Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

A veteran litigator turned legal finance professional is challenging what she calls the biggest misconception about the industry: that litigation funding is only for companies that cannot afford their legal bills.

As reported by Burford Capital, Director Stephanie Southwick — who spent more than 15 years as a first-chair commercial and intellectual property litigator before joining the firm seven years ago — argues that the real question for potential clients is not whether they can pay, but whether litigation spending represents the best use of capital. Even financially strong organizations, she says, benefit from preserving operational funds and converting legal expenses into monetizable assets.

Southwick emphasizes that trust and alignment between funder and client are essential for a successful funding arrangement, describing the ideal relationship as a strategic partnership rather than a purely transactional one. She also highlights the value of legal finance for startups, noting that it provides non-dilutive capital that allows founders to pursue meritorious claims without reducing runway or diluting equity.

For companies considering litigation financing, Southwick advises disciplined damages analysis and realistic budgeting from the outset. Early involvement of financing partners, she says, helps calibrate the structure and economics of an arrangement before litigation costs begin to accumulate.

Louisiana's insurance regulator is taking aim at third-party litigation funding marketing campaigns it says mislead consumers through deceptive digital advertising tactics.

As reported by Beinsure Media, the Louisiana Department of Insurance has partnered with the National Insurance Crime Bureau and 4WARN, a digital intelligence firm, to identify and combat TPLF-related paid search advertising that intercepts policyholders seeking claims assistance. Regulators allege that some campaigns create confusion about whether communications originate from insurers themselves.

The partnership follows a joint NICB and 4WARN report finding that TPLF organizations spent approximately $380 million on paid online search advertising between June 2024 and June 2025. According to regulators, some third-party marketers steer claimants toward litigation before they have an opportunity to contact their insurers directly, extending dispute timelines and increasing costs within the claims ecosystem.

The Louisiana Department of Insurance is advising policyholders to use verified sources, including the department's official website and mobile app, and to verify search result links before clicking.

The initiative marks the first coordinated regulatory effort specifically targeting TPLF digital marketing tactics, signaling a potential new front in the ongoing debate over litigation funding regulation at the state level.

The Certum Group is accepting applications for its Litigation Finance Fellowship, now in its third year. The program offers law and business students a four-week, hands-on immersion in the business of litigation finance, with fellows earning a $3,000 stipend.

As reported by Above the Law, the fellowship provides participants with direct exposure to the complete lifecycle of litigation risk assessment, pricing, and transfer. Fellows analyze case funding requests, model case resolution scenarios, attend client development meetings, and prepare marketing materials alongside Certum's legal, insurance, and finance professionals.

The program is directed by William Marra, who leads Certum's litigation finance strategy, serves on the board of the International Legal Finance Association, and is in his fourth year teaching litigation finance as a lecturer in law at Penn Carey Law School. Marra noted that litigation finance and insurance are rapidly transforming the legal landscape and that understanding finance has become essential for modern legal professionals.

The fellowship is based in New York City, with remote participation available. Certum expects to select one to three fellows depending on the applicant pool. Past fellows have come from institutions including Penn Carey Law and Columbia Business School. Applications are due March 31, 2026, and require a resume, law school transcript, and a 250-word statement of interest.

Burford Capital, the world's largest litigation funder, has formally entered South Korea's litigation finance market by establishing its first office in the country. The expansion targets Asia's fourth-largest economy amid rising cross-border disputes involving Korean companies and escalating legal expenses.

As reported by KED Global, the move capitalizes on growing international disputes involving Korean corporations and increasing demand for third-party litigation funding. The article highlights prominent Korean commercial litigation cases, including Medytox Inc. v. Hugel Inc. over trade secret allegations involving botulinum toxin technology, as well as multiple patent disputes involving Samsung Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor.

Burford's entry into South Korea signals the continued global expansion of litigation finance into major Asian markets. As Korean companies face mounting legal costs from cross-border commercial disputes, third-party funding offers an increasingly attractive tool for managing litigation risk without straining corporate balance sheets.

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board serves as a key domestic venue for resolving such disputes, and Burford's presence in the market positions the funder to support both Korean companies and international parties engaged in disputes with Korean counterparts.

KPMG LLP has named Christian Athanasoulas as the inaugural head of KPMG US Legal Services, a newly created position aimed at expanding the Big Four firm's legal offerings in the United States. Athanasoulas, a Boston-based M&A tax practice leader with more than 25 years at the firm, will oversee efforts to integrate legal services with KPMG's broader corporate advisory platform.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appointment comes one year after KPMG gained regulatory approval to operate as an alternative business structure in Arizona — making it the first Big Four firm permitted to run a U.S. law firm. The division focuses on work traditionally handled by in-house legal teams, including post-merger contract cleanup, entity dissolution, and vendor consolidation.

The expansion, however, faces growing regulatory pushback. Arizona's Committee on Alternative Business Structures has recommended rule changes that would require ABS firms to serve Arizona clients and provide direct legal services rather than operate as national referral networks. The Arizona State Bar has warned that some entities may be exploiting the framework without meaningfully benefiting Arizona residents.

The development is significant for the legal industry's evolving competitive landscape. KPMG operates globally with more than 3,000 licensed attorneys and has already expanded legal services in the UK and Australia. Traditional law firms view the firm's entry with caution, recognizing that its established corporate client base, substantial resources, and technology investments present a formidable competitive challenge to conventional legal service delivery models.

The U.S. government has intervened in the long-running battle over an $18 billion judgment against Argentina, urging a federal judge not to hold the country in contempt for allegedly failing to produce official communications. The filing adds a significant layer to one of the largest litigation finance-backed disputes in history.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, former shareholders of YPF SA — Argentina's state-owned oil company — are seeking discovery of text messages and emails from Argentine government officials. The shareholders, backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, obtained the landmark judgment in 2023 after a court found that Argentina violated their rights through the 2012 nationalization of YPF.

The discovery effort is central to the shareholders' collection strategy. Plaintiffs argue that the communications could demonstrate that Argentina's state-owned banks and national airline function as "alter egos" of the government — a legal theory that, if successful, would allow them to pierce corporate structures and pursue assets held by those entities to satisfy the judgment.

The U.S. government's decision to back Argentina in the discovery fight underscores the diplomatic sensitivities at play. Sovereign discovery disputes of this scale raise complex questions about foreign government immunity and international comity. For the litigation finance industry, the case remains a closely watched test of whether third-party-funded enforcement actions against sovereign nations can ultimately yield meaningful recoveries on judgments of this magnitude.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal has issued a landmark ruling that could reshape how patent disputes are funded across Europe. In a decision overturning four million Euros in security for costs orders, the court held that properly structured litigation insurance policies can fully satisfy a defendant's right to costs recovery — eliminating the need for cash deposits or bank guarantees.

As reported by McDermott Will & Schulte, the ruling arose from the case of Syntorr v. Arthrex. McDermott partners Hon.-Prof. Dr. Henrik Holzapfel and Dr. Laura Woll represented Syntorr in the appeal, successfully arguing that the plaintiff's litigation insurance policy contained sufficient protections to address the court's concerns.

The court identified several features that satisfied its requirements for adequate security, including non-voidability provisions, direct rights for the defendant to claim against the insurer, straightforward payment triggers, and placement with an EU-authorized Solvency II insurer. Together, these anti-avoidance endorsements provided the court with confidence that the defendant's interests were adequately protected.

The decision carries significant implications for the litigation finance industry. By establishing that well-structured insurance products can substitute for cash security, the ruling creates a clearer pathway for patent holders — particularly smaller innovators — to pursue claims in the UPC without immobilizing substantial capital. The court's framework effectively balances defendant protection with access to justice, signaling that the UPC is open to modern funding mechanisms in patent enforcement proceedings.

The question of who pays for Nicolas Maduro's legal representation has become a flashpoint in his federal drug trafficking prosecution, after the U.S. government reversed course on allowing Venezuela to fund his defense.

As reported by Yahoo News, the Treasury Department initially granted a sanctions exception on January 9 permitting the Venezuelan government to cover Maduro's legal expenses, only to revoke the authorization hours later without explanation. Defense attorney Barry Pollack — who previously represented WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — argued that Venezuelan law and custom require the government to pay the expenses of the president and first lady, and that Maduro cannot otherwise afford counsel.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by U.S. special forces during a nighttime raid in Caracas on January 3, 2026. Both pleaded not guilty on January 5 to charges including drug trafficking, narco-terrorism, conspiracy, and money laundering. Prosecutors allege Maduro exploited his 13-year presidency to assist drug traffickers.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, presiding over the case in the Southern District of New York, is now weighing the funding dispute. Flores may still be eligible to receive government-funded legal representation. Delcy Rodriguez currently leads the Venezuelan government following Maduro's capture.

The case raises broader questions about the intersection of international sanctions, sovereign immunity, and the funding of legal defense in high-profile prosecutions with geopolitical dimensions.

The world's largest litigation finance firm posted a mixed set of results for 2025, pairing record new business activity with near-term earnings that fell short of market expectations.

As reported by PR Newswire, Burford Capital announced that new definitive commitments rose 39 percent year-over-year in 2025, while portfolio modeled realizations grew by $700 million to reach $5.2 billion at year-end. The firm also declared a final dividend of $0.0625 per ordinary share, payable June 12, 2026.

However, fourth-quarter earnings disappointed investors. Extended case durations and unrealized fair value adjustments weighed on results, including a $22 million fair value reduction tied to the Sysco proteins antitrust litigation portfolio.

CEO Christopher Bogart characterized the year as one of strong forward momentum despite the near-term volatility. "We had a terrific 2025 for new business," Bogart said. "The quality of the portfolio remains high, and we believe the future is bright in terms of growing the business and the potential for asymmetric upside value for shareholders."

Analysts project Burford will return to profitability in the first quarter of 2026, with estimated earnings per share of $0.29 on approximately $171 million in revenue. The results underscore a persistent tension in litigation finance: the long duration of legal proceedings can produce lumpy, unpredictable earnings even as the underlying business pipeline expands.