Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Deals

Turnmill Limited Expands Portfolio with Acquisition of Dealmakers Forums LLC

By Harry Moran |

Turnmill Limited, a leading global operator of large-scale events for the financial services sector, is pleased to announce the acquisition of a majority stake in Dealmakers Forums LLC, a premier organizer of high-level events in the legal, finance, and technology industries, based in Brooklyn, New York. This strategic acquisition marks the third company to join Turnmill’s expanding portfolio, which also includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets and Completely Events, reinforcing Turnmill’s commitment to facilitating deal flow and connectivity across complex markets.

Dealmakers Forums is renowned for curating high-impact events that bring together senior executives and thought leaders to foster connections, share insights, and drive deal flow. Their flagship events — LF Dealmakers, the premier conference for litigation finance, and IP Dealmakers, the leading forum for intellectual property transactions — are indispensable to industry insiders and recognized for exceptional content, top-tier speakers, and highly effective one-to-one meetings.

Alex Johnson, Group CEO of Turnmill Limited, commented: “We are thrilled to welcome Dealmakers Forums into the Turnmill family. Their deep sector knowledge and expertise in creating impactful events complements our mission to support deal flow progression by bringing entire market ecosystems together. This acquisition enables us to broaden our reach within financial services to the legal and technology sectors, enhancing the value we provide to our clients and stakeholders.”

“Partnering with Turnmill is a transformative opportunity to amplify our impact and expand our global reach,” said Wendy Chou, founder and CEO of Dealmakers Forums LLC. “By uniting our expertise and shared dedication to excellence, we can elevate our event offerings, enhance the value we deliver to our participants, and create even stronger, more meaningful connections across industries globally.”

Adam Lewis, Partner at Horizon Capital, stated: “We are excited to continue to support Turnmill with this strategic acquisition. We believe this partnership will accelerate Turnmill’s growth trajectory and further establish its position as a leading operator of large-scale marketplace events.”

This acquisition underscores Turnmill’s dedication to expanding its global footprint and diversifying its portfolio to serve a broader range of sectors and geographies within the financial services industry. By integrating Dealmakers Forums’ expertise and established events, Turnmill aims to enhance its ability to facilitate high-level meetings and support deal flow progression across greater sub-sectors within global finance.

About Turnmill Limited: Turnmill Limited is a leading operator of large-scale events and services that support deal flow progression by curating entire market ecosystems and facilitating high-level meetings tailored to the financial services sector. Backed by Horizon Capital, Turnmill is established as a leading player, experiencing strong growth across its events portfolio in London, Dubai, Cape Town, Miami, Istanbul, and Riyadh. Turnmill’s portfolio includes GBM: Global Banking & Markets, which produces finance and investment conferences bringing together corporates, finance professionals, and investors, and Completely Events, known for organizing the UK’s leading retail property events.

About Dealmakers Forums LLC: Dealmakers Forums curates impactful event experiences for senior executives in the legal, finance, and technology industries. Renowned for its unwavering commitment to quality, Dealmakers Forums stand out with a results-driven approach that prioritizes one-to-one meetings and meaningful networking. By combining expertly crafted content, top-tier speakers, and a focus on building valuable connections, Dealmakers Forums delivers actionable insights and drives real business outcomes. Its flagship events include LF Dealmakers and IP Dealmakers.

About Horizon Capital: Horizon Capital is a private equity investor specialising in technology and business services. The firm was established by senior investment professionals who identified a significant market opportunity to invest in businesses in these sectors valued up to £100m. The partnership prides itself on its approach to helping business owners and managers realise their ambitions. Buy and build is at the heart of every Horizon Capital investment and the firm is a market leader in supporting companies pursuing this strategy. Horizon Capital has a proven track record in generating premium returns on investments. The unprecedented growth it delivers in its portfolio companies has been underpinned by deep and long-term investor relationships that span across two decades.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.