Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Deals

Renovus Capital Partners Announces Majority Investment in Angeion Group

By Harry Moran |
October 8, 2024

Renovus Capital Partners Announces Majority Investment in Angeion Group

Renovus Capital Partners (“Renovus”), a private equity firm based in the Philadelphia area, announced today that it has acquired a majority stake in class action case management solutions provider Angeion Group, LLC (“Angeion”). Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Steven Weisbrot, and senior members of the management team have maintained a significant ownership stake in the Company and will continue to drive the growth of the platform in partnership with Renovus. Marks Baughan Securities LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group in the transaction.

Angeion, which is also headquartered in Philadelphia, is the leading innovator in the class action settlement industry. As a global provider of notice and claims administration services, the company has built a technology platform that enables its legal experts to manage the largest and most complex class action settlements.

The Renovus partnership will enable Angeion to accelerate the buildout of its management, client service, and delivery teams and increase investment in its proprietary class action technology solutions. Angeion plans to grow its leadership position in the US market and continue to develop its international business through a combination of key hires, new solutions, and strategic acquisitions.

Angeion was founded in 2013 by Steve Weisbrot, Esq. and Christopher Chimicles, with a mission to modernize the class action settlements industry. With over 160 team members, the Company provides high-quality service and innovative technology solutions in settlement administration, adapting to the constantly evolving legal services ecosystem. To date, its team has managed more than 2,000 class action settlements and distributed over $10 billion to class members.

“This partnership marks a major milestone in Angeion’s growth journey,” said Weisbrot. “The investment from Renovus is a testament to the dynamic team that has propelled Angeion into the great company that it is today and that will continue to drive its growth into the future. I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished, and I am even more energized for the years ahead.”

“Angeion is one of the most differentiated and fastest growing players in class action services,” said Renovus Managing Director Lee Minkoff. “Renovus has a track record of identifying unique tech-enabled legal services companies, aligning with management on a growth thesis, and making investments to execute that thesis. This is the exact opportunity we have with Angeion, and we could not be more excited to partner with Steve and the management team.”

Marks Baughan served as exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group.

About Angeion Group

Angeion Group stands at the forefront of settlement administration and legal noticing services. Leveraging advanced technology, proven best practices, and expert consulting, Angeion specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. Angeion’s dedication to efficiency, accountability, and excellence instills confidence in counsel and the court alike. 

About Renovus Capital PartnersFounded in 2010, Renovus Capital Partners is a lower middle-market private equity firm specializing in the Knowledge and Talent industries. From its base in the Philadelphia area, Renovus manages over $2 billion of assets across its several sector focused funds. The firm’s current portfolio includes over 30 U.S. based businesses specializing in education and workforce development and services companies in the technology, healthcare and professional services markets. Renovus typically makes control buyout investments in founder owned businesses, leveraging its industry expertise and operator network to make operational improvements, recruit top talent and pursue add-on acquisitions. Visit us at www.renovuscapital.com and follow us on LinkedIn.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.