Paul Haskel was recently quoted in an American Lawyer article that explores trends and new approaches in law firm finance. The article discusses various methods of funding utilized by law firms, including debt finance from traditional financial institutions and, more recently, private capital.

Paul commented, “Currently, most firms who have little cash on hand tend to have lines of credit from which to borrow to get them through any given year, and firms in need of immediate capital infusions typically borrow through traditional banks and financial institutions, and increasingly from litigation funders. A lot of law firms typically do borrow to meet their cash needs because they get generally depleted during the course of the year, and they distribute money to their partners in January, and then they have no cash.”

Click here to read the article.

The use of management service organizations (MSOs) in the law firm space is a new and expanding trend. While uncertainties whether MSOs comply with legal ethical rules remain, with only one decision from the Texas Commission on Professional Ethics touching on the issue so far, continued use of MSOs in law firm transactions is expected.

The litigation funder, Burford Capital, expressed its intention to purchase minority stakes in U.S. law firms. And, more recently, AmLaw 50 firm McDermott Will & Schulte has announced that it is in preliminary discussions regarding a potential restructuring in which it would sell a portion of its operations to a third-party investor.

Crowell’s Paul Haskel and Paul Pollock recently published an article in Bloomberg Law exploring these topics and the legal and regulatory hurdles faced by non-professionals seeking ownership and operation of MSOs.

Click here to read the article.

The UK Ministry of Justice has announced an intention to remove English third-party litigation funding from the current requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) and provide for a different regulatory framework. As we have discussed previously here and here, various forms of uncertainty remain for third parties who wish to fund UK litigation or arbitration while taking a cut of damages awarded, although funders’ return based on multiples of funding has been approved.

The present regime of the DBA Regulations restricts the amount of damages a third party funder may share in, as well as providing certain requirements for how the agreement may be formed. The previous Government set out a basic bill to simply remove third-party litigation funding from the DBA Regulations, but the bill fell after the last election. The Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) subsequently issued a wide-ranging report recommending that removal, and light touch regulation of the industry (largely regarding consumer claim funding and a statutory requirement for independent legal advice to the funded party). It is understood from the Government’s announcement that reform will include at least some of the CJC’s recommendations and therefore a quick revival of a basic exclusionary bill is not expected. Instead, broader legislation to lightly reform regulation of the industry can be expected in the latter half of 2026 at the earliest.

A broad discussion of and comparison between U.S. and UK litigation funding markets can be found here.

On January 1, 2026, the New York LLC Transparency Act is scheduled to take effect, introducing new disclosure requirements for limited liability companies in New York State.

The legislation will have significant implications for all LLCs formed or registered to do business in New York. Furthermore, a proposed amendment awaiting the Governor’s signature would broadly require reporting by LLCs formed or registered in New York, similar to the type of broad beneficial ownership information reporting requirements that the Treasury Department required in rules implementing the federal Corporate Transparency Act, before the Treasury limited these to foreign entities and foreign beneficial owners in a March 2025 interim rule.

Click here to read Crowell’s recent client alert about the Act.

Crowell has been ranked a leading firm by Chambers FinTech in the USA Nationwide Crypto-Asset Disputes category. Crowell’s Anand Sithian has been named a notable practitioner in this area.

According to Chambers, Crowell’s FinTech practice has “strong corporate, financial services and white-collar capabilities to support clients across transactions and evolving regulatory frameworks.”

Chambers FinTech offers comprehensive guidance on the leading lawyers and other professionals in the FinTech industry around the world.

On November 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a finding (“Finding”) and related notice of proposed rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), targeting ten Mexico-based gambling establishments (“Gambling Establishments”).  FinCEN found transactions involving the Gambling Establishments to constitute a “class of transactions” of “primary money-laundering concern” for purposes of Section 311.  In particular, FinCEN found that the Gambling Establishments ultimately were controlled by a criminal group that used the establishments to facilitate money laundering for the Sinaloa Cartel. 

Continue Reading Treasury Continues Focus on Cartels: Understanding FinCEN’s Latest Action Restricting Transactions with Certain Mexico-Based Gambling Establishments

In response to the increased frequency of majority-backed debt restructuring transactions that have significantly disadvantaged minority debtholders, lenders in the syndicated loan market have increasingly turned to cooperation agreements among themselves as a means to mitigate the risk of exclusion from such deals. While often effective, this approach has been met with hostility from the sponsor community, and may inhibit a lender’s ability to freely manage and trade its loan position.

Crowell’s Bob Waldner recently published an article on this topic titled “An Overview of the Use of Cooperation Agreements Among Lenders in the Syndicated Loan Market” in The Review of Banking & Financial Services. In the article, Bob describes the elements of a typical cooperation agreement, considers some of its advantages and disadvantages, and discusses sponsors’ evolving response to these arrangements.

The Review of Banking & Financial Services, according to the publication, consists of articles on current topics in securities, commodities, or banking law that are written by outstanding practitioners in the field.

To read the article, click here.

Banks and other regulated financial institutions have been digesting a set of four frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) about suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) issued jointly on October 9, 2025 by FinCEN and federal banking regulators (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration). According to remarks the same day from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the FAQs are intended to reduce the compliance burdens associated with filing SARs without diminishing the benefit of SAR reporting to law enforcement.

Continue Reading FinCEN and Banking Regulators Issue New FAQs on Suspicious Activity Reports

Recent weeks have seen several headline-grabbing instances of alleged financial frauds, leading directly to the bankruptcies of the First Brands and Tricolor corporate enterprises. Both companies are alleged to have engaged in deceptive off-balance sheet financing and double-pledging of collateral, tumbling into bankruptcy after these issues came to light. While their lenders will have to seek their recourse in costly and lengthy bankruptcy proceedings, the cases serve as sobering reminders to lenders of the critical importance of vigilant oversight and the need for transparency into their borrowers’ activities in today’s active and complex lending environment.

Continue Reading Use of Field Exams and QOE Reports to Safeguard Lenders in Risky Times

On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether President Trump’s tariffs—imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) —were legal. The Court’s decision will have significant impacts for importers, as well as investors in the IEEPA tariff claims. Many investors have participated in the growing secondary market, in which they purchase the rights to potential tariff refunds from importers, thereby providing the importers with upfront cash in exchange for future gains, should the tariffs be overturned.

For importers and investors alike, the Court’s ruling will have major implications, with billions of dollars in customs revenue at play. And even if the tariffs are struck down, uncertainty surrounds how the actual refund process would work. As such, both importers and purchasers will be eagerly watching the arguments to “read the tea leaves” on the Court’s future decision.

Click here to listen in live on oral argument on Wednesday, November 5, starting at 10:00 AM ET.