Burford Capital has published a new Burford Quarterly that pitches legal finance as a strategic resource for corporates and law firms confronting increasingly complex, cross-border matters. Vice Chair David Perla frames the theme succinctly: legal finance is no longer merely a tool to pay fees—it’s a way to unlock capital trapped in claims and manage portfolio risk as regulatory scrutiny and multijurisdictional exposure rise.

The issue is built around sector playbooks. A pharma feature addresses how generic and branded drug makers use financing to shoulder costly Hatch-Waxman litigation and development timelines, positioning capital as a buffer where damages are uncertain but speed to market is critical.

A construction-arbitration piece tracks the uptick in global disputes amid supply-chain shocks, decarbonization mandates, and elongated project schedules, with third-party capital smoothing cash flow over multi-year EPC programs and helping parties sustain high-value claims through arbitration.

Two additional components round out the package. A ten-year lookback on the UK’s opt-out competition regime argues funding has been central to the maturing collective-actions market and will remain pivotal as policymakers contemplate broader redress. And a Q&A tied to Burford’s strategic minority investment in Kindleworth explores how alternative capital and law-firm entrepreneurship intersect to seed specialist boutiques and align incentives with client outcomes.

The UK’s fast-evolving funding landscape continues to clarify what works—and what doesn’t—after PACCAR. In July, the Court of Appeal in Sony Interactive v Neill held that LFAs pegging a funder’s return to deployed or committed capital, even when paid from proceeds and subject to a proceeds cap, are not damages-based agreements. That distinction matters: many CAT and other group LFAs were rewritten over the past year to swap percentage-of-recovery models for multiple-based economics, and the ruling indicates those structures remain enforceable when drafted with care.

Quinn Emanuel's Business Litigation Report traces the arc from PACCAR’s treatment of percentage-based LFAs to Sony v Neill’s clarification and the policy response now gathering steam. The analysis underscores that returns keyed to funding outlay—not the quantum of recovery—avoid the DBA regime, reducing the risk that amended post-PACCAR agreements are second-guessed at certification or settlement approval.

The Civil Justice Council’s June Final Report outlines a legislative repair kit: a statutory fix to reverse PACCAR’s impact prospectively and retrospectively; an explicit separation of third-party funding from contingency-fee arrangements; a shift from self-regulation to light-touch statutory oversight; and, in exceptional cases, judicial power to permit recovery of funding costs from losing defendants. The CJC would also keep third-party funding of arbitration outside the formal regime.

For market participants, the immediate implications are contractual. Multiples, proceeds caps, waterfall mechanics, and severability language deserve meticulous treatment; so do disclosure and control provisions, given heightened judicial scrutiny of class representation and adverse costs exposure.

Burford Capital has strengthened its European presence with its first senior hire in Spain, recruiting Teresa Gutiérrez Chacón as Senior Vice President based in Madrid.

According to the press release, Gutiérrez Chacón brings over 16 years of experience in complex dispute resolution, international arbitration, and legal strategy—most recently serving as Chief Legal Counsel for Pavilion Energy’s European trading arm. Her prior roles include positions at Freshfields and Gómez‑Acebo & Pombo, and she has been recognized by Legal 500 as a “Rising Star” in Litigation & Arbitration and named Best Arbitration Lawyer Under 40 by Iberian Lawyer.

In her new role, she will deepen Burford’s relationships with Spanish law firms and corporations, positioning the firm to address the growing demand in Spain for legal finance solutions. Burford emphasized that Spain’s sophisticated legal market presents “significant opportunities,” and that adding on‑the‑ground leadership in Madrid enhances its ability to deliver local insight and cross‑jurisdictional support.

Philipp Leibfried, Burford’s Head of Europe, noted that this hire demonstrates a commitment to expanding in key European jurisdictions and strengthening Burford’s role as a “trusted partner” for law firms and businesses seeking innovative capital solutions.

The UK Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple’s appeal in Apple Inc and others v Gutmann, leaving intact a Court of Appeal decision that significantly strengthens the position of litigation funders in collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

An article in Law Gazette reports that the Supreme Court refused Apple’s petition on the grounds that it did not raise an arguable point of law, effectively endorsing the lower court’s April 2025 decision. That ruling affirmed that litigation funders can be paid directly from damages recovered in a class action before distributions are made to class members. The decision resolved longstanding ambiguity surrounding Sections 47C(3) and (6) of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 93 of the CAT Rules 2015.

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT has wide discretionary authority to order payments to class representatives for costs, fees, and disbursements, provided such allocations are deemed fair and reasonable under the tribunal’s supervisory jurisdiction. This was a pivotal victory for claimant-side funders, who have long warned that being last in line for recovery—after damages are disbursed—posed unacceptable risk in UK opt-out cases.

Law firm Charles Lyndon, counsel for class representative Justin Gutmann, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision not to revisit the matter, stating that it brings “welcome certainty” to the evolving collective proceedings regime and affirms the CAT’s broad discretion in addressing complex, end-of-case allocation scenarios.

This decision is expected to have a profound impact on the UK’s competition class action landscape. Funders now have greater confidence in the recoverability of their investments, potentially spurring more funding activity in CAT proceedings. The ruling may also prompt defendants to reconsider their settlement calculus, knowing that funders now enjoy a more secure repayment pathway.

Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a high-stakes antitrust class action are now targeting the use of third‑party litigation funding by plaintiffs’ counsel in a bid to derail class certification. At issue is whether a lead firm’s reliance on external financing renders it “inadequate” under class action rules — a novel approach that raises fresh procedural and policy questions.

An article in Reuters notes the the suit alleges that Cornell, Penn, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame and others favored wealthy applicants over students needing financial aid, plaintiffs’ counsel (led by Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, or GLC) is facing attacks over transparency and risk allocation. The universities contend that GLC mischaracterized its financial exposure by not fully disclosing its funding arrangements. GLC responds that it only uses outside funding for a portion of its fees (covering 40% of its own, and under 16% of the aggregate) and that no court has previously held that use of funding makes class counsel inadequate. A judge has already found the funding documents “potentially relevant” to the certification motion, underscoring the stakes.

Legal commentators call this a new twist in class litigation — rather than questioning the merits or fairness of funding, defendants are now probing its procedural footprint. The case also dovetails with a broader trend: litigation funders are becoming more visible and controversial, particularly when their support is used by class‑action counsel. Reuters Meanwhile, in adjacent news, law firms are consolidating and AI‑driven tools for plaintiffs’ practices are attracting investor capital — further reshaping the economics of litigation.

This challenge could force courts nationwide to reinterpret adequacy standards in class actions, potentially chilling the use of external funding. It may also provoke funders, defense firms, and plaintiffs to recalibrate disclosure rules and risk-sharing norms across major litigation.

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.