In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.