Trending Now
Commercial

Recent Developments in Litigation Finance (Part 2 of 2)

December 11, 2017

Recent Developments in Litigation Finance (Part 2 of 2)

By Mauritius Nagelmueller This article aims to provide an overview of the most significant recent developments in the litigation finance industry. Part 2 of this 2-part series discusses the rapid growth of litigation finance across the globe, as well as its multi-dimensional expansion into diverse markets. If you’d like to reference Part 1 of this series, you can find it here. Growth The most significant overall trend in litigation finance is simply put: growth – a vibrant and ongoing increase in the use and acceptance of the industry. Litigation finance has emerged from a promising niche into a mainstream alternative asset class. The use has multiplied in the recent years, and among many other characteristic features, investors are attracted by the chance to diversify their portfolios with uncorrelated assets. The demand in the legal world is still much higher than the supply of litigation finance – an indicator that normally only the best cases are receiving financing. By now, the business spans the financing of both plaintiffs and defendants, single cases and portfolios, at practically every stage of the dispute, for example also at the enforcement phase. As litigation finance has become a multi-billion-dollar business, surveys and reports by universities and journals, as well as financing providers point to its continued growth, with no signs of stopping any time soon. While detailed data grows increasingly available, it is hard for reporters or councils to keep pace with the industry, which continues to evolve before initial research can proffer valid conclusions. While this powerful forward movement promotes access to justice in the eyes of many, the impact on the civil justice system concerns others. Calls for more rules and regulation regarding inter alia, disclosure and conflicts of interest remain loud. Whichever side one chooses, the market for this service is growing, the demand enormous, and high-quality cases tend to find high-quality finance providers. Expansion For all the reasons stated above, as well as in the Part 1 of this series, 2017 has been the year of expansion for litigation finance firms. New offices in multiple jurisdictions, new funds that are larger or have innovative structures, and broader services providing the full spectrum of finance and risk management related to legal disputes. A wave of new office launches took place in multiple directions internationally. Litigation finance firms from the U.K. entered the U.S. market, and are eager to establish their business in New York City, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, California, and a number of other locales across the U.S. Strategic recruiting, e.g. of former U.S. judges and biglaw partners, builds strong teams in a constantly growing environment, and makes a career in litigation finance a more and more attractive option. Following the developments in Asia described previously, litigation finance firms have opened their first offices in Singapore. The market is also growing in Canada, where local courts have increasingly embraced litigation finance for the past 15 years. International litigation finance and insurance firms seem attracted, and have ventured into Canada this year. And funds are growing bigger accordingly. The largest players have billions of dollars committed to the legal market, able to invest hundreds of millions in a short period of time. The biggest single litigation investment fund in North America has been raised this year, at $500 million. An increase in size is not the only development, however, since crowdfunding and innovative online platforms play a progressively important role, opening the market to an even broader range of participants. Litigation finance has never been one-dimensional, but has included tailored financing concepts and related services like asset tracing for some time. The progress of portfolio financing shapes the market thoroughly. More recently, the range of available insurance options has developed in the U.S., bringing a new variety of sophisticated services, such as contingency fee insurance and attorney fee insurance solutions which can offer a cheaper hedge compared to financing. All in all, it will be fascinating to watch how things play out in the years ahead. Whatever the outcome, 2017 will certainly be remembered as a transformative year for the nascent industry of litigation finance.   Mauritius Nagelmueller has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. This 2-part article is for general information purposes only and does not purport to represent legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of his employer. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information related to this 2-part article without seeking the appropriate advice from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s jurisdiction.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.