Trending Now
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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation-Funding Investment Market to Hit USD 53.6B by 2032

By John Freund |

A new report projects that the global litigation-funding investment market will reach approximately USD 53.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 13.84 percent. This robust growth forecast is driven by increasing demand for third-party financing in commercial litigation, arbitration, and high-stakes legal disputes. Investors are seeking exposure to legal-asset strategies as an uncorrelated return stream, while funders are scaling up to handle more complex, higher-value outcomes.

According to the article in Yahoo News, the market’s expansion is fueled by several structural shifts: more claimants are accessing capital through non-traditional financing models, law firms are leaning more on outside capital to manage cost and risk, and funders are expanding their product offerings beyond single-case funding. While the base market size was not specified in the summary, earlier industry data suggests significant growth from previous levels, with the current projection indicating a several-fold increase.

Still, the path forward is not without challenges. Macroeconomic factors, regulatory ambiguity, and constraints within the legal services ecosystem could affect the pace and scale of growth. Funders will need to maintain disciplined underwriting standards and carefully manage portfolio risks—especially as the sector becomes increasingly mainstream and competitive.

For the legal funding industry, this forecast reinforces the asset class's ongoing maturation. It signals a shift toward greater institutionalization and scale, with potential implications for pricing, transparency, and regulatory scrutiny. Whether funders can balance growth with rigor will be central to the market’s trajectory over the coming decade.

Announcements Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Appoints Jonathan Edward Wheeler as Partner and Head of Mariana Litigation

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead law firm has appointed Jonathan Edward Wheeler as a partner and Head of Mariana Litigation, adding heavyweight firepower to the team driving one of the largest group claims in English legal history following the firm’s landmark liability win against BHP in the English courts.

Jonathan joins Pogust Goodhead from Morrison Foerster in London, where he was a leading commercial litigation partner, having served for seven years as office co-managing partner and for 15 years as Head of Litigation. A specialist in complex, cross-border disputes, Jonathan has extensive experience acting in high-value commercial litigation, civil fraud and asset tracing, international trust disputes, contentious insolvency and investigations across multiple jurisdictions.

In his new role, Jonathan will assume strategic leadership of the proceedings arising from the Mariana dam disaster against mining giant BHP, overseeing the continued development of the case into the damages phase and working closely with colleagues in Brazil, the UK, the Netherlands and beyond.

Howard Morris, Chairman at Pogust Goodhead said: “Jonathan is a heavyweight addition to Pogust Goodhead and to our Mariana team. His track record in running some of the most complex cross-border disputes in the English courts, together with his leadership experience, make him exactly the kind of senior figure we need after our historic liability victory. Our clients will benefit enormously from his expertise and judgment.”

Jonathan Wheeler said: “It is a privilege to join Pogust Goodhead at such a pivotal moment in the Mariana case. The recent liability judgment is a watershed for access to justice and corporate accountability. I am honoured to help lead the next phase of this extraordinary litigation and to work alongside a team that has shown such determination in seeking justice for hundreds of thousands of victims.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead said: “Bringing in lawyers of Jonathan’s calibre is a strategic choice. As we expand the depth and breadth of our disputes practice globally, we are investing in senior talent who can help us deliver justice at scale for our clients and build an even more resilient firm.”

The Mariana proceedings in England involve over 600,000 of Brazilian individuals, businesses, municipalities, religious institutions and Indigenous communities affected by the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Following the English court’s decision on liability on the 14th of November 2025, the case will now move into the next stage focused on damages and the quantification of losses on an unprecedented scale.

Commercial

APCIA Urges House to Pass Litigation Funding Disclosure Reforms

By John Freund |

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is renewing its call for Congress to advance two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF). According to a recent article in Insurance Journal, APCIA is backing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 1109) and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 (H.R. 2675) as key reforms for federal civil litigation.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up both bills, which would require disclosure of TPLF in federal cases, and in the case of H.R. 2675, bar foreign governments and sovereign-wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. APCIA’s senior vice president for federal government relations described the measures as bringing “needed transparency for one of the largest cost drivers of insurance premiums — third-party litigation funding.”

In support of its advocacy, APCIA cited research from the consulting firm The Perryman Group, which estimated that excess tort costs in the U.S. amount to $368 billion annually — with each household absorbing roughly $2,437 in additional costs per year across items such as home and auto insurance and prescriptions.

While tax reform efforts once included proposals targeting funder profits, budget-rule constraints prevented those from advancing.