Fortress Investment Group, through its affiliate CF ESQ Holdco, has acquired a 20% economic interest in Esquire Law, a personal injury firm in Arizona, under the state's alternative business structure (ABS) framework. This marks the first known instance of a major U.S. asset manager entering law-firm ownership via ABS, signaling a widening scope for litigation finance beyond debt financing to direct equity participation in law firms.
An article in Bloomberg notes that Esquire Law, which handles car-accident cases and has recovered over $10 million for clients, maintains majority ownership (80%) through its named partners from Steinger, Greene & Feiner. In recent years, Fortress has committed substantial capital to legal assets—including $6.6 billion in litigation finance and an additional $2.9 billion toward intellectual property ventures—highlighting its prominence in the sector.
Consulting experts, including Lucian Pera of Adams & Reese, suggest that investor appetite for legal services is growing, especially as ABS frameworks offer legal access to outside capital in jurisdictions like Arizona. This approach is consistent with broader industry developments—Burford Capital, for example, is exploring similar paths through both ABS investments and managed services organizations (MSOs).
Fortress’s equity stake via Arizona’s ABS model represents a bold evolution in litigation finance—moving from traditional debt-based funding into direct law-firm ownership. While lauded by the industry, the move raises some important questions in a time of enhanced regulatory scrutiny: Could this model expand to other states or types of legal services? What are the implications for the ethical obligations of lawyers versus investor interests? And how might this trend shape the future relationship between capital and legal practice?
Omni Bridgeway has reported a step-change year, pairing robust investment performance with a balance sheet reset that positions the platform for its next growth phase. The ASX-listed funder highlighted headline income of $651.3 million, a $3.6 billion portfolio (up 29% year over year), and A$5.2 billion in assets under management. Returns were anchored by a 2.5x MOIC across 60 full and partial completions, while operating discipline showed through with a 6.2% reduction in cash opex. Management framed FY25 as both a consolidation of strategy and a proof point for the firm’s fair value marks.
An article in PR Newswire notes the year also brought 52 new investments totaling A$517 million in commitments and A$525.9 million added to fair value. Crucially, Omni executed its Fund 9 transaction with Ares—fully deleveraging and “significantly derisking” the balance sheet—while also validating its model with third-party institutional capital. CEO Raymond van Hulst called FY25 “a positive year with excellent investment returns and a transformative transaction,” adding that the platform is well placed for continued growth.
For a sector navigating evolving regulation and disclosure debates, the numbers matter—but so does capital formation. Omni’s ability to recycle capital, expand AUM and originate across jurisdictions reinforces the durability of legal assets as an alternative class.
Apex Litigation Finance has strengthened its leadership team with the appointment of Gabriel Olearnik, a highly experienced litigation funding professional with a global track record in high-value dispute resolution and complex commercial matters.
Over the past five years, Gabriel has originated and reviewed more than 451 litigation funding cases worldwide with an aggregate value exceeding $116 billion, closing deals worth over $700 million. His recent work includes the successful settlement of a high-profile BIT matter as well as executive employment claims in the UK.
Gabriel’s career spans senior roles in UK, US and European litigation funders, where he was instrumental in structuring high-value transactions, securing strategic court orders and conducting multi-jurisdictional investigations. In 2023, he closed a £268 million litigation funding deal in just three weeks, underscoring his ability to deliver results under tight timelines.
Recognised by Lexology as one of only 66 lawyers worldwide to receive the Thought Leaders in Third Party Funding accolade, Gabriel has been involved in matters that have attracted daily media coverage and required innovative dispute strategies. His experience extends to training legal teams, advising on politically sensitive disputes, and executing complex enforcement actions.
“Gabriel brings exceptional global experience, deep sector knowledge, and a proven ability to deliver in high-stakes environments,” said Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance. “His appointment further enhances Apex’s market position and it’s ability to originate, evaluate and fund complex commercial claims for our clients.”
“I am delighted to join Maurice and the team at Apex,” said Gabriel. “Apex’s strong financial backing and their speed of execution make this a natural alignment. I look forward to building on the strong foundation set out by my predecessor, Stephen Allinson, and contributing to the future success of the business.”
Gabriel’s appointment reflects Apex’s ongoing growth in funding small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes and builds on the company’s commitment to delivering fast, fair, and competitive non-recourse litigation funding solutions to claimant’s who may be prohibited from pursuing meritorious cases due to cost and/or financial risk.
Cartiga, a long-standing player in consumer and attorney funding, is heading to the public markets. The company agreed to combine with Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp. 1 in a transaction pegged at $540 million in equity consideration, positioning the platform to scale its data-driven approach to underwriting and portfolio management. Management frames the move as about reach and efficiency: tapping a listed currency, broadening investor access to the asset class, and accelerating inorganic growth.
An article in MarketWatch reports that the proposed business combination would take Cartiga public via Alchemy’s SPAC, with the parties emphasizing how a listing could support growth initiatives and acquisitions. The piece notes the strategic rationale—public-market transparency and capital flexibility—as the platform seeks to deepen its footprint in funding for legal claims and law firms.
While final timing remains subject to customary steps (including the shareholder vote and regulatory filings), the announcement marks one of the most significant U.S. litigation-finance capital-markets events of the year.
Cartiga’s trajectory reflects a broader institutionalization of legal finance: more data, more discipline, and more diversified funding channels. The company’s model—providing non-recourse advances to plaintiffs and working capital to law firms—relies on proprietary analytics and scale to manage risk and returns across cycles. A public listing, if completed, would put Cartiga alongside other listed peers globally and provide investors with another pure-play exposure to the asset class’s uncorrelated return profile.
Private equity (PE) firms often view legal disputes involving portfolio companies as liabilities—not opportunities for value creation. However, in a recent blog post, Omni Bridgeway argues that when properly modeled and leveraged, dispute finance can unlock hidden value throughout a PE investment lifecycle.
An article on Omni Bridgeway’s website explains that dispute finance enables PE firms to convert uncertain legal claims into a probability‑weighted, risk‑adjusted net present value (NPV), which can be used as a powerful negotiating lever in acquisitions. The firm illustrates this with an example: a $10 million litigation claim, after probabilistic weighting, legal cost deductions, and discounting, yields a risk‑adjusted NPV of roughly $3.5 million—highlighting how firms can avoid overpaying for speculative legal value
Once the investment is underway, dispute finance can preserve EBITDA by funding legal costs outside the P&L, since such non‑recourse financing isn’t treated as an SG&A expense or recorded as debt. Omni Bridgeway demonstrates that a $2 million litigation expense can be eliminated from SG&A, boosting EBITDA from, say, $11 million to $13 million.
As dispute finance becomes more accepted in M&A workflows, funders that offer robust valuation frameworks and flexible, non‑recourse instruments may gain a competitive edge. Overall, Omni Bridgeway’s post highlights that monetising legal claims—through non‑recourse capital advances or outright sale to a funder—can free up liquidity for operational initiatives without increasing downside risk.
When people talk about third party litigation financing, they often lump everything into one bucket—as if every type of funding that touches the legal system is essentially the same. But that’s a misconception. The world of legal finance is much more varied, and each type serves a distinct role for a distinct audience.
A good way to understand the differences is to step away from the courtroom and into the world of music. Think of Consumer Legal Funding as a rock band, Commercial Litigation Financing as a symphony orchestra, and Attorney Portfolio Financing as a gospel choir.
All three make music—they all provide funding connected to the legal system—but they produce very different sounds, are organized differently, and serve different purposes. Let’s explore these three “musical groups” of legal funding to understand how they work, why they exist, and what separates them.
Consumer Legal Funding: The Rock Band
Immediate, Personal, and Audience-Driven
A rock band connects directly with its fans. The music is raw, emotional, and often tied to the lived experiences of ordinary people. That’s exactly what Consumer Legal Funding does—it provides individuals with direct financial support while they are waiting for their personal injury cases to resolve.
Most people who seek consumer legal funding have been in a car accident, or experienced some other harm caused by negligence. While their cases work their way through the legal system, they still need to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and support their families. Consumer Legal Funding steps in to help them cover these day-to-day expenses.
Like a rock band that thrives on the energy of a crowd, Consumer Legal Funding is closely tied to the needs of everyday people. It’s not about abstract legal theories or corporate strategy. It’s about giving real people financial breathing room so they can withstand the pressure from insurers who might otherwise push them to settle for less than they deserve.
Flexibility and Accessibility
Just as a rock band doesn’t require a massive concert hall or multimillion-dollar backing, Consumer Legal Funding is accessible on a small, personal scale. A consumer can request a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to cover immediate needs, and repayment is contingent on the case outcome. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing.
This non-recourse structure mirrors the risk of a rock band going on tour—they might make money, or they might not, but the fans are there for the experience. Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding companies take the risk that the case might not succeed, and they may not get their investment back.
Critics and Misconceptions
Rock bands often face criticism for being too loud, too disruptive, or too unconventional compared to “serious” classical music. Consumer Legal Funding gets similar pushback. Critics sometimes argue it encourages frivolous lawsuits or drives up settlement costs. But the reality is the opposite—the funds provided to a consumer doesn’t fund lawsuits; they fund life necessities for individuals already in the legal system.
Consumer Legal Funding’s role is narrow but vital. Like a rock band giving a voice to ordinary people, it empowers individuals who might otherwise be silenced by financial hardship.
Commercial Litigation Financing: The Symphony Orchestra
Complex, Structured, and High-Stakes
Where Consumer Legal Funding is the rock band of the legal funding world, Commercial Litigation Financing is the full symphony orchestra—large, complex, and meticulously coordinated.
Here, the players are not individuals injured in accidents but corporations, investors, and law firms involved in high-value commercial disputes. These cases can involve intellectual property battles, antitrust issues, international contract disputes, or shareholder actions. The stakes often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Like an orchestra, Commercial Litigation Financing is structured and multi-layered. Each section—strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion—must work together under the baton of a conductor. In litigation finance, this “conductor” is the funding company, aligning investors, lawyers, and plaintiffs toward a common goal: seeing the case through to resolution.
Strategic and Long-Term
Orchestras don’t play three-minute songs; they perform long symphonies that require endurance, precision, and careful planning. Similarly, Commercial Litigation Financing is not about immediate cash flow. It’s about supporting a complex legal strategy over years of litigation.
Funds can cover attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and even corporate operations while a case drags on. The financing enables companies to pursue claims they might otherwise abandon because of the sheer cost and duration of litigation.
Audience and Impact
The audience for an orchestra is often more formal, more elite, and more willing to pay for a grand performance. Commercial Litigation Financing likewise serves a specialized, high-stakes audience: multinational corporations, hedge funds, and sophisticated investors. The outcomes affect entire industries and markets, not just individual households.
While a rock band might play in bars or stadiums, an orchestra plays in concert halls before an audience expecting refinement. That’s the difference in scale between Consumer Legal Funding and Commercial Litigation Financing.
Attorney Portfolio Financing: The Gospel Choir
Collective Strength and Community
If Consumer Legal Funding is a rock band and Commercial Litigation Financing is a symphony orchestra, then Attorney Portfolio Financing is a gospel choir. It’s powerful, collective, and rooted in the idea of strength in numbers.
Attorney Portfolio Financing provides capital to law firms by pooling together multiple cases—often personal injury or contingency fee cases—into one financing arrangement. Instead of betting on a single case, the funding spreads across a portfolio, much like the voices of a choir blend to create a unified sound.
Stability and Predictability
A gospel choir doesn’t rely on one soloist to carry the performance. If one voice falters, the rest keep singing. Similarly, portfolio financing reduces risk because the outcome of any one case doesn’t determine the success of the financing. The strength lies in the collective performance of many cases.
This allows law firms to take on more clients, expand their practices, and better withstand the financial ups and downs of litigation. For clients, it means their attorneys have the resources to see their cases through rather than being pressured into quick settlements.
Purpose and Spirit
Gospel choirs aren’t just about music—they’re about inspiration, resilience, and community. Attorney Portfolio Financing carries a similar spirit. It’s designed not only to provide financial stability for law firms but also to empower them to serve clients more effectively.
While the audience for a gospel choir is often the community itself, the “audience” for portfolio financing is law firms and, indirectly, the clients who benefit from better-resourced representation.
Comparing the Three Sounds
To appreciate the differences, let’s put the three side by side:
Type of Funding
Musical Analogy
Audience
Scale
Purpose
Consumer Legal Funding
Rock Band
Individuals waiting for case resolution
Small-scale, personal
Helps consumers cover living expenses while awaiting settlement
Commercial Litigation Financing
Symphony Orchestra
Corporations, investors, large law firms
Large-scale, complex
Funds high-stakes commercial disputes over years
Attorney Portfolio Financing
Gospel Choir
Law firms (and indirectly their clients)
Medium-to-large scale
Provides stability by funding multiple cases at once
Why These Distinctions Matter
Understanding these distinctions isn’t just an academic exercise—it has real implications for policy, regulation, and public perception. Too often, critics conflate Consumer Legal Funding with Commercial Litigation Financing or assume Attorney Portfolio Financing operates the same way as individual case advances.
But regulating a rock band as if it were an orchestra—or treating a gospel choir as if it were a solo act—would miss the point entirely. Each type of legal funding has its own purpose, structure, and audience.
Consumer Legal Funding keeps people afloat in times of crisis.
Commercial Litigation Financing enables corporations to fight complex battles on equal footing.
Attorney Portfolio Financing stabilizes law firms and expands access to justice.
All three are part of the broader “music” of legal finance, but they are distinct genres with distinct contributions.
Conclusion: Harmony Through Diversity
Music would be dull if every performance sounded the same. The same is true for legal finance. A rock band, a symphony orchestra, and a gospel choir all create music, but their sounds, audiences, and purposes differ dramatically.
Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding, Commercial Litigation Financing, and Attorney Portfolio Financing are all forms of legal finance, but each plays a unique role. Recognizing these differences is crucial for policymakers, industry professionals, and the public.
When we appreciate the rock band, the orchestra, and the choir for what they are, we begin to see the full richness of the legal finance “soundtrack.” Together, they form a diverse ecosystem that, when balanced correctly, ensures both individuals and institutions can pursue justice without being silenced by financial pressure.
Pollen Street Capital ("Pollen Street") today announces a new senior secured credit facility of up to £50 million to New North Litigation Capital (“New North”). New North is a commercial litigation finance company and a direct subsidiary of Capital Law, a Cardiff based law firm founded in 2006.
Capital Law has a strong track record in commercial litigation, having closed over 400 claimant cases since 2001 with a 95% win rate. Drawing on its senior leadership and experienced disputes team, Capital Law launched New North to address the underserved small to mid-market segment of commercial litigation market.
New North will be the only litigation financier in the UK owned and operated by practicing lawyers, bringing their day to day lived experience of handling mid-market litigation into pricing the risk and the funding investment decisions.
Christopher Nott, Founder and CEO of New North commented: “We are pleased to work with Pollen Street on this financing to launch New North Litigation Capital. The funding supports us to bridge a critical gap by funding claims that are often deemed too small by other players in the market. We are excited to work with the Pollen Street team as we create this new kind of litigation funding.”
Connor Marshall-Mckie, Investment Director at Pollen Street, commented: “New North addresses an important gap in the litigation funding space, focusing on smaller mid-market commercial litigation. With the significant opportunity available and the deep experience of the leadership team from Capital Law we are excited to partner with the team to support their growth.”
About Pollen Street
Pollen Street is a fast-growing and high-performing private capital asset manager. Established in 2013, the firm has built deep capability across the real estate, financial and business services sectors aligned with mega-trends shaping the future of the industry. Pollen Street manages over €7bn AUM across private equity and credit strategies on behalf of investors including leading public and corporate pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, endowments and foundations, asset managers, banks, and family offices from around the world. Pollen Street has a team of over 95 professionals.
Express Legal Funding announced it has reached its fifth year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), underscoring a commitment to best practices in an often-polarized pre-settlement space. For a company that brands itself around transparent pricing and consumer education, the ARC imprimatur doubles as a marketing and compliance asset—especially as statehouses revisit disclosure, APR caps and contract clarity.
An announcement in PR Newswire positions the milestone within a “rapidly growing” lawsuit-cash-advance market. While the release is light on metrics, the message tracks with the broader U.S. consumer-funding narrative: pressure from insurers and tort-reform groups on one side; advocates and funders emphasizing access to liquidity and non-recourse safety on the other.
For plaintiff firms, vendor due diligence remains a reputational imperative; for consumers, independent accreditation—however voluntary—can serve as a quick proxy for baseline standards when shopping funding offers. The strategic subtext is clear: as more states contemplate rules around discoverability, disclosures and rate structures, firms that can point to consistent adherence to codes like ARC’s may enjoy smoother law-firm relationships and fewer regulatory headwinds.
With regulatory skirmishes likely to continue at the state level, recurring membership signals (ARC or otherwise) will matter more.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article stated that Express Legal Funding reached its fifth consecutive year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. Express Legal Funding reached its fifth year, but not consecutively. We regret the error.
A new salvo in the UK’s collective actions saga puts third-party funding in the spotlight. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has criticized aspects of mass-consumer practices—specifically around funding and referral fees—raising uncomfortable questions for claimant firms and their financial backers. The latest flashpoint again involves Innsworth, the funder behind the long-running Mastercard litigation brought by class representative Walter Merricks CBE, where wrangling over settlement distribution and funder economics has spilled into public view.
An article in The Times reports that the watchdog sees “poor practices” in parts of the market and notes escalating tensions tied to the £200 million Mastercard settlement—well below the claim’s original £14 billion headline—prompting Innsworth’s threatened action over the deal’s terms. The piece underscores the funding dynamics now woven into virtually every major UK mass claim, from opt-out competition cases to data-privacy suits; the SRA’s framing suggests a harder regulatory edge on fee flows and governance in arrangements that align firms, funders and marketing affiliates.
Beyond the immediate case drama, two structural trends are converging. First, post-PACCAR contract examination has left funders and class reps renegotiating economics and disclosure with tribunals watching closely. Second, political and judicial appetite for “light-touch” oversight (rather than price caps) remains in flux, even as market size and claimant outreach expand.
If the SRA proceeds from cautionary statements to targeted enforcement, firms may re-paper referral arrangements and introduce additional ring-fencing around funder influence to avoid conflicts.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
