Among the most frequently voiced complaints about the litigation funding process are that it is too time consuming and inefficient and that there are few if any recognized structures for term sheets and funding documents.  Law firms and litigants alike have requested that funders agree and share standardized documents and deal terms, while funders often have responded that each transaction is bespoke, requiring documentation and terms unique to the particular situation. Conflicts frequently arise from the mismatched expectations (both legal and economic) and experience of funders and the transactional lawyers representing litigants and law firms, with the attendant delays and frustrations that can overly complicate the process and lead to failed deals.  That process often is complicated by the presence of unsettled legal and ethical issues that arise late in the negotiations and that one party did not anticipate.

This panel addresses the perceived need for greater transparency and efficiency in the funding process from the perspective of experienced deal lawyers, funders and law firms.  The panelists will share experiences, both positive and less positive, in attempting to close funding transactions and offer suggestions and potential solutions to the delays and disconnects that many view as endemic to the process.  The panel also will examine opportunities to reach a working consensus on basic deal structures and to refine the expectations of both funders and parties seeking funding alike.  It also will seek to define and consider the core issues that can arise in sophisticated commercial funding transactions and how all of the parties involved can seek to identify and resolve them early in the discussion.

Moderator: Andrew Langhoff (Managing Director and Founder, Red Bridges Advisors)

Panelists:

• Erika Levin (Partner, Fox Rothschild)
• Chad Schmerler (Senior Managing Director and Head of Litigation Finance, Pretium)
• Michael Kelley (Partner, Parker Poe)
• Steve Molo (Founding Partner, MoloLamken)