Pravati Capital leads national effort to shape responsible litigation funding rules

Pravati Capital is stepping into a national spotlight as it pushes for clearer and more balanced regulation of litigation finance, building on Arizona’s newly enacted Senate Bill 1215. The Scottsdale based funder, one of the longest operating players in the United States, helped craft the Arizona framework and has now organized a coalition of funders, attorneys, and policy advocates to promote similar legislation in other states. Pravati founder and CEO Alex Chucri says the goal is to address genuine policy concerns without curbing access to capital that plaintiffs depend on when pursuing legitimate claims.

Chucri describes SB1215 as a measure that protects consumers while preserving the core purpose of litigation funding. He notes that debates over disclosure in other jurisdictions have created wide ranging discovery requests that slow cases and deter responsible funding partners. In his words, the bill works because it “promotes transparency without creating unnecessary barriers to justice.” He adds that Arizona lawmakers recognized that courts already have tools to deal with disclosure when it is relevant, and that the legislation helps prevent open-ended discovery that drives up costs and delays valid cases.

Pravati’s new coalition grew directly out of the Arizona experience. The immediate task, Chucri says, is to support lawmakers who are exploring similar issues in their own states. “An immediate priority is to educate lawmakers and provide a model for resolving legitimate concerns among the various stakeholders without constraining this vital source of capital for plaintiffs,” he explains. He points to Arizona’s collaborative process, where funders, attorneys, and policymakers “worked collaboratively to reconcile differing perspectives” and reached a result that protected consumers without shutting off financing options.

One of the more closely watched features of SB1215 is its restriction on foreign influence in litigation funding. Chucri acknowledges the broader geopolitical attention on this topic but stresses that the risk is exceedingly small within regulated markets. “It is our belief the participation by foreign countries of concern or foreign adversaries is rare in practice, if at all,” he says. He notes that federally regulated entities undergo significant oversight already, yet codifying these safeguards at the state level creates an additional layer of certainty for courts and counterparties.

Arizona’s adoption of Alternative Business Structures several years ago has already positioned the state as a testing ground for legal innovation. Chucri sees significant room for alignment between ABS law firms and litigation funders under the new framework. He views the combination as a way to modernize service delivery and expand access to justice within a system that still maintains strict consumer protections. “There’s significant opportunity for litigation funders and ABS law firms to align around responsible structures that enhance access to justice while maintaining robust safeguards,” he says.

As regulatory conversations grow louder across the country, many funders have taken a low profile to avoid political scrutiny. Pravati has chosen the opposite approach. Chucri says the firm decided to lead publicly because early legislative drafts in some jurisdictions risked undermining a sector that supports plaintiffs who often stand alone against large institutions. “Rather than remain silent, we believe it’s important to engage constructively with lawmakers to ensure regulations are informed by facts and balanced perspectives,” he says. He also emphasizes that Pravati welcomes collaboration with both state and federal officials to advance rules that are sensible and transparent.

With the Arizona law now serving as a template, Pravati’s coalition plans to meet with legislators in multiple states in the coming months. Chucri hopes that the approach adopted in Arizona can help diffuse contentious debates and shift the conversation toward consistent rules that protect plaintiffs, clarify industry expectations, and allow responsible funders to keep capital flowing into the justice system.