Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Member Spotlight:  Michael Klaschka

By Mike Klaschka |
August 12, 2024

Member Spotlight:  Michael Klaschka

Michael Klaschka is a Managing Principal and head of the Financial Institutions team based in EPIC’s Jersey City office.  He has over 32 years of industry experience and is a highly respected and skilled negotiator in the professional liability marketplace. 

Mike has extensive experience working with financial institution, investment management, litigation finance, real estate, venture capital, private equity and complex risks with strong technical knowledge of D&O, E&O, Cyber, Fidelity, Fiduciary, Media and Employment Practices Liability. 

Mike joined EPIC in August 2016.  Prior to joining EPIC, Mike was the national leader of Integro’s Management Risk Practice where he spent 11 years.  Prior to Integro, Mike spent 10 years at Marsh & McLennan where he held various positions including head of their E&O Center of Excellence Group based in NY as well as the west coast FINPRO placement leader for their financial institution, technology and commercial accounts group based in San Francisco.  Mike earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Drew University in 1991, and majored in Economics with a minor in Political Science.

Company Name and Description:  EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants

We are a unique and innovative retail risk management and employee benefits insurance brokerage and consulting firm, founded in San Francisco, California in 2007 with offices and leadership across the country.

EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants has a depth of industry expertise across key lines of insurance, including risk management, property and casualty, employee benefits, unique specialty program insurance and private client services.

Company Website: https://www.epicbrokers.com/

Year Founded: 2007

Headquarters: San Francisco, CA

Area of Focus: Property & Casualty Insurance with expertise in Directors’ & Officers’, Errors & Omissions, Employment Practices, Fund, and Cyber Liability.

Member Quote: Procuring insurance for litigation finance companies can be a challenge as many insurers view the industry as driving up their costs.  Several even prohibited their underwriters from offering terms.  In addition, litigation finance companies have unique exposures that are not addressed in “off the shelf” products offered by insurers.  At EPIC, we have the knowledge and experience as well as the relationships with key insurers that gives us the ability to negotiate and place coverage tailored to each client.

About the author

Mike Klaschka

Mike Klaschka

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Malaysia Launches Modern Third-Party Funding Regime for Arbitration

By John Freund |

Malaysia has officially overhauled its legal framework for third-party funding in arbitration, marking a significant development in the country’s dispute finance landscape. Effective 1 January 2026, two key instruments, the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act A1737) and the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026, came into force with the aim of modernising regulation and improving access to justice.

An article in ICLG explains that the amended Arbitration Act introduces a dedicated chapter on third-party funding, creating Malaysia’s first comprehensive statutory foundation for funding arrangements in arbitration. The reforms abolish the long-standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the arbitration context, removing a historical barrier that could render funding agreements unenforceable on public policy grounds.

The legislation also introduces mandatory disclosure requirements, obliging parties to reveal the existence of funding arrangements and the identity of funders in both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Malaysia. These changes bring Malaysia closer to established regional arbitration hubs that already recognise and regulate third-party funding.

Alongside the legislative amendments, the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding sets out ethical standards and best practices for funders operating in Malaysia. The Code addresses issues such as marketing conduct, the need for funded parties to receive independent legal advice, capital adequacy expectations, the management of conflicts of interest, and rules around termination of funding arrangements. While the Code is not directly enforceable, arbitral tribunals and courts may take a funder’s compliance into account when relevant issues arise during proceedings.

The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department has indicated that this combined framework is intended to strike a balance between encouraging responsible third-party funding and improving transparency in arbitration. The reforms also respond to concerns raised by high-profile disputes where funding arrangements were not disclosed, highlighting the perceived need for clearer rules.

Commercial

ProLegal Unveils Full-Stack Legal Support Beyond Traditional Funding

By John Freund |

ProLegal, formerly operating as Pro Legal Funding, has announced a strategic rebrand and expansion that reflects a broader vision for its role in the legal services ecosystem. After nearly a decade in the legal finance market, the company is repositioning itself not simply as a litigation funder, but as a comprehensive legal support platform designed to address persistent structural challenges facing plaintiffs and law firms.

The announcement outlines ProLegal’s evolution beyond traditional pre-settlement funding into a suite of integrated services intended to support cases from intake through resolution. Company leadership points to longstanding industry issues such as opaque pricing, misaligned incentives, and overly transactional relationships between funders, attorneys, and clients. ProLegal’s response has been to rethink its operating model with a focus on collaboration, transparency, and practical support that extends beyond capital alone.

Under the new structure, ProLegal now offers a range of complementary services. These include ProLegal AI, which provides attorneys with artificial intelligence tools for document preparation and case support, and ProLegal Live, a virtual staffing solution designed to assist law firms with intake, onboarding, and administrative workflows.

The company has also launched ProLegal Rides, a transportation coordination service aimed at helping plaintiffs attend medical appointments that are critical to both recovery and case valuation. Additional offerings include a law firm design studio, a healthcare provider network focused on ethical referrals, and a centralized funding dashboard that allows for real-time case visibility.

Central to the rebrand is what ProLegal describes as an “Integrity Trifecta,” an internal framework requiring that funding advances meet standards of necessity, merit, and alignment with litigation strategy. The company emphasizes deeper engagement with attorneys, positioning them as strategic partners rather than intermediaries.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Funder Sues Client for $1M Settlement Proceeds

By John Freund |

A Croton-on-Hudson-based litigation financier has filed suit against a former client following a roughly $1 million settlement, alleging the funded party failed to honor the repayment terms of their litigation funding agreement. The dispute highlights the contractual and enforcement challenges that can arise once a funded matter reaches resolution.

According to Westfair Online, the financier provided capital to support a plaintiff’s legal claim in exchange for a defined share of any recovery. After the underlying litigation concluded with a significant settlement, the funder alleges that the plaintiff refused to authorize payment of the agreed-upon amount. The lawsuit claims breach of contract and seeks to recover the funder’s share of the settlement proceeds, along with any additional relief available under the agreement.

The case underscores a recurring tension within the litigation funding ecosystem. While funders assume substantial risk by advancing capital on a non-recourse basis, they remain dependent on clear contractual rights and post-settlement cooperation from funded parties. When those relationships break down, enforcement actions against clients, though relatively uncommon, become a necessary tool to protect funders’ investments.

For industry participants, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that even straightforward single-case funding arrangements can result in contentious disputes after a successful outcome. It also illustrates why funders increasingly emphasize robust contractual language, transparency around settlement mechanics, and direct involvement in distribution processes to reduce the risk of non-payment.