Key Takeaways
- • Priority Pre-Settlement Funding LLC and Brett K. Findler asked the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, to revive claims against Findler's former business partner, according to Law360.
- • The plaintiffs allege the partner quietly moved their litigation-finance business into hedge funds that the partner controlled.
- • The opposing side argues Findler knew about the new structure, agreed to it, and helped implement it.
- • The dispute centers on whether the restructuring was undisclosed or consented to, a question that goes to the viability of the revived claims.
Summary
Priority Pre-Settlement Funding LLC and Brett K. Findler urged the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday to revive claims accusing Findler's former business partner of shifting their litigation-finance business into hedge funds the partner controlled, according to Law360 reporter Jarek Rutz. The plaintiffs contend the restructuring was done quietly, without their knowledge.
The defendant's side counters that Findler was aware of the new structure, agreed to it, and assisted in putting it in place. That factual dispute over knowledge and consent is central to the appeal before the state's highest court.
The case is notable for institutional audiences because it involves pre-settlement litigation funding, a segment of the alternative credit market, and the transfer of such a business into hedge fund vehicles controlled by one partner. Governance and disclosure questions around affiliated fund structures of this kind are likely to draw attention from allocators and managers.
The source article is paywalled and this summary reflects only the portions available, so details of the lower court ruling, the specific claims, and the amounts involved are not reported here.
The defendant's side counters that Findler was aware of the new structure, agreed to it, and assisted in putting it in place. That factual dispute over knowledge and consent is central to the appeal before the state's highest court.
The case is notable for institutional audiences because it involves pre-settlement litigation funding, a segment of the alternative credit market, and the transfer of such a business into hedge fund vehicles controlled by one partner. Governance and disclosure questions around affiliated fund structures of this kind are likely to draw attention from allocators and managers.
The source article is paywalled and this summary reflects only the portions available, so details of the lower court ruling, the specific claims, and the amounts involved are not reported here.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.