Trending Now

Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Latest News

View All
Commercial People Moves

Nera Capital Kicks Off 2025 with Ambitious Recruitment Drive

By John Freund and 4 others |

Leading litigation finance firm Nera Capital is bolstering its already flourishing team, with several senior hires. A new In-House General Counsel, Managing Director of Commercial Claims Division and Financial Controller are currently being recruited to bolster the management team with new experienced talent.

In addition, the firm has already acquired a new financial analyst and the firm’s audit team is also branching out, with new hires expected to join its Manchester and Dublin offices.  Nera’s success comes after a period of sustained growth in the litigation finance market.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne shared her thoughts on the expanding team: 

“At Nera Capital, we believe that strong leadership and diverse talent are the cornerstones of our success. We don’t just work together - we grow together. Nera Capital is a place where passion, strategy, and collaboration meet, creating an environment where every team member can thrive and make a meaningful impact. I’m very proud of what we’ve achieved so far. Our expansion isn’t just about numbers - it's about nurturing a vibrant culture of collaboration and innovation that empowers us to take major steps forward in the litigation finance space.”

The firm ended the year on an undoubtable high with the introduction of its Access to Justice Fund to assist those in need of legal assistance or financial support. 

In yet another successful funding deal, Nera also managed to procure a further $25 million to boost UK consumer protection claims and ensure increased access to justice for individuals seeking redress. The firm also recently announced the opening of its Dutch office in Amsterdam as it takes on more work in the Netherlands, adding to its locations in Dublin and Manchester. 

Aisling added: "With every fresh perspective we welcome, we are igniting a powerful movement in litigation finance - one driven by passion, purpose, and an unwavering dedication to ensuring that justice is within reach for all.

“Together, we will continue to push boundaries and redefine what's possible in litigation finance. But most importantly, we will continue to make a difference and increase access to justice for all.

She added: “I’d like to thank our amazing team and partners in the UK, US and across Europe for greatly contributing to our success. We look forward to what the future holds.” 

Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on the Middle East

By John Freund and 4 others |

On January 29th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on the Middle East." The event featured a panel of key stakeholders in the region, including Obaid Bin Mes'har (OBM), Dispute Resolution Specialist at WinJustice. Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Chief Executive Officer of Lexolent, Kishore Jaichandani (KJ), Managing Director of Caveat Capital, and Ahmed Hammadi (AH), Legal Director at DLA Piper. The event was moderated by Jonathon Davidson, dispute resolution lawyer and Founding Partner at Davidson & Co.

Below are key takeaways from the event:

Historically, there's been very large scale construction and engineering cases here. Do you find those predominantly to be the fundable cases, or are we looking at general commercial litigation and shareholder disputes? Is there more of an even spread?

AH: There are two comfort zones as we see them now. And the two comfort zones are generally banking and construction. The banking goes back a while, back to 2014 when you had the DIFC case of Saracen, which I think even prompted the DIC to seriously consider putting litigation funding into his practice directions in 2017. But I'd say those are the comfort zones for a few reasons. And the principal ones are their core industries and sectors, in this region and not just in the UAE. Even as it disputes, though, I think you might agree, Jonathan, that construction touches all of our lives in one way or another even if you try to avoid it.

Secondly, these industries have customary documents. Right? So with construction, you have FIDEC. Obviously, there are some employers that will have a little bit of a bespoke contract, but they are kind of coming out of the internationally accepted standards or norms. And similarly with banking, you have a lot of LMA documents. So you have concepts that are understood internationally, albeit you'll have some local flavor in your interpretation, application, interest, concurrent delay, how they deal with guarantees, and that sort.

In terms of budgets, what's your experience on whether funders have to adopt the same level of budgeting here as elsewhere in the world, or where there's a different approach? Are certain type of proceedings, maybe the onshore proceedings, are they leaner in terms of fees?

KJ: In terms of budgets, legal budgets in the Middle East are increasingly aligned with global markets now, especially after the ATGM and the ISC and, especially for the complex litigation arbitration. So that is still based on factors like jurisdiction, legal framework, market maturity. It depends where is the claim, like a Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Oman.

So onshore litigation in Middle East jurisdictions like Saudi, Oman, Qatar, they often have a lower cost in comparison to the western jurisdictions like the UK, US and Europe. This is due to this due to the simplified court process, lower attorney fees here, and fewer procedural stages. For example, we have seen a case which is having $5,000,000 claim size in Riyadh. And the budget for that case was $250,000 as legal fees. In contrast, you see similar cases in the US Federal Court System that could exceed $1,000,000.

How do the economics work from a funder's perspective? So we have cases here, funder's must have a minimum ticket to make the economics work. Does that change if you're in common law jurisdictions when you factor in cost that you might have to pay as as the defendant's cost if you lose as the claimant, vis a vis the civil proceedings where that that might not factor in?

NRD: The basic principles of funding don't change whether you're in the GCC or whether you're in Europe. So if you're in the local court, the exposure from most international funders in local court funding is in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards rather than funding disputes, because the budgets, as we've discussed, tend to be a bit lower, and there isn't a massive appetite for international funders to fund in local courts. And also, of course, they're in Arabic, which tends to limit the number of funders that can actually operate there. So, funders will be operating in the offshore jurisdictions, the IFC, ADGM, where there are cost shifting rules and there is adverse costs. Now one of the challenges with that is there aren't a lot of ATE or insurance carriers that can write ATE insurance in the DIFC or ADGM. So you have to use indemnities from a funder backed off maybe in London or by an insurer that's happy to ensure the funder in a different UK jurisdiction.

So it can be done, and it's something that we have to take account of. So it's there, and it's no different from any other cost shifting jurisdiction.

In the local civil jurisdictions, we call them the onshore courts in the UAE, has any progress been made in having those courts formally recognize funding? How would you fund a local case, and who who funds it? Is it international funders or is it local investors?

OBM: I would like to make a distinction here between the onshore court and offshore courts, on the ground that each court has its own rules and regulations. For onshore, they don't have to regulate third party, as of today. So they don't actually contain any provisions which prohibit the funding by third parties. I used to do it for the last 15 years, and the contract regulates the parties' relationship. So if you are funding in the local market in the onshore courts, the contract regulates the relationship.

So we didn't face any problems since there's no regulation on that issue. However, in offshore, yes. ATGM and DIFC, they have their own regulations, and they have certain conditions you have to disclose in the agreement. You have to disclose that you inform the second parties, the opponent parties. Otherwise, you might no execute that contract. So if a funding contract in the local Arabic courts was to be challenged, then our analysis is the court would uphold the terms of the contract.

To watch the full recording of the event, please click here.

Commercial People Moves

Stephen Kyriacou Exits Aon

By John Freund and 4 others |

Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon, is stepping down from his role effective immediately. Kyriacou has joined Willis Tower Watson as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions.

In a LinkedIn post, Kyriacou thanks his colleagues and partners in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, and notes the meteoric growth the sector has undergone during his five-and-a-half year tenure at Aon.

Kyriacou's exit comes on the heels of Aon's recent decision to halt all litigation funding transactions, a move that perhaps signals a broader reconsideration of the insurance sector's role within the legal funding sector. Aon's decision was no doubt influenced by several large losses sustained by the judgement preservation insurance (JPI) market, including the reversal of a $1.6 billion claim that left insurers on the hook for $500-$750 million.

In a successive LinkedIn post, Kyriacou notes his new role as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. Kyriacou states: "I am delighted to be joining the extremely talented WTW Private Equity and Transaction Solutions team, and am looking forward to getting to know my new colleagues and getting to work on new placements with all of the insurance carrier partners that I have built relationships with over the past five-and-a-half years."

Kyriacou also noted: "It has been a privilege and an honor to work with everyone on the Aon AMATS team, especially Stephen Davidson, who has been one of the best bosses and mentors I've ever had."

Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Rise of Arbitral Awards as an Asset Class in Latin America

By Micaela Ossio and 4 others |

The following piece was contributed by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

International commercial arbitration is today one of the most demanded mechanisms for resolving disputes in Latin America. The practice has been bolstered by sustained regional growth, ongoing market liberalization efforts, and the pursuit of a less time consuming and specialized route to address increasingly complex cross-border transactions. As of 2023, the region ranks second in terms of party origin and third in terms of the jurisdictions where ICC arbitrations were seated[1], evidencing the region's growing prominence in the global arbitration landscape. This push is building on the region’s growing appetite to attract new business opportunities by fostering safer and easier legal frameworks to do business.  

A key legal innovation in this regard has been the promotion of third party funding mechanisms.[2]  Two types of funding arrangements have particularly gained favor among investors: enforcement funding arrangements whereby investors provide non-recourse funding for the legal costs of the enforcement proceedings and realize returns only when the debt is collected, and award monetization arrangements where the funder advances capital to a claimant in exchange for a portion of the entitlement of the award[3].

In general, most major jurisdictions within the region contain express provisions that allow the assignment of economic rights arising from contracts or other legal sources and provisions that allow transferring rights that are subject to ongoing disputes, but not necessarily in the forms required by third party funding. As claimants (or their lawyers) seek to secure funding, they must thoroughly consider the jurisdictions where such arrangements are legally binding agreements[4]. As such, this article explores the financial case behind third party funding for litigation, particularly arbitral awards, as well as the market dynamics currently shaping the sector in Latin America. It also highlights the importance of designing adequate policy to promote the responsible growth of these practices in the region as well as gives insight to potential funders looking for attractive investment opportunities in a fast-evolving market.

The rise of litigation finance – why is it gaining momentum?

Even though the practice of litigation finance is not necessarily new – external funding of legal cases goes back at least a few decades – the understanding of legal claims as a financial asset class is still, in many ways, nascent. Currently, only around 50 dedicated funds exist globally, and in a 2019 survey, more than three quarters of respondent firms indicated they had significantly expanded their litigation finance practice and foresaw important growth moving forward.[5] Considering that the ICC docketed 890 cases in 2023, and far more civil claims of different nature flooded the worlds’ most mature litigation ecosystems (with close to 400,000 claims filed in the US alone), the industry has big room for growth and newcomer absorption.[6]

Despite a total industry value of USD13.5 billion as of 2023, investment in legal claims and legal futures is still largely concentrated in traditional litigation finance firms, particularly in the US, the UK and Australia.[7] Nonetheless, asset managers like BlackRock, PIMCO, KKAR and other alternative investment funds, notably credit funds, have recently entered the space, as a result of the asset class yielding an average return on investment of 20% over the last five years.[8] In fact, most litigation finance firms now target a hurdle rate of 15% to 35% and a holding period of two to three years (especially for commercial arbitration awards), placing returns at par or even above private equity companies.[9]

Despite this attractive return profile, a positive outcome on each individual investment largely depends on the merits of the funded claim, which creates uncertainty and concern for traditional institutional investors. Among other factors, insufficient precedents on certain matters hinders reliable predictions of returns and the asymmetry of information between the parties seeking funding and the capital providers still thwarts more skeptical investors to emphatically support this asset class. To close this gap, law firms and specialized litigation funders are working on investor-friendly frameworks to provide greater transparency relating to risks, expected returns and time to recover.

Investor concerns have also been heightened by recent regulation, particularly in Europe, a global hub for litigation finance. As shown by the recent frenzy caused by the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR[10] in the United Kingdom, or the Voss Report[11] in the European Union, regulation coming to the sector in up-and-coming regions such as Latin America seems to be inevitable. But despite these challenges, the outlook for market growth remains positive with large commercial arbitration cases currently dominating the market due to their significant value, international enforceability, and relatively swift proceedings.

The investment case for arbitral awards

In recent years, arbitral awards have emerged as a new and dynamic asset sub-class for investors in the litigation finance space. The main reason is that pursuant to the New York Convention[12], arbitration awards can be enforced within the jurisdictions of all signatory states and the process of enforcement tends to be easier and less politicized[13] than that of other asset classes, such as private or sovereign debt. In other words, arbitral awards can be fast-tracked on a global scale, ensuring the award’s commercial value. For example, the holders of defaulted Venezuelan/PDVSA notes have had little success in collecting their debt when compared to investor-state award holders, such as Crystallex,[14] Rusoro,[15] and ConocoPhillips,[16] who have been more successful in attaching Venezuelan assets abroad.  

Investors can also expect attractive interest rates. According to a 2020 study of ICC awards where PwC and Queen Mary University of London analyzed damages awards in international commercial arbitration,[17] the absolute rate of interest for 180 cases that were reviewed, ranged from 1% to 18% annually.  The study also noted that the rate of interest was frequently expressed as a mark-up over a benchmark such as LIBOR or by reference to a national legal interest rate. These interest rates can help to mitigate the economic downside in cases where the time to enforce the award takes longer than expected.  

Finally, since arbitration proceedings are generally private and confidential, arbitral awards tend to be of confidential nature unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that in cases of assignment of awards, the awards can remain in the name of the initial claimant allowing investors to operate away from the media spotlight. Similarly, it is often the case that investments in arbitral awards do not have to be reported and disclosure requirements tend to be limited.

All these characteristics have led to a burgeoning secondary market in which awards are sold by award-creditors at a discount, to buyers who take on the role of enforcing the full award. Considering the increasing number of awards coming on the market and with only a few funds tapping into it, it can currently be described as a buyers’ market. 

The market opportunity for Latin America

To become a regional hub in litigation finance, Latin America must stop addressing litigation merely as a “cost center” (i.e., a necessary but burdensome expense for those seeking justice). Contingent receivables arising from dispute resolution mechanisms shall be considered an asset class, one that can be monetized at various stages through mechanisms like litigation funding[18]. This mind shift needs to be rooted in the understanding that legal claims possess intrinsic value and can attract third-party investors who fund litigation in exchange for a share of the financial outcome if the case succeeds[19].

Brazil is spearheading this mindset shift and has been the first country to have arbitration chambers develop soft law regarding third-party funder involvement in arbitration procedures[20]. For example, Brazil’s precatórios offer private parties access to a well-established, constitutionally-recognized and liquid secondary market where they can assign their rights linked to a judicial or arbitral decision (a credit against a government entity) to investment funds. Colombia has also laid the groundwork for developing a secondary market for the transfer of judgments issued by courts in the context of the Armed Conflict. The Colombian state has established legal precedents that allow holders of these judgments to sell their rights in a secondary market, providing a liquidity solution for those seeking immediate capital.[21]

With the increasing recognition of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism across key economies such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru, the region is poised for significant growth in third-party funding. As liquidity becomes an essential factor for enterprises, enforcement funding and monetizing of arbitral awards offers a way to unlock tied-up capital, allowing businesses to focus on growth while investors capitalize on the financial potential of their legal claims. It also enables smaller market players, such as SMEs and individual claimants, to finance complex claims against larger corporations or entities, expanding access to justice and promoting more equitable outcomes.

To this end, judicial systems in the Latin American region shall adopt pro-enforcement policies, like those seen in offshore jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, as highlighted in recent case law involving arbitral enforcement[22]. While the New York Convention has been widely adopted across the region, the inconsistent application of arbitral award enforcement by local courts can still pose a challenge for claimants. Clear and consistent legal frameworks, aligned with international best practice, will help attract more investors into the sector. Examples of such practices include the use of freezing injunctions and receiverships, both of which are essential in securing assets and managing them until enforcement is completed, and the availability of Norwich Pharmacal orders or similar disclosure orders, already recognized in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, which allow claimants to obtain critical information about the debtor’s hidden assets or banking arrangements.

Building on the momentum

The momentum behind this market development in Latin America is growing, driven by a combination of factors including the asset class’s attractive return profile and an increased reliance on arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, particularly following the economic pressures created by the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, the increasing focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions is accelerating third-party funding in ESG-related arbitration cases, such as those involving environmental disputes or human rights violations. As judicial systems in emerging markets strive to expand access and provide a more equitable and fair administration of justice, transparency and simplicity in the arbitral award enforcement and monetization space might provide a very cost-effective and efficient way to achieve desired social and developmental results, all while promoting Latin America as a global investment hub.

This article was authored by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

[1]           ICC Dispute Resolution 2023 Statistics

[2]           According to some experts in the field the two main factors that have brought this new market to the attention of institutional investors, have been the transfer of distressed debts from banks to private investment funds following the 2008 recession, and the search for higher yields in traditional financial markets. As banks recovered from the financial crisis and opportunities for distressed debt diminished, these private funds began to explore arbitration awards as alternative investments, recognizing their similarities to bank loans. While arbitration awards are often sold at a discount, sellers are not necessarily distressed; they simply find it commercially sensible to transfer the collection process. To know more about this topic, watch the 6ta. Edición de Open Arbitraje 2020 denominada “Mesa Allen & Overy: Acquisition of awards: Market trends and challenges.”

[3]           Although buying the entire award may be appealing to claimants in need of immediate cash, experts suggest that funders often prefer maintaining a relationship with the award holders or ensuring that the claimant remains involved in the process. Award holders typically possess valuable knowledge about the respondent, which can be beneficial for recovery efforts.

[4]           In some civil law jurisdictions, the concept of retrait litigieux can be an impediment to a monetization agreement.

[5] https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/litigation-finance/investing-in-legal-futures/

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf

[7] https://www.google.com/search?q=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&sca_esv=969c9be58d3ff7ea&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS837US837&sxsrf=ADLYWILynJMXdzxuFUmHYgDQCWx3Veqb0g%3A1729807553471&ei=wcQaZ663HJ2dptQP48yI-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwjum4Smg6iJAxWdjokEHWMmAn8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiK2JsYWNrIHJvY2sgaW52ZXN0bWVudCBpbiBsaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGZpbmFuY2UyBxAhGKABGApIkBdQmARYtBZwAngAkAEBmAH7AqAB5haqAQc5LjguMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIUoALQE8ICCxAAGIAEGLADGKIEwgIEECEYFcICBRAhGJ8FwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgoQABiABBgKGMsBwgIIEAAYFhgKGB7CAgoQABgWGAoYHhgPwgIOEC4Y0QMYFhjHARgKGB7CAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQIRigAZgDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkAYEkgcIMTEuNi4yLjGgB79e&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[8] https://www.pm-research.com/highwire_display/entity_view/node/167885/content_tabs#:~:text=Litigation%20finance%20is%20a%20rapidly,correlation%20to%20other%20investment%20areas.

[9] https://www.deminor.com/en/litigation-funding/what-is-litigation-funding/

[10] The Supreme Court in PACCAR Ltd v. (1) W.A. Bailey (Properties) Ltd & (2) C. Robert Wright & Sons Ltd clarified that litigation funding agreements should be treated similarly to damages-based agreements, influencing the regulatory framework for litigation funding in the UK; however, this ruling is expected to be revisited with the introduction of the forthcoming Litigation Funding Bill, which aims to reverse this classification.

[11] Voss, H. (2020). Report on the financing of litigation and the role of litigation funding in the EU. European Parliament

[12] See https://www.newyorkconvention.org/text

[13] Born, G. B. (2014). International Commercial Arbitration. 2nd ed. Kluwer Law International. Pages 473-510

[14] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/403/crystallex-v-venezuela

[15] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/483/rusoro-mining-v-venezuela

[16] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/245/conocophillips-v-venezuela

[17] See https://www.pwc.co.uk/forensic-services/assets/documents/trends-in-international-arbitration-damages-awards.pdf

[18] “How Litigation Finance Works” by Bloomberg Law. https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/how-litigation-finance-works/

[19] The Justice Case for Litigation Funding by M. Todd Henderson

[20]         This is the case of the “Camera de Comercio Brasil – Canada” (CAMCCBC)

[21] According to the Colombian Commercial Code (Article 884), interest rates exceeding the legal limit are considered usurious and illegal. The usury rate is set quarterly by the Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia (Financial Superintendency of Colombia), which establishes the rate at 1.5 times the current banking interest rate, based on average rates charged by financial institutions.

[22]         Pro-enforcement policies in such countries have been pivotal in shaping favorable legal environments for arbitration awards enforcement. For instance, the Cayman Islands has demonstrated strong pro-enforcement tendencies through case law like Gol Linhas Aereas S.A. v MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP, where the court affirmed its commitment to enforcing arbitration awards in line with the New York Convention in 2022. Similarly, Bermuda has shown a similar approach, particularly in cases such as La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v F.G. Hemisphere Associates LLC (2012), which underscored Bermuda’s adherence to the New York Convention and support for arbitration proceedings.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJC Extends Deadline for Submissions to Litigation Funding Review 

By Harry Moran |

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Interim Report and Consultation for its review of the litigation funding sector in October 2024, there have been no new developments as funders eagerly await signs of action from the new government. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the news that the Civil Justice Council has adjusted the consultation period for its review into third-party litigation funding, extending its deadline for submissions to 3 March. This schedule adjustment sees the deadline pushed back by over a month, with the original deadline having been set for 31 January. The decision to adjust the deadline does not appear to have been driven by any developments from the government or ongoing matters in the courts, with the Gazette reporting that the extension “will allow for greater engagement with stakeholders ahead of the submission deadline.”

The full list of consultation questions and cover sheet can be found here, with all submissions needing to be completed by 11:59 pm on 3 March. 

According to the CJC’s website, the deadline “the extension will not adversely affect the finalisation of the full report”. It has been previously stated that the publication of the full and final report will take place some time in the summer of this year, with this latest update offering no guidance on a more specific timeframe within that period.

The Interim Report published on 31 October 2024 can be found here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Georgia Governor Announces Tort Reform Package and New Litigation Funding Rules

By Harry Moran |

The battle over the future of regulations governing third-party legal funding looks set to rage on in 2025, as yet another state government has announced proposed legislative reforms that include new rules targeting consumer litigation funders.

In a release from the Office of the Governor, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp announced his support for a tort reform package for the state, aiming to enact sweeping changes across a range of legal policy areas. The package contains a variety of legislative reforms including measures targeting the calculation of medical damages in personal injury cases, the elimination of double recovery of attorney’s fees, and significant reforms for third-party litigation funding.

  • When it comes to litigation funding, the legislation seeks change in the following areas:
  • Prohibiting “hostile foreign adversaries” from funding litigation to obtain trade secrets or advance their own political interests.
  • Preventing litigation funders from “having any input into the litigation strategy or from taking the plaintiff’s whole recovery”.
  • Increasing transparency around the involvement of litigation funders for all parties involved in litigation.

In the announcement of the tort reform package, Governor Kemp provided the following comment:

“As I said in my State of the State address earlier this month, our legal environment is draining family bank accounts and hurting job creators of all sizes in nearly every industry in our state.

After months of listening to our citizens, businesses, and stakeholders across the spectrum, it is clear the status quo is unacceptable, unsustainable, and jeopardizes our state's prosperity in the years to come. This tort reform package protects the rights of all Georgians to have access to our civil justice system, and ensures that those who have been wronged receive justice and are made whole. I look forward to working with our partners in the General Assembly to pass this comprehensive and commonsense package, and achieve meaningful progress on this important issue during this legislative session.”

Commercial Deals

LCM Releases Trading Update for First Half of 2025 Financial Year

By Harry Moran |

Due to the naturally confidential nature of matters involved in legal funding, it is no surprise that outside observers rarely get a detailed view of the successes and failures of individual litigation funders. However, for those publicly listed funders, we are afforded regular glimpses into the financial workings of their investments.

In a trading update published by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), the litigation funder shared some details on their performance in the first half of the 2025 financial year, covering the six months up to 31 December 2024. LCM revealed that during this period they had achieved four case wins and incurred three case losses, with the result being an aggregate multiple of invested capital (MOIC) of 3.7x on realisations.

Among these four case wins, LCM reported that one of these was a successful international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland, whilst the losses included a trial loss in the Queensland Electricity case. LCM also revealed that during the first half of FY25, there were A$25 million in new commitments compared to A$90 million in H1 FY24. The funder explained that “while the period saw fewer quality opportunities meeting our rigorous investment criteria”, this was to be expected as part of the usual “ebb and flow of opportunities”.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM , provided the following comment on the results: 

“While the first half of FY25 has been a period of mixed results, we are pleased with the strong realisations achieved and the ongoing progress of our portfolio.  The high multiple on invested capital reflects the value we continue to generate from our disciplined approach to dispute financing.  We remain confident in our ability to deploy capital effectively and to deliver attractive returns for our stakeholders as we move into the second half of the financial year.”

More details can be found in the full trading update.

Commercial Fundraising

Fortress Investment Group Seeking $1B for New Legal Assets Fund

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported in October 2024, Fortress Investment Group has established itself as one of the global leaders in litigation finance, committing billions in investment in both legal and intellectual property assets. New reporting suggests that the global investment giant is not slowing down in the sector, with the company making moves towards another fund focused on legal assets.

An article from Bloomberg News, and republished by Insurance Journal, provides exclusive insight into the activities of Fortress Investment Group, who are undertaking a $1 billion capital raise for its new litigation finance fund. This latest fund focused on legal funding, reportedly named Fortress Legal Assets Fund II, sees the investment management company seeking to more than double the size of its previous litigation finance fund. 

According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Legal Assets Fund II will be targeting investments across the legal funding market, with a goal of achieving 16% net returns. The article also reveals that Jack Neumark and Joseph Dunn, who serve as the co-CIOs of Legal Assets for Fortress, have already approached investors earlier this month. More information on Fortress’ approach to investing in legal assets can be found in an interview with Neumark and Dunn, released on the company’s website in May of last year.

Fortress declined to provide a comment in response to Bloomberg’s reporting.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Philippa Wilkinson, Associate Director, S-RM

By John Freund |
Philippa Wilkinson is an Associate Director on S-RM’s Disputes & Investigations team, which is dedicated to providing investigative support to parties to contentious situations. She has experience managing asset tracing investigations, as well as litigation and arbitration support engagements, associated with complex corporate disputes. While her practice is global, Philippa specialises in matters involving Middle Eastern parties, having spent several years in the Middle East, living and working in Tunisia and the UAE. She previously worked as a journalist covering finance and infrastructure in the GCC and wider Middle East, and subsequently covering European infrastructure funds. Philippa has an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of African and Oriental Studies, and a BA in Modern Languages from Durham University. She is a fluent Arabic, Spanish and French speaker. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Philippa Wilkinson. What are the most significant obstacles encountered during asset recovery processes, particularly in cross-border cases? The biggest obstacle is usually the cost of recovery. If the prospect of recovery looks weak or complex at first glance, perhaps because key assets are located in jurisdictions which are not enforcement-friendly, or are held through offshore structures, often the matter is shelved because the client or litigation funder decides it is not a good use of funds. But carrying out some light touch asset tracing at this stage can give the decision-makers confidence that a judgment or award can be monetised, and encourage them to move forward with enforcement or make a funding decision. This can also help funders get comfortable on duration risk, if there are assets which are ‘low-hanging fruit’ and the team can map out a clear path to enforcement. An investigator with asset tracing expertise can provide the information the legal team needs to develop a viable, costed strategy for enforcement and recovery, either by identifying specific assets to target, understanding how and where assets are owned, or instead identifying pressure points and vulnerabilities which will be useful in settlement negotiations. S-RM is acutely aware of the client’s legal strategy. We focus our investigations on the jurisdictions where enforcement is going to be feasible, efficient and cost effective, understanding early that are no attractive assets in a certain jurisdiction, so the whole team can rework their strategy and redirect resources to more viable leads to attachable assets elsewhere. Judgment debtors often decide to dissipate their assets to avoid paying judgments or awards. Pre-action asset tracing and ongoing monitoring gives you a baseline against which to track and document asset dissipation, such as the transfer of valuable assets to proxies (who could be family members or trusted employees), the creation of offshore trusts, and other asset protection structures. If you have carried out a thorough investigation into the asset dissipation and can prove that it is likely to take or has in fact taken place, you can seek worldwide freezing orders in common law jurisdictions such as England, Hong Kong and Singapore to prevent further dissipation, and allowing enforcement against proxies. Often compiling this evidence can be challenging, and this is why you need experts, whether it is obtaining hard-to-locate records in far flung places, using source intelligence to understand the adverse party’s financial position, or developing intelligence on assets. For example, as part of an asset trace in support of a freezing order application, we were told by sources that the adverse party, a shipping company, was using nominees to set up front companies to continue operating ships despite claiming it had no assets to satisfy the award. Following up on this intelligence, we were able to obtain the incorporation documents from the Marshall Islands corporate register and transcripts from the Liberian shipping register, which, on analysis, we found contained a correspondence address linked to the adverse party. These documents supported one part of the legal team’s freezing order application.  Can you discuss how effective asset tracing can reveal hidden value within a portfolio of claims? A portfolio of distressed debt often sits on the balance sheet of a bank, a fund or other entity, and sometimes they are reluctant either to write it off completely, or to invest in recovery. Asset tracing can triage which of the debts might be recoverable, and allow that recovery effort to move forward by making it more attractive for a funder to either finance or acquire. S-RM takes a commercial approach to triaging non-performing loans, focusing on identifying the viable opportunities for recovery. Based on this we can support analysis of how valuable the portfolio might be in the hands of a proactive legal and investigative team. We recently triaged a portfolio of bad commercial debts in the UAE over which the principals of failed companies had provided personal guarantees. When they couldn’t service the debt, they fled the country. We were able to quickly focus on the guarantors who had connections to jurisdictions such as the UK and the US, and owned valuable residential real estate there. Based on our extensive experience of supporting asset recovery, we then classified the debts which made up the portfolio by attractiveness for enforcement, which supported a commercial analysis of the likely return on investment. Following on from this high-level ‘triage’ asset tracing , S-RM supports more in-depth asset tracing efforts once our clients reach the enforcement stage, to ensure that the recovery is maximised by identifying assets and understanding and documenting ownership. S-RM has for many years supported the National Asset Management Agency (‘NAMA’), created by the Irish government in the wake of the 2008 real estate crisis to consolidate bad debt, with asset tracing across Europe to support and inform their negotiations with debtors and recovery efforts. Having successfully recovered nearly EUR 48 billion, NAMA is due to wind up its operations by the end of the year. We are also on the investigations panel for Ukraine’s Deposit Guarantee Fund, which has a mandate to recover funds from its portfolio of distressed assets originating from failures of Ukrainian banks. How have advancements in technology, such as blockchain analysis and digital forensics, transformed asset tracing methodologies? The biggest shift in my opinion is the increasing availability and searchability of data. Some of that is open source or public data – available on the deep or dark web or via data analysis platforms – and with the help of AI search tools we can sift and interrogate that data. In some cases that might be as straightforward as identifying leaked contact details that then lead us on to social media activity that can be a rich source of leads and contextual information about assets. We can also synthesise that data using graphing tools to map out very clearly the web presence and social media interactions of a company or individual, and surface new leads. This can be very helpful in a challenging asset trace where your subject maintains a low profile, or has learned to be discreet about their assets, whereas their associates or family members might not be so cautious. In some instances, we have been lucky enough to find and download leaked documents published by anti-corruption activists and circulated on the web. We then process them in a safe environment so any malware in the data is contained, and then making them machine searchable and translatable using AI tools. Then we are able to map corporate structures that are deliberately obscured and understand how assets are truly controlled. In one recent sovereign asset trace, this type of leaked data showed that government officials were closely involved in the day-to-day management of a state-owned energy firm, directing managers to sign certain politically important contracts in other countries, supporting our client’s argument that the state-owned entity was an alter-ego of the state. In the crypto sector, blockchain explorers play a similar role, to help you navigate and analyse the enormous amount of public data generated by cryptocurrency transactions on the blockchain. When you are working with the victims of crypto frauds and scams, this is vital to understanding the money laundering activity of the threat actors, and getting the recovery process underway. The essential input for this type of work is a wallet ID or transaction hash as a starting point (for example the victim’s original transfer) – without this there is no way to start mapping the transactions. Any investigations firm claiming to be able to identify wallet IDs without such a starting point should be challenged on their methodologies. When we have access to corporate systems, cloud accounts or devices for our investigation, for example thanks to insolvency practitioners, or court orders mandating a search of some devices, the asset recovery team draws on its skilled digital forensics investigators. As part of digital forensic investigations we can recover and analyse a wide range of digital artifacts to guide our research, and also extract large datasets for analysis. Again, with the support of AI tools that allow you to machine read and translate a huge range of documents, and help identify key documents for analysis, we can do this in a much more efficient and targeted way. What legal and regulatory challenges do practitioners face in asset recovery, and how can they be navigated effectively? From the perspective of a corporate intelligence firm, we work closely with legal teams to understand where there are obstacles in a particular jurisdiction and where is attractive for enforcement, adapting our investigation accordingly. We are also very mindful of local laws and regulations regarding how we can work, including privacy laws, regulations on surveillance, and freedom of information laws. In the US, S-RM’s team includes licensed private investigators in New York and Washington DC, and we make sure that we stay in line with regulations on our industry – the lawyers we work with need to feel confident about using our information in court. The direct challenges we face in asset tracing research often relate to shifting laws and regulations around transparency and privacy. For example, in 2021 US Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act creating a beneficial ownership registry for US legal entities, which we initially hoped might include public access, as such registers are incredibly useful resources for asset tracing, providing documentary evidence of the beneficial ownership of assets. The implementation of the registry is currently on hold while the Supreme Court decides several cases, and there are currently no plans to allow private sector investigators to access the data. Similarly in 2018 the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands were forced to prepare to introduce publicly accessible registers of the beneficial ownership of companies. However, since the November 2023 European Court of Justice ruling that public access to such registers infringes privacy rights, the future of access to these registers has been in question. The UK is also planning a new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (similar to the Foreign Agent Registration Act in the US, which can be a useful source of data around foreign states’ international commercial and lobbying activities, and how funds are channelled) which was intended to come into force in 2024 under the 2023 National Security Act. This can be helpful for developing in-depth analysis on the extent to which a state-owned entity is an alter ego of the state, by considering its participation in coordinated lobbying efforts. This has been delayed indefinitely and we are still waiting to be able to access the data. We are always monitoring for new resources and changes to the way information is accessible, to make sure we are making the most of transparency and anti-corruption laws. Why is a multidisciplinary approach crucial in asset recovery, and how does S-RM integrate various expertise areas in its investigations? At S-RM, we feel we work best when we are an integral part of the asset recovery team, in regular contact with our clients about strategy and working closely with other advisors. That allows us to target our research efforts most effectively and make sure that everything we do is supporting and advancing that strategy. There is nothing worse than investing a lot of time and hard work into following a lead on an asset, only to find that the client was already aware of it or has discounted it for strategic reasons. This can also include working with forensic accountants or insolvency practitioners who have access to internal documents of an insolvent company, and where we can support their work by investigating the recipients of funds and their connections to the company’s principals, or feed in questions for interviews with company officers. In addition, we regularly work with public relations teams, both defensively (to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities that could be exposed by the opposing party), and proactively, to provide intelligence on vulnerabilities that a skilled PR team can build a media strategy to exploit. In that scenario we are looking for pressure points that could bring the opposing party to the table for serious settlement negotiations. This can be particularly effective when an adversary is at an important inflection point with regards to attracting investment, for example states trying to attract foreign direct investment, a company planning an IPO, or a businessperson setting up a new venture or seeking advancement in their career. In all these scenarios, they will want to avoid ‘dirty laundry’ such as corruption or financial mismanagement coming to the surface at a moment when they most need to present their best image to others. We were recently carrying out an asset trace into a US businessman relating to a decade-old debt he was still refusing to settle, and found that he was developing a business partnership with investors in a new European market. This gave us an excellent opportunity to negotiate a settlement, as when the new partners were made aware of this historic dispute they were discouraged from investing. Again, the ideal dynamic when we work with other advisors is regular, open communication, so that the broader team pull together to focus on the most productive approach and make sure S-RM is providing actionable intelligence throughout. Finally, we have a network of surveillance specialists who have law enforcement or intelligence backgrounds, and can be incredibly important in asset investigations. To make the most of such a resource-intensive approach, surveillance needs to be targeted and timed with a specific outcome in mind, rather than open-ended. In the right circumstances, discreet surveillance can be vital to locate an individual to serve a freezing order, or understand the lifestyle and residence of a debtor without tipping them off. Often we need to set up surveillance at very short notice when we learn of upcoming travel or a court hearing, and having trusted, experienced individuals on the ground already is critical.
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Next Wave of AI: What’s Really Coming in 2025

By Pete Hanlon |

The following post was contributed by Pete Hanlon, Chief Technology Officer of Moneypenny.

As CTO of Moneypenny, the leading outsourced communications company, Pete Hanlon brings a unique perspective to the transformative technology trends set to shape 2025 for lawyers. From advancements in AI to the realities of integration and regulation, he foresees pivotal changes that could redefine the legal profession and beyond.

Here’s a deep dive into what lies ahead—not just the obvious shifts, but the deeper changes that could impact how lawyers work,.

Open Source Is Coming for the Crown

The most exciting battle in AI isn’t unfolding in corporate labs, it’s happening in the open source community. They’re catching up fast, and were starting to see open source models going head to head with industry leaders such as OpenAI o1 and Claud-Sonnet-3.5. This isn’t just about matching performance metrics. It’s about making AI accessible to both large and small law firms that have been held back by data privacy concerns, opening doors for firms that have struggled to leverage this technology. The result? A new era where AI is democratized, accessible to all, and no longer controlled by closed source businesses.

Forget AI Replacing Lawyers – Think AI as Your Digital Colleague

Remember when everyone thought AI would replace many law firm jobs overnight? That’s not how it’s playing out. Instead, we’re witnessing the emergence of hybrid teams where AI takes on the repetitive tasks, leaving people free to handle more complex challenges. It’s less about replacing jobs and more about using AI to super power people and using data to enable smarter decision making. Moneypenny, for example, delivers outsourced communication solutions that blend the efficiency of AI with the personal touch of real people. This balanced approach boosts productivity and enhances customer satisfaction. 

Integration: The Real Challenge Nobody's Talking About

Here's where things get interesting and complicated. The next phase isn’t about building brand new AI systems, for lawyers it’s about weaving them seamlessly into existing business processes, work flows and infrastructure. Picture CRM systems that can predict what customers need, knowledge bases that update themselves, conversations that flow naturally between voice and text, and customer support that breaks language barriers. We understand the importance of seamless integration, and at Moneypenny, we’re fully embracing it helping legal teams embed AI powered systems into their infrastructure seamlessly . 

Industry Specific Models: Tailored AI for Specialized Needs

We’re entering an era of industry specific LLMs tailored for the legal field. These models will come pre loaded with domain-specific knowledge, enabling firms to deploy AI that understands their unique requirements, language, and regulatory needs. In finance, LLMs could support compliance and offer investment insights. In law, they could streamline contract review and case law analysis. These specialized models will allow companies to quickly implement AI that’s relevant, compliant, and impactful in their field.

The Reality Check Is Coming

Some firms may soon realize they've taken on more than they can handle with AI adoption, facing a range of unexpected challenges. Many will struggle with complex integration issues as they attempt to launch AI initiatives within existing systems. Additionally, there may be difficulties in managing the high expectations around AI’s capabilities, as reality often falls short of the hype surrounding its potential. 

Regulation: The Elephant in the Room

Law firms should prepare for the growing impact of AI regulations, particularly in customer facing applications. Forward thinking organizations are already taking steps to build transparency into their AI systems, overhauling data governance practices to ensure accountability. They are creating detailed audit trails to track AI decision making and making sure that their systems are both fair and accessible. These proactive measures not only help them stay compliant but also foster trust with their customers.

What This Means for lawyers

The next year won't just be about AI getting better – it'll be about AI getting smarter about how it fits into our existing world. Success won't come from blindly adopting every new AI tool. It'll come from carefully choosing where AI can genuinely improve how lawyers work.

The winners won't be the companies with the most advanced AI. They'll be the ones who figure out how to blend AI and human capabilities in ways that make sense for their business and their customers. Yes, we'll see AI continuing to be more accessible and capable. But the real story will be about how lawyers learn to use it wisely. After all, technology is just a tool – it's how the legal profession use it that matters.

Deals

View All

Fundraising

View All

Case Developments

View All

Legal Innovation

View All

People Moves

View All

Regulatory

View All

Consumer

View All

Thought Leadership

View All