Trending Now

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

Gian Marco Solas, Ph.D.2, is a qualified lawyer and academic, and currently serves as the Lead Expert at the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre and in private practice, where he advises on the application of physics models in (antitrust) litigation and market & investment modeling worldwide. With over a decade’s experience working with law firms and litigation funders, where he has inter alia built and managed the (then) largest European collective redress initiative (the Italian truck cartel initiative), Dr. Solas has published a number of papers on litigation funding and is the author of Third Party Funding: Law, Economics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and the forthcoming ‘De Lege et Amore – Theory of Interrelation & Sustainability (Escargot, 2023) about the interrelation of the laws of physics and human laws in the economy. In his latest analysis about the litigation funding market, Dr. Solas looks at three previous historical litigation funding cycles that have similarly and quickly appeared and disappeared in specific spatio-temporal dimensions (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Middle-Ages England), to then conclude – on the basis of recent and publicly available evidence – that the same ‘destiny’ appears to be repeating in the modern global cycle. This analysis on the one hand suggests to reject the non realistic view that litigation funding would be an uncorrelated asset class, which view ultimately is backfiring and making capital raises more difficult. While, on the other, to learn from its cyclicality and correlation to the economy to understand how and where to evolve. That is a fund individual choice that can be summed up, as matter of principle, to either transform into (or merge with) a proper asset manager (managing litigious and not litigious assets and / or classes thereof) or into a law firm (or special type thereof, with funds, technology, etc.) making profit both upfront and on a contingency / conditional or other basis. Such move would also potentially remove the need for discussions and implementation of sector-specific regulation of litigation funding while, from a more economic point of view, potentially allow to mitigate the risks physiologically linked to portfolios of unsecured debt in an economic downturn. In Dr. Solas’ view, it is therefore pivotal for the specialist litigation funding industry to embrace legal science and work on their “legal finance ‘beta’ strategy” to potentially move from the tail of the ending “debt cycle” to the head of the new “codified cycle”. This move should be designed to allow litigation funders to reach a realistic equilibrium between high-risk-high-reward investments with lower but steady and more secure income streams. Thus, freeing them from the evidently too tight and inefficient financial model that – together with regulatory pressure and other challenges – appear to be strangling the industry at this stage. In fact, many litigation funders are already part of larger and / or balanced conglomerates, while many others are not. All or most of them, however, seem to be still attached to the now surpassed view of a commoditized economy, that not only fails to capture the real value of legal claims, but also ‘weighs’ heavily on all asset managers in terms of compliance and legal costs. Most modern technology and legal science allows not just to analyze and factor the weight of the law in rational decision making, but also to enlarge the scope of viable legal claims and to codify any legal asset, therefore making them more economically valuable. Litigation funders’ higher familiarity and experience with the law compared to other asset managers could prove to be the distinguishing skill and make them not just sustainable – but also thrive – in the “new” codified economic reality. In addition to the books and articles mentioned above, further data for the above analysis can be found in the following forthcoming publications:
  • Physics as model for the law? Sustainability of the litigation finance business model (Journal of Law, Market and Innovation, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU. Regulatory challenges (Theoretical Inquiries on Law, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU (E. Elgar, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, E. D’Alessandro, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding and Sustainability considerations (E. Elgar, Research Handbook on Investment and Sustainable Development, 2024, co-ed Annie Lesperance and Dana McGrath)

Commercial

View All

U.S. Treasury Blocks Venezuela from Funding Maduro’s Legal Defense in Drug Trafficking Case

By John Freund |

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.

Burford Capital Reports 39 Percent Surge in New Business Commitments for 2025 Amid Earnings Shortfall

By John Freund |

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.

Pravati Capital Partners with SEI to Bring Litigation Finance to Registered Investment Advisors

By John Freund |

One of the oldest litigation finance firms in the United States has announced a strategic partnership aimed at expanding mainstream investor access to the asset class.

As reported by Business Wire via Yahoo Finance, Scottsdale-based Pravati Capital has partnered with financial services firm SEI to provide registered investment advisors with structured access to litigation finance as an alternative investment option. The collaboration will leverage SEI's distribution platform to make litigation funding opportunities available within advisor portfolios.

The partnership reflects growing institutional interest in litigation finance as an alternative asset class. Historically, litigation funding has been difficult for mainstream financial advisors to access on behalf of their clients, with the market largely dominated by specialized funds and institutional investors. The Pravati-SEI arrangement seeks to bridge that gap by creating a more accessible pathway for advisors seeking diversification through non-correlated investments.

The announcement underscores a broader industry shift as litigation finance continues to move from a niche strategy toward greater acceptance within traditional wealth management channels. As the global litigation funding market grows — projected to reach over $25 billion in 2026 — partnerships like this one may signal a new phase of institutional adoption.