Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 1 of 2)

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ 

Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. 

Executive Summary

  • Despite its size, the Intellectual property (“IP”) asset class has eluded the attention of most asset managers due to its underlying legal complexities
  • The litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but is solely focused on litigation involving IP
  • A void exists in the financing market, which IP-focused Private Credit managers have begun to fill via credit-oriented strategies designed to drive value maximization

Slingshot Insights:

  • Secular shifts in the economy have allowed IP to assume an increasing share of corporate value
  • IP is an emerging asset class that has begun to garner the attention of asset managers and insurers
  • There are various IP-centric investment strategies that do not involve litigation.
  • IP-focused Private Credit funds approach IP in a holistic fashion, leveraging numerous ways that IP creates value
  • Investors need to be aware that investing in IP presents unique risks that warrant input from operational and legal IP specialists
  • IP Credit provides a different risk/reward profile for investors as compared to commercial litigation finance, which tends to have more binary risk

When I started reviewing and assessing managers for potential investment in the commercial litigation finance asset class five years ago, there were a small number of managers that would consider the most complex area of intellectual property litigation, namely patent infringement.  Oh, how things have changed!  Today, there are many litigation finance managers who will at least consider making an investment in IP litigation, although still relatively few that will follow through on providing a commitment.

One of the areas in which I am intrigued is the application of credit to intellectual property (“IP”) and using the value of patents (amongst other forms of intellectual property) as security for the loan, the so-called Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) asset class.  While this is, strictly speaking, a credit asset class (as you will see from this article), it sits adjacent to, and sometimes intersects with, commercial litigation finance.  Nevertheless, I do think it is a subset of the broader intangible finance market, and since value is inherently derived from intellectual property, and on occasion, litigation, it often gets lumped in within the legal finance category.

In an effort to assess the IP Credit asset class, I reached out to an established manager, Soryn IP Capital (“Soryn”), to obtain a better understanding of how the sector operates and why investors should be interested in this asset class.  Soryn is co-founded by two well-known investors in the IP space, Michael Gulliford and Phil Hartstein, who have a combined four decades of IP experience.

Background

Despite a major shift in corporate balance sheet asset composition from tangible to intangible in recent decades, stemming largely from the secular shift to a knowledge based (i.e. technology) economy, there has been surprisingly little growth in the number of alternative asset managers with IP-focused investment strategies.  What growth has occurred with respect to IP-specific strategies has largely been confined to the IP litigation finance space.  There, non-recourse capital is advanced from a litigation funder to a claim holder to pursue what is often single event IP litigation, featuring a binary outcome set.

The result has been an mis-allocation of risk-adjusted capital to companies and academic institutions in IP-intensive sectors that either do not plan to litigate, or that will be litigating, but only as part of a holistic and diversified business and/or IP licensing strategy.  While these IP owners may seek capital to finance objectives such as non-dilutive growth, technology licensing or royalty audits and monetization, often the IP owner must choose between a litigation funder that does not specialize in broader financial solutions, or a financing source that is not specialized in IP.  Neither option threads the needle to provide what these entities are looking for: an appropriately-structured and priced capital structure solution.

Recently, IP-focused managers with credit-oriented strategies have come into focus, as they are targeting this gap in the market.  In addition to Soryn, the hedge fund manager Fortress has an existing IP Credit fund, and Aon is currently raising capital for a debut IP Credit fund (which may have ulterior motives rooted in intellectual property insurance, which is not to say the two can’t co-exist and complement one another).

In many ways, these funds resemble a hybrid of private debt and specialty finance, as they have the flexibility to invest across the capital structure through highly-structured debt, preferred, equity, and other bespoke financial contracts.

Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property.  Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors.

IP VALUE PROPOSITION

According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985.  Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies.

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce.  The primary forms of intellectual property are:

  • Patents: protect inventions and discoveries
  • Trade Secrets: protect valuable information that is intentionally kept secret
  • Copyright: protect artistic works in a fixed medium of expression
  • Trademarks: protect “signs” associating products and services to an owner

While each form of IP offers different protections, the value of each lies in its legally proscribed, exclusionary right that prohibits third parties from practicing or “infringing” the IP without permission.  It is this exclusionary right that promotes a healthy competition and innovation ecosystem by, for instance, incentivizing R&D, encouraging investment, protecting market share, and allowing the licensing of these rights to either a) promote synergistic business relationships or b) stop unauthorized copying.

Several data points highlight the value attributable to IP licenses that are struck to promote synergistic business relationships, or to resolve enforcement scenarios. The following statistics help contextualize the significance of the IP value proposition.

IP VALUE CREATION

IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future.  When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:

  • IP rights can be licensed to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be exploited to negotiate cross-licenses that allow IP owners access to sought-after technologies;
  • IP rights can be sold to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be enforced against third parties that are practicing the underlying IP without a license;
  • IP rights can serve as the basis for significant insurance policies;
  • IP rights can be the principal basis for an M&A transaction, and are a key driver of M&A activity;
  • IP rights can be central to value creation following a business separation or spin-off transaction;
  • IP rights can facilitate the formations of JVs for co-development of new technologies, which increase enterprise value;
  • IP rights can be monetized through the sale of all or part of contracted royalty payments associated with particular IP

In turn, IP owners and managers (e.g.  companies, academic and research institutions, and law firms), can leverage these sources of IP value to raise debt and equity capital in several ways, including:

Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. 

IP CREDIT

IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types.  Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund.  Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition.  Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP.

Investment Types

Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited.

Deal Structuring

The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections.

The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:

  • Delayed draw funding schedules and performance-based milestone provisions
  • Events of default / material adverse event scenarios
  • Minimum cash / treasury requirements
  • Prepayment protection (make-wholes, yield maintenance, non-call provisions)
  • Structural and / or contractual seniority over IP or other assets
  • Affirmative and negative covenants / financial covenants
  • Warrants or other instruments with equity-like kickers
  • IP-backed securitizations
  • Credit enhancements via IP-related insurance policies

Industry Focus

While the strategy is generally industry agnostic, investments are often placed in IP-intensive industry groups, including technology, life sciences, materials sciences, automotive, semiconductors, telecommunications, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.  The hallmark of foundational IP that may serve as the basis for an IP-focused investment are assets protecting key innovations in a field, which an entrant will need to license to practice the technology.

Investment Team

Managers of IP-focused funds often possess a multidisciplinary IP expertise, with additional expertise in credit or distressed strategies.  Such expertise allows management teams focused on IP-specific strategies to not only appropriately measure risk and value potential, but to appropriately structure such transactions to capture value and mitigate downside.  Management’s IP experience also serves as an advantage when sourcing deals from among counterparties seeking a value-add financial partner with a deep understanding of IP.  In Soryn’s case, for example, co-founders Michael and Phil possess investment, legal and executive experience which allows them to assist counterparties with their legal, operational, and financial strategy planning with the goal of improving the risk-reward profile of the underlying investments.

Deal Sourcing

Because multidisciplinary IP expertise is a prerequisite for managers in the IP space, barriers to entry remain high and competition for deals is less severe than that of other asset classes.  Typical counterparties involve operating companies (both private and public) and universities that own foundational IP or revenue streams associated with such IP, as well as law firms representing such entities.

Use of Proceeds

IP-focused Private Credit transaction proceeds may be used for general business purposes and IP-related expenses or investments.  This is an important distinction between IP Litigation Finance and an IP-focused Private Credit, with the latter allowing for significantly greater flexibility in terms of the use of proceeds.

Insurability

Demonstrating the quantifiable value of intellectual property, the insurance industry has recently introduced products aimed at insuring various aspects of intellectual property.  Such products include:

  • Collateral protection insurance for credit deals where IP serves as the collateral package;
  • Judgement preservation insurance, to insure against an adverse appellate result following an IP owner trial win; and
  • IP litigation insurance, to insure against the associated costs and expenses of being sued for patent infringement.

Not only do such products demonstrate the insurance industry’s growing comfort with IP as an asset class, they also present downside protection scenarios for a variety of IP-centric financings.

In the next part of our 2-part series, we will be applying the theory above into practice by reviewing a case study of two financings by a public entity.

Slingshot Insights

Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways.  It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives.  While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner.

The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come, and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently.

I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future ahead, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile.

As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.

 Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors.

Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets.  Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts.  The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

The following piece was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.