

The unpublished opinion noted its limited scope, declining to assess whether the return was fair, and observed that the Legislature is weighing bills (S. 2357 / A. 2159) that would regulate and cap litigation funding agreements.

Commercial

Court of Appeal Ruling Lets 5,800 Motorists Pursue Mass Car-Finance Claim

A UK Court of Appeal decision has cleared roughly 5,800 motorists to pursue their car-finance mis-selling claims together as a single mass action, a procedural milestone expected to shape consumer litigation across England and Wales.

As reported by Claims Media, the court ruled in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd that the claimants may proceed against eight major lenders through an "omnibus claim" rather than filing individual lawsuits. The dispute centers on personal contract purchase and hire purchase agreements allegedly mis-sold between 2007 and 2024.

The ruling lands amid the Financial Conduct Authority's separate £9 billion redress scheme, which offers average payouts of around £830 but has been slowed by legal challenges and is unlikely to begin before 2027. By validating the omnibus format, the decision gives consumers an alternative route to potentially higher compensation outside the regulator's process.

Barings Law, which secured the judgment after litigating since 2020, has launched a "My Free PCP Claim" service that it says guarantees clients keep 100% of their damages by absorbing costs above the defendant's fee contribution — a model designed to avoid the roughly 30% deductions common in funded or contingency arrangements. "This ruling is a step towards securing true justice for millions of drivers who were mis-sold car finance over many years," said Barings Law chairman Robert Whitehead.

Commercial

Op-Ed Casts Litigation Funding Disclosure as a National-Security Imperative

A new opinion piece argues that the opacity surrounding third-party litigation funding has become a national-security vulnerability, urging Congress to force disclosure of who is bankrolling lawsuits against American energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure.

In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Robert Romano, executive director of Americans for Limited Government, contends that foreign adversaries such as China and Russia can exploit litigation as a form of economic warfare — financing challenges to pipelines, data centers, defense contractors, and domestic manufacturers without ever being identified. The public, he writes, simply has no way of knowing who holds a stake in such cases.

Romano cites a December 2025 Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse report estimating that adversarial litigation could cost the U.S. economy $54 billion in lost output and more than 450,000 jobs. He points to two measures pending in Congress — the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (H.R. 2675) and the Litigation Transparency Act (H.R. 1109) — as vehicles for mandatory disclosure.

"Transparency won't determine who wins those cases," he writes, "but it will allow judges, litigants, policymakers, and the public to understand who has a financial or political stake." Framing the reform as an "America First" priority, Romano argues that restoring confidence in the courts requires exposing the financiers behind legal challenges to domestic economic development — a stance that adds momentum to the broader disclosure debate.