Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
Commercial Deals

New research shows companies with large claims recover more and preserve budgets by using legal finance as part of their class action opt out strategies

September 13, 2022

New research shows companies with large claims recover more and preserve budgets by using legal finance as part of their class action opt out strategies

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research demonstrating the value of legal finance for companies with valuable commercial class action claims. In recent years, Burford has seen an increasing number of major corporations choosing to opt out of class action lawsuits to pursue high value claims individually and has commissioned independent research to examine the trend in greater depth.

Although companies are currently still more likely to remain in the class than they are to opt out, the research reveals that their reasons for doing so are economic—and solvable with legal finance, which de-risks the choice to opt out and provides a clear benefit to corporations with high value claims. As most legal finance is non-recourse, companies can receive risk-free funding to pursue meritorious claims as individual plaintiffs, as well as to accelerate the often-significant value represented by pending claims.

Given the results of the research, Burford expects the trend toward opt outs will continue, with major companies choosing to rethink their opt out strategies with legal finance.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “Burford’s independent research on commercial class actions demonstrates the clear benefit that legal finance provides to companies with significant claims. If you’re a GC and you have a claim that’s big enough to merit opting out, you should, because you’ll recover more, and you can do so without budget implications by using legal finance capital. Further, your competitors who are already using legal finance are opting out three times more often. As a former GC, I recognize the importance of maintaining control and maximizing returns in litigation, and Burford works with many GCs to use legal finance to reduce risk, maintain greater control and enhance the likelihood of achieving greater recoveries.”

Key findings from the research include:

  • Use of legal finance correlates to opting out.
    • Use of legal finance is 3x likelier among companies that mostly/always opt out vs. companies that mostly/always remain in the class, and 2x likelier than all companies.
  • Companies’ top reasons for opting out are maintaining control and maximizing return.
    • The #1 reason large company GCs opt out is their fiduciary duty to maximize recoveries to their company.
  • Companies’ top reasons to stay in the class are economic.
    • Not being able to justify the cost of pursuing an opt out claim (64%) and not having the budget to do so (61%) are the top 2 reasons companies remain in the class.
    • Legal finance ameliorates both cost and budget constraints.
  • GCs say the availability of legal finance would impact their opt out strategy.
    • 1 of 2 (52%) say that while they have not used legal finance, its availability would positively impact the decision to opt out. 

The Report on Class Action Recoveries can be downloaded on Burford’s website, where full results are also available. The research report was conducted in June 2022 by GLG via an online survey, with responses from 150 US GCs, heads of litigation and other senior in-house lawyers responsible for their companies’ commercial litigation.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Sydney and Hong Kong.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Deals

Slater and Gordon Secures Renewed £30M Financing with Harbour

By John Freund |

Slater and Gordon has announced the renewal of its committed financing facility with Harbour, securing an enhanced £30 million loan agreement that strengthens the firm’s financial position and supports its ongoing strategic plans.

According to Slater and Gordon, the facility replaces the previous arrangement and will run for at least three years, underscoring the depth of the relationship between the firm and Harbour, a long-standing provider of capital to law firms.

The renewed financing follows a £30 million equity raise earlier in 2025 and is intended to provide financing certainty as Slater and Gordon continues to invest across its core practice areas and enhance its client service offering. Chief executive Nils Stoesser highlighted the progress the business has made in recent years and said the renewed facility provides confidence as the firm pursues its longer-term strategic priorities.

Ellora MacPherson, Harbour’s managing director and chief investment officer, described the commitment as the next stage in a constructive and established partnership. She noted Harbour’s support for Slater and Gordon’s ambitions, particularly around improving service delivery and outcomes for clients.

Over the past two years, Slater and Gordon has focused on strengthening its family law, employment, and personal injury practices, while also expanding its capacity to handle large-scale group actions. The firm has also continued to invest in technology and operational improvements aimed at improving the overall client experience.

Commercial

Litigation Finance Faces Regulatory, MSO, and Insurance Crossroads in 2026

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry, now estimated at roughly $16.1 billion, is heading into 2026 amid growing uncertainty over regulation, capital structures, and its relationship with adjacent industries. After several years of rapid growth and heightened scrutiny, market participants are increasingly focused on how these pressures may reshape the sector.

Bloomberg Law identifies four central questions likely to define the industry’s near-term future. One of the most closely watched issues is whether federal regulation will finally materialize in a meaningful way. Legislative proposals have ranged from restricting foreign sovereign capital in U.S. litigation to taxing litigation finance returns. While several initiatives surfaced in 2025, political gridlock and election year dynamics raise doubts about whether comprehensive federal action will advance in the near term, leaving the industry operating within a patchwork of existing rules.

Another major development is the expansion of alternative investment structures, particularly the growing use of management services organizations. MSOs allow third party investors to own or finance non legal aspects of law firm operations, offering a potential pathway for deeper capital integration without directly violating attorney ownership rules. Interest in these models has increased among both litigation funders and large law firms, signaling a broader shift in how legal services may be financed and managed.

The industry is also watching the outcome of several high profile disputes that could have outsized implications for funders. Long running, multibillion dollar cases involving sovereign defendants continue to test assumptions about risk, duration, and appellate exposure in funded matters.

Finally, tensions with the insurance industry remain unresolved. Insurers have intensified efforts to link litigation funding to rising claim costs and are exploring policy mechanisms that would require disclosure of third party funding arrangements.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that 2026 could be a defining year for litigation finance, as evolving regulation, new capital models, and external pushback shape the industry’s next phase of development.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Liability Insurers Push Disclosure Requirements Targeting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

Commercial liability insurers are escalating their long-running dispute with the litigation funding industry by introducing policy language that could require insured companies to disclose third-party funding arrangements. The move reflects mounting concern among insurers that litigation finance is contributing to rising claim costs and reshaping litigation dynamics in ways carriers struggle to underwrite or control.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the Insurance Services Office, a Verisk Analytics unit that develops standard insurance policy language, has drafted an optional provision that would compel policyholders to reveal whether litigation funders or law firms with a financial stake are backing claims against insured defendants. While adoption of the provision would be voluntary, insurers could begin incorporating it into commercial liability policies as early as 2026.

The proposed disclosure requirement is part of a broader push by insurers to gain greater visibility into litigation funding arrangements, which they argue can encourage more aggressive claims strategies and higher settlement demands, particularly in mass tort and complex commercial litigation. Insurers have increasingly linked these trends to what they describe as social inflation, a term used to capture rising jury awards and litigation costs that outpace economic inflation.

For policyholders, the new language could introduce additional compliance obligations and strategic considerations. Companies that rely on litigation funding, whether directly or through counterparties, may be forced to weigh the benefits of financing against potential coverage implications.

Litigation funders and law firms are watching developments closely. Funding agreements are typically treated as confidential, and mandatory disclosure to insurers could raise concerns about privilege, work product protections, and competitive sensitivity. At the same time, insurers have been criticized for opposing litigation finance while also exploring their own litigation-related investment products, highlighting tensions within the market.

If widely adopted, insurer-driven disclosure requirements could represent a meaningful shift in how litigation funding intersects with insurance. The development underscores the growing influence of insurers in shaping transparency expectations and suggests that litigation funders may increasingly find themselves drawn into coverage debates that extend well beyond the courtroom.