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

Listed litigation funders are facing renewed scrutiny as fair-value accounting pushes losses from adverse court and arbitration outcomes into earnings well before any cash changes hands.

As reported by Traders Union, reversals at Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management and others have intensified questions about valuation models that treat lawsuits as financial assets.

One recent flashpoint was a Paris-based ICC tribunal's dismissal of a $680 million claim against Nigeria that Burford had funded. The claim, brought by Sunrise Power, concerned a 2020 settlement the tribunal found had been signed by ministers who lacked authority to bind the state without presidential approval. Recoverability concerns were compounded by Sunrise Power's minimal assets and by cost penalties. Burford has separately absorbed the reversal of a $16.1 billion YPF judgment and a $2.4 billion write-down, while LCM has recorded a High Court loss alongside a 99% decline in its share price.

Under IFRS 9 and ASC 820, model-based unrealised gains and losses flow directly into reported earnings, tying marks to share prices, compensation and debt capacity. Net asset value therefore rests on probability-weighted assessments over which management retains significant discretion.

The scrutiny is not new. Muddy Waters alleged in 2019 that Burford "manipulates its performance metrics and abuses the latitude afforded it under fair value accounting," and the company later restated results for FY2019 through FY2022 following an SEC initiative. Burford has also reported a material weakness in internal controls affecting fair value measurement of capital provision assets, though it has pointed to $518.3 million in cash realizations year to date as evidence that timing, not deterioration, drives the volatility.

Apple has asked a federal court in San Diego to overturn or retry the largest patent verdict on record in the United States, a $5,721,961,750 award that carries a substantial litigation funding stake.

As reported by PYMNTS, a jury found on September 25 that the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches infringes two haptics patents held by Taction Technology. Apple is asking U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson to set aside the findings or order a new trial, and could then take the dispute to the Federal Circuit.

Taction sued in 2021 over patents describing tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations. Apple had the case dismissed in 2023, but the Federal Circuit revived it last year after finding the dismissal rested on an unwritten requirement that improperly prevented Taction from relying on certain expert testimony. Apple maintains that the Taptic Engine is "fundamentally different from Taction's technology." Jurors found the infringement was not willful, removing the basis for treble damages.

Burford Capital is entitled to roughly a quarter of the award, or about $1.4 billion, split roughly evenly between its balance sheet and its investment funds. Burford has cautioned that the figure is likely to be altered in post-trial proceedings and that the parties could settle for considerably less. Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP were identified as funders in the proceedings. Apple sought unsuccessfully during the case to compel disclosure of the funding arrangements — an issue a federal rules committee is scheduled to take up on October 21.

Josh Wander, co-founder of private investment firm 777 Partners, has signaled in a court filing that he intends to change his plea in the federal fraud case accusing him of cheating lenders and investors out of almost $500 million. Wander had previously pleaded not guilty and was scheduled to appear Thursday at a hearing before a judge in Manhattan.

As reported by Bloomberg, the filing points to a negotiated resolution in a prosecution that had been set for trial this month.

Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Wander in October 2025 in federal court in Manhattan, charging wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy. Most of the counts carry a maximum of 20 years. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton alleged that Wander used 777 Partners to cheat private lenders and investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars by pledging assets the firm did not own and by falsifying bank statements.

Prosecutors brought superseding charges in July 2026, to which Wander also pleaded not guilty. Those counts allege he diverted most of a $20 million loan into his own brokerage account and used phony bank statements to conceal that he had drained a restricted account tied to a different lender. The superseding indictment added a witness-tampering count, alleging Wander sent a former analyst a photograph of himself with his young child to discourage testimony.

Former 777 chief financial officer Damien Alfalla pleaded guilty to four felonies in October 2025 under a cooperation agreement. Wander had also applied to the Justice Department for a presidential pardon ahead of trial.

Ireland has brought its collective redress regime into operation with a new set of court rules and its first substantive judgment, yet the country's continuing prohibition on third-party litigation funding still stands between qualified entities and viable claims.

As reported by Arthur Cox, S.I. No. 488 of 2026 took effect on 12 October, inserting Order 15, rules 40 to 46 into the Rules of the Superior Courts and setting out the procedural framework for representative actions under the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023. A separate instrument, S.I. No. 465 of 2026, exempted qualified entities from court fees from 11 September.

The firm's Richard Willis, Joanelle O'Cleirigh, Kate O'Donohoe, Edel Curry and Peter Woods also point to the first substantive judgment under the Act, *Irish Council for Civil Liberties v Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited* [2026] IEHC 640, delivered by Mr Justice Mulcahy.

Despite the procedural progress, the authors identify the funding prohibition as a material obstacle to the regime functioning as intended. Qualified entities must finance proceedings without recourse to commercial funders, a constraint that significantly narrows the range of claims that can realistically be brought. Recommendations from the Law Reform Commission on third-party funding remain outstanding, leaving the question of whether Ireland will relax its position unresolved as the new rules come into force.

Third-party funding agreements are not automatically void in the Philippines despite the country's long-standing hostility to champerty, according to a new analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning in *RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corp v Ross*.

As reported by Asia Business Law Journal, Anthony Jacoba, Jermiss Mishania Muarip and Rex Emmanuel Apad of Manila firm Ocampo & Suralvo write that the Court's November 2023 decision stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition. Instead, a funding arrangement falls foul of Article 1409 of the Civil Code only where its terms are grossly disadvantageous to the funded party, leaving the enforceability of each agreement to turn on its specific commercial terms rather than on the existence of funding itself.

The authors note that the champerty doctrine in the Philippines developed principally as a constraint on lawyers, who are barred from acquiring an interest in the subject matter of litigation they handle. A funder that is not counsel sits outside that prohibition, which the authors argue creates space for institutional capital to support arbitration claims.

Disclosure is already part of the local framework. The 2021 Arbitration Rules of the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center require parties to disclose pre-existing funding arrangements, aligning Philippine practice with the transparency expectations now common across major arbitral institutions. The authors suggest the combination of a narrow champerty rule and a disclosure obligation gives funders a workable, if still untested, route into Philippine-seated disputes.

German claims vehicle Financialright Claims GmbH has asked a Delaware federal judge to revive its lawsuit against a Burford Capital affiliate over an allegedly fraudulently induced arbitration agreement, arguing that an arbitral tribunal has now confirmed the court's authority to decide the dispute.

As reported by Law360, Financialright urged the court to reopen the case on the basis that the tribunal has resolved the threshold question that led to the action being stayed. The motion follows a partial final award dated 26 September 2026 in LCIA Case No. 246335, which the parties received on 2 October, as disclosed in a supplemental brief Financialright filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Burford's pending petition, No. 25-1269.

The dispute arises from a 2017 capital provision agreement under which Burford German Funding financed Financialright's acquisition and prosecution of German antitrust claims brought by hauliers against truck manufacturers. Financialright alleges it did not learn until late 2022 that the law firm Hausfeld held a part ownership interest in Burford German Funding through a separate entity, German Litigation Solutions LLC. Its Delaware complaint seeks a declaration that the arbitration clause in the funding agreement is invalid and unenforceable.

In August 2025, the District of Delaware granted Burford German Funding's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending the London-seated LCIA proceeding. Docket entries show Financialright filed its opening brief in support of reopening on 7 October, followed by a supporting declaration on 8 October.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has stayed Which?'s collective proceedings against Apple until 16 November 2026 after the consumer group terminated its litigation funding agreement with Litigation Capital Management and began searching for a replacement funder.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the UK's largest consumer organisation is seeking a new funder for its collective action against Apple following LCM's indicated plans to close. Orders published by the Tribunal set out the sequence in detail.

According to the Order (Stay) made by Mr Justice Waksman on 9 October 2026, the class representative told the Court of Appeal on 17 September that it was not in a position to defend Apple's appeal against the Tribunal's refusal to strike out the portion of the claim brought on behalf of non-paying iCloud users. In a letter dated 28 September, the class representative confirmed it had not obtained funding from LCM Funding UK Limited to defend that appeal, had given LCM notice that it had breached the litigation funding agreement, considered the breach incapable of remedy, and had exercised its right to terminate the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the non-paying user claim withdrawn and stayed the proceedings until 4pm on 16 November while the class representative pursues a new funder and after-the-event insurance. A further order of 14 October requires the class representative to notify the Tribunal and Apple of any material funding developments as soon as reasonably practicable. A case management conference is listed for 27 November to address funding, withdrawal and costs.

Simpson Millar LLP, one of the UK's largest consumer law firms and a flagship investment for specialist legal-sector capital provider Doorway, has reported an annual loss of £5 million and net liabilities of £41.8 million, even as it completed two seven-figure acquisitions over the summer.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, financial statements for the firm, which operates seven offices across England and Wales, show losses narrowing from £9 million in 2024 to £4.93 million in calendar 2025, with turnover up 11.5% to £24.6 million. As at 31 December, net liabilities stood at £41.8 million, up from £36.9 million, with amounts owed within one year of £88 million.

The LLP's immediate parent is Doorway Holdings Limited and its ultimate parent is Doorway 4 Law Limited, described in the accounts as a specialist equity provider to the legal sector. Both have committed funding to support the business. In 2018 the LLP entered a £25 million five-year loan agreement with Doorway 4 Law, extended during 2023 to £32 million with the maturity deferred and no set repayment date.

The firm has pursued cost savings in recent years, exiting certain private client markets in 2022 to concentrate on public and inquiry work. Its principal business is now personal injury, including clinical negligence, holiday sickness, industrial disease and road traffic accidents. Headcount fell 18% to 294 during the year, with 18 fee earners and 46 administrative staff cut, while investment in marketing continued in order to rebuild case stocks.

Acquisition activity has continued regardless. In June the group bought the trade and assets of Wirral-based Fife PI Limited from Forster Dean for £750,000 in cash plus a performance-related payment of £669,000. In July it acquired the personal injury practice of Manchester firm Clear Law Limited for £900,000 in cash, with a further contingent payment of £1.85 million agreed.

Hedge funds have stepped up acquisitions of legal claims tied to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires after a legislative push to restrict the trades lost momentum, with pricing on individual claims ranging from as little as 3 cents on the dollar to roughly 60 cents.

As reported by HedgeCo.Net, citing Bloomberg, the transactions involve subrogation rights, which allow an insurer that has paid out on a policy to pursue a third party such as a utility for its losses. Rather than wait years for litigation to conclude, insurers can sell those rights to investors at a discount in exchange for immediate cash.

According to broker Cherokee Acquisition, claims arising from the Eaton fire are being acquired at 55 to 60 cents on the dollar, while Palisades claims, viewed as riskier because liability is harder to establish, are trading at 3 to 5 cents. Cherokee director Bradley Max said there is "plenty of appetite for buyers and sellers," that most hedge funds active in the market are targeting returns in the low-to-mid teens, and that transactions are typically funded within a couple of weeks. He said Cherokee recently acquired roughly $100 million of Palisades-related claims for less than 10 cents on the dollar.

California adopted a law in 2025 requiring insurers to offer utilities a right of first refusal before selling claims to investors, but it stopped short of banning hedge fund purchases outright. Max said the rule has had little effect on demand.

The fires caused an estimated $40 billion in insured losses. A bellwether jury trial in the Eaton fire litigation is scheduled for January 2027. The spread between Eaton and Palisades pricing illustrates how sharply investors are discounting liability risk, while the legislative impasse has removed, for now, the prospect of the opportunity being closed off entirely.