Paul B. Haskel
Overview
Paul B. Haskel is a partner in the New York office of Crowell & Moring and co-chair of the firm's Financial Services Group. His practice focuses on the fields of alternative investment and opportunistic credit, including the secondary market for distressed and other high-yield debt and claims. He represents investment funds, investment banks, and other financial institutions in connection with the purchase and sale of various U.S. and international assets, including domestic and foreign bank loans, high-yield securities, insurance subrogation claims, tax claims, and claims against bankruptcy estates, litigation trusts, and similar liquidating vehicles. He also advises clients on regulatory compliance issues relevant to financial institutions investing in bank loans and claims, including issues arising under U.S. securities law and state common law. Paul is an active member of The Loan Syndications and Trading Association Inc. (LSTA) and sits on various LSTA committees. He is a frequent speaker on topics relating to secondary loan market transactions.
Career & Education
- Columbia Law School, J.D., 1988
- Cornell University, B.A., 1985
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Professional Activities and Memberships
- Committee Member, The Loan Syndications and Trading Association
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Publication | 06.04.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.18.25
Personae Non Gratae in the Loan Market: Trading Considerations for Disqualified Institutions
Webinar | 11.19.24
Representative Matters
- Represented a major U.S. investment bank in connection with its sale of several multibillion-dollar portfolios of syndicated revolving loans to foreign investors pursuant to “true sale” participation agreements.
- Represented a major multi-strategy hedge fund in connection with providing non-recourse litigation financing to several contingency law firms representing municipal agencies victimized by defendants in the ongoing Ohio opioid MDL.
- Represented multiple private equity and hedge funds in their diligence and acquisition of PG&E Corp. insurance subrogation claims.
- Advised a private equity firm in connection with several “loan-to-own” transactions focused on distressed businesses, including a national restaurant chain and a global hospitality provider.
- Represented a hedge fund in connection with providing a non-recourse litigation financing facility in excess of $30 million to a major Wall Street law firm to finance a large portfolio of environmental remediation and damages cases against various U.S. municipalities.
- Represented a private equity fund in connection with a joint venture with a claims broker to acquire and manage Visa/Mastercard portfolio in antitrust class action claims.
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Publication | 06.04.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.18.25
Personae Non Gratae in the Loan Market: Trading Considerations for Disqualified Institutions
Webinar | 11.19.24
Insights
Commercial Litigation Funding: Litigation Finance Market Process
|05.16.24
The Future of Litigation Funding Regulation Under the Trump Administration
|11.19.24
Legal Funding Journal
GOP's Washington Trifecta Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
|11.15.24
The American Lawyer
Litigation Funders' Pitch to Corporate Litigants: Turn Your Lawsuit Into An Asset
|04.12.24
The American Lawyer
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Publication | 06.04.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.18.25
Personae Non Gratae in the Loan Market: Trading Considerations for Disqualified Institutions
Webinar | 11.19.24
