Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

All Articles

3621 Articles

Burford Capital Hails Senate’s U-Turn on Litigation-Finance Tax

By John Freund |

The world’s largest legal-finance player is breathing a sigh of relief after the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that a proposed 31.8% tax on litigation funding profits must be removed from the Republican tax bill.

PR Newswire carries Burford Capital’s 1 July update confirming that the US Senate stripped a 40.8 percent excise tax on litigation-finance gains from its budget reconciliation bill after the Parliamentarian ruled the provision out of order. While the ruling blocks the tax under current reconciliation rules, lawmakers could still revise and reintroduce it. The reprieve removes a looming earnings drag that had spooked investors across the sector and buys funders time to lobby against similar proposals circulating in the House.

Burford used the same release to trumpet a separate courtroom victory: a New York federal judge ordered Argentina to transfer its 51 percent stake in YPF to court-appointed custodians within 14 days, advancing enforcement of the record-setting $16.1 billion Petersen/Eton Park judgment that Burford bankrolls. Management cautions that appeals will follow but called the turnover order “a positive milestone” in the multi-year campaign to monetize the award.

The dual developments highlight how legislative risk and sovereign-collection risk can swing a funder’s valuation overnight. With the tax threat shelved for now, attention will pivot to whether Argentina complies—and how quickly Burford can convert paper judgment into cash. Expect renewed debates on pricing sovereign-enforcement risk and on whether larger funds with cross-border expertise enjoy an unassailable moat in this niche of the asset class.

Argentina Seeks UK Stay on $16 B YPF Judgment Backed by Burford

By John Freund |

Even as a U.S. court ordered the hand-over of YPF shares, Argentina raced to London’s High Court to stall UK recognition of the same multi-billion award.

An article in Reuters recounts how government counsel told the court that enforcing the U.S. judgment before appellate review would cause no prejudice because “there are no assets here” to seize. The Burford-funded plaintiffs countered that Argentina’s bid is a delay tactic and asked for a £2.0 billion security if any pause is granted, noting interest is compounding at US $2.5 million per day.

The duelling venues highlight Burford’s trans-Atlantic enforcement campaign and the growing strategic sophistication of funders in sovereign disputes. London has become the favoured battleground for enforcing U.S. commercial awards against states, thanks to Section 101 of the 2006 Arbitration Act and the city’s deep asset pool.

For funders, the hearing underscores the need to pursue parallel forums to pressure recalcitrant states—especially when holdings (like YPF shares) sit outside the U.S. A reserved security order could significantly raise Argentina’s cost of delay and signal to other sovereign debtors that London courts will not rubber-stamp tactical pauses. The outcome will be closely watched by hedge funds and litigation financiers eyeing distressed-sovereign opportunities.

Burford Keeps Control in Turkey Price-Fixing Antitrust Battle

By John Freund |

A federal magistrate in Chicago has handed Burford Capital a fresh victory in its effort to monetise Sysco-assigned antitrust claims against the U.S. turkey industry.

An article in Reuters reports that Judge Sunil Harjani rejected arguments from Tyson Foods, Perdue, Hormel and Butterball that Burford’s affiliate, Carina Ventures, lacked standing or offended public policy by pursuing the case despite never purchasing a single drumstick. Harjani’s opinion emphasised that Congress—not the courts—must decide whether third-party funding is permissible and found no evidence Carina or Burford had distorted the litigation. He also brushed aside a Sysco-centric fairness attack, noting that sophisticated businesses are free to structure their claims as they see fit.

The order is the latest twist in Burford’s multiyear protein-price saga. After investing US $140 million to bankroll Sysco’s chicken, pork and turkey cartel suits, the funder clashed with its client over settlement strategy, ultimately receiving the claims by assignment. With chicken and pork fights largely resolved, the turkey docket is now a bell-wether for whether funders can step directly into plaintiffs’ shoes when contracts allow.

For litigation financiers, Harjani’s ruling reinforces that properly drafted assignments can survive policy challenges, even in food-price cases that attract political scrutiny. The decision also undercuts insurer-driven narratives that funding itself inflates “social inflation.”

An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

By John Freund |
Guy Nielson is a litigation lawyer with over 25 years’ experience of private practice and in-house counsel litigation and contentious regulatory experience. For over 7 years, he was Global Joint Head of Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement at HSBC Holdings plc with responsibility for managing the Group’s global exposure to material litigation, regulatory enforcement, and investigations, across the UK, Europe, North America, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific.
Stuart Hills is a finance lawyer with over 25 years’ experience in legal private practice. He was a partner for over 12 years for three major law firms, specialising in private and public acquisition finance, project finance and restructurings. His wealth of experience offers clients unique perspectives on the financing and structuring of a broad range of legal finance solutions.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Guy and Stuart:
With your extensive experience in private practice and in-house counsel, what motivated you to found RiverFleet, and what is your vision for the company's future in the legal finance market?
For the last couple of years, we have been looking into the legal finance industry. It is an exciting market, nascent markets often are, but we have seen it come under increasing attack from various parties.
The industry needs to come together to deal with these threats whilst at the same time advocating for a market regulatory structure that is going to allow for the growth of a world leading litigation finance industry, second to none.
The legal finance market is not without its challenges. It is not the easiest market to analyse. Data is not always forthcoming. As a result, it is not easy for interested investors to enter the market. However, there are investors who are most certainly interested in joining that market, but they need help in doing so.
Our work over the last couple of years also led us to the view that the industry may well be at an inflection point. We believe it is perfectly possible that there will be some funder consolidation. We believe that funds will get increasingly sophisticated in the way they manage their balance sheets. The variety of insurance products has multiplied and, although there have been one or two challenges, we expect that trend to continue.
So we are seeing an industry that is potentially on the edge of massive change. Change brings challenges and it also brings opportunities. With our many years of experience in litigation, finance and investment, we felt that we could offer help and support to all stakeholders in the legal finance market to help navigate that change.
We have aspirations to make a real difference for clients in helping them achieve their goals, and to show thought leadership in a fast-evolving market to help clients navigate some choppy waters.
2. RiverFleet specializes in the global Legal Finance market. What are the key trends you're observing in this market right now?
Political and regulatory scrutiny
The legal finance industry is currently under political and regulatory scrutiny in particular in the UK and the US, which could have significant ramifications for how funders operate in those markets.
The Civil Justice Council has recently published its final report in respect of its review of litigation funding in the UK, making 58 recommendations for a regulatory overhaul. The Tillis proposal is for the US litigation finance sector to face a substantial tax hike on litigation finance profits.
At the heart of the debate is an ethical consideration of the industry’s role in promoting access to justice. Whether in the UK, the industry can really be trusted to provide fair and proportionate outcomes for consumers and what level of regulation is required to best support the market and to protect those that use it. Whether in the US, the preferential tax rates typically reserved for long-term investment income are justified, or whether litigation finance inflates settlement values and prolongs litigation timelines.
We believe we need to dispel any notion that litigation funding is a dirty answer to an access to justice problem and win the argument that what the industry has to offer is a blessing.
We have to win the argument that the legal finance industry offers broader benefits in respect of the financial opportunities and risk solutions it offers to investors, corporates, law firms, and insolvency practitioners to name but a few, and the positive impact it has on the prosperity and growth of the economy.
Secondary transactions
Duration risk continues to be a major issue for funds and their investors. Case investments do not always stick to a simple predictable timeline. Appeals can take time, sometimes a long time, sometimes longer than the fund term we would all ideally want.
Secondary transactions are a key component in offering an option for funds faced with duration risk concerns.
We need to continue to develop a secondary trading market that works for all stakeholders.
Insurance market evolution
The insurance market now offers a multitude of bespoke contingency risk solutions for the legal finance industry, including;
· After the Event Insurance
· Security for costs
· Own fees cover
· Contingency fee insurance
· Cross undertakings in damages
· Judgment enforcement
· Arbitration award default insurance
We would like to think that as the market continues to evolve, the synergy between insurance and legal finance will drive further sophistication and reshaping of litigation funding into a forever more accessible and mainstream financial tool.
We recognise that not all products have been successful, and we recognise that for some the relationship between the insurance industry and the legal finance industry may at times be strained. However, we remain of the view that the adoption of insurance has the potential to significantly reshape the legal finance landscape. Primarily it enhances risk management optionality, meaning that a funder can better shape the risk profile of a transaction that best suits its investor base.
Working together, the insurance industry and the legal finance industry will continue to drive product innovation, providing bespoke solutions to specific events standing in the way of a transaction.
Increased sophistication and innovation
We recognise that this is a broad heading but across the industry we are seeing an exciting increase in the use of legal finance and innovation in the way that funds are being managed.
The legal finance market has experienced significant growth and transformation as businesses and law firms increasingly recognise its value in managing litigation costs and risks and unlocking the value of hidden litigation assets.
By way of an example, we have seen an increase in patent monetisation investments, where funders have worked with companies holding patents to devise creative solutions to improve the value of patent portfolios of claims, negotiate licences with patent users to generate income streams for patent holders, and pursue litigation funding strategies against patent users who are unwilling to enter into licensing agreements.
From a corporate balance sheet perspective, there’s been an increased recognition that legal finance preserves liquidity and unlocks value from legal assets. It enhances financial ratios and supports the efficient allocation of capital. By keeping litigation costs off the balance sheet, it avoids depressing earnings. With damages awards treated as exceptional items (which do not increase earnings), even winning litigation does not enhance a corporate’s set of accounts. Litigation funding of such actions enables businesses to maintain stronger financial positions and focus strategically on their core growth and competitiveness.
We also believe that litigation funds will become increasingly active in the management of their own balance sheets (if they are not doing so already), which is why matters such as secondary transactions, co-investment partners, securitisation and other risk sharing mechanisms will become increasingly common.
RiverFleet's website mentions expertise in litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management. Can you provide an example of how these three areas intersect to provide unique solutions for your clients?
Sometimes these three skills do not intersect, sometimes they do, but they are three essential skills needed in this industry.
The core asset class is litigation. Having specialist litigation underwriting skills in assessing the legal merits of cases, likelihood of settlement, time duration to trial, and enforceability issues make for a good start. PACCAR is also a telling reminder of the importance of understanding the jurisdiction risk posed by legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding the enforceability of litigation funding agreements. Different jurisdictions also take radically different approaches to issues such as disclosure requirements of funding arrangements and conflicts of interest to name but two.
Litigation may be the asset class, but all good deals need more than an understanding of the asset class to be successful. How best to structure a deal given the wide variety of transaction structures available, choosing the most efficient jurisdiction from a regulatory and tax perspective, and negotiating the key financial and commercial aspects make the world of difference.
How to assess and identify the best-in-class funders with proven track records requires investment management expertise and a deep understanding of effective portfolio and risk management. How to assess investment returns, different risks and rewards associated with portfolio type (for example consumer v commercial sectors, equity v debt investments etc.) and different approaches to managing tail risk and liquidity are all essential tools.
So these three skill sets do not always interact, but they are all essential for investors, funders, law firms and claimants alike. Having them under one roof is rare.

Burford Fights Argentina’s YPF Stay Bid in London

By John Freund |

Minority YPF shareholders Petersen Energia and Eton Park, bankrolled by Burford Capital, are chasing a U.S. $17 billion New York judgment against Argentina into the High Court of England and Wales. Buenos Aires has asked the court to halt enforcement while it appeals in the United States, arguing it holds no attachable UK assets and that creditors will suffer no prejudice.

Reuters details the claimants’ response: if a pause is granted, Argentina should post £2 billion security, roughly 10 percent of the outstanding award, to blunt daily interest accrual of about U.S. $2.5 million. The article underscores funders’ growing role in cross-border sovereign enforcement; Burford’s capital has already fueled a decade-long campaign spanning New York, Madrid and now London.

A London-court showdown would illustrate how litigation finance converts paper victories into real money, even against resistant sovereigns. A security order could tighten Argentina’s negotiating window and validate funders’ appetite for high-duration, multinational enforcement plays. Conversely, a lengthy stay with no bond would spotlight the risk that political defendants can still out-wait private capital—raising questions about how funders price sovereign risk going forward.

Jefferies, Oppenheimer Target LA Wildfire Mass-Tort Funding

By John Freund |

The January wildfires that tore through greater Los Angeles have created a litigation wave—and a financing arms race. Plaintiffs’ firms face eight-figure discovery and expert-witness tabs while waiting years for contingency fees, so investment banks are stepping in. Jefferies and Oppenheimer are marketing credit lines and fee-purchase deals that could supply tens of millions of dollars up-front, collateralised by eventual recoveries against Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.

Insurance Journal reports that the two banks are circulating pitch decks boasting wildfire-finance experience from the 2019 PG&E saga and promising annualised returns north of 20 percent. The publication notes that some of the 50-plus steering-committee firms have rebuffed outside cash, wary of settlement pressure, but many acknowledge that high-volume tort work is impossible without external capital. Funders, meanwhile, recognise a rare chance to buy into potentially multibillion-dollar fee streams—even if competition is already pushing pricing below the multiples seen in the PG&E deals.

Whether the influx of Wall Street money boosts access to justice or merely fattens lender margins will shape regulatory debates now brewing in Sacramento and Washington. California ethics rules mandate client disclosure, and a proposed federal excise tax threatens to raise funders’ cost of capital. The Los Angeles fire docket therefore doubles as a stress test: can mass-tort finance thrive under closer scrutiny and thinner spreads, or will rising compliance costs cool what has become one of litigation finance’s hottest niches?

Bitfinex Securities to Tokenise £100m Motor Finance Claims

By John Freund |

Bitfinex Securities is turning to the blockchain to bankroll one of Britain’s next big consumer litigation waves. The exchange’s capital-markets arm has unveiled TITAN2, a £100 million direct listing of tokenised equity that will finance legal actions alleging mis-sold commissions in UK motor-finance deals. Investors who buy the three-year tokens will receive a pro-rata slice of any recoveries secured by the claimant group, giving them both exposure to digital assets and to potentially high-yield litigation proceeds.

An article in City A.M. notes that TITAN2 sits inside a Luxembourg SPV and will fund a UK law firm pursuing claims against merchant bank Close Brothers and South Africa’s Firstrand Bank. The Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether brokers could accept hidden commissions—an appeal of last October’s Court of Appeal decision siding with consumers. Within six weeks of that judgment the Financial Conduct Authority must decide if a formal redress scheme is warranted, putting potential damages into the billions and raising the stakes for funders.

Bitfinex is working with specialist infrastructure provider Ctrl Alt. Because payouts hinge on successful recoveries, the tokens resemble traditional litigation-finance equity rather than fixed-income notes, but with the added liquidity (and volatility) of crypto trading venues.

Tokenisation could lower the cost of capital and widen the investor pool for UK consumer-claim portfolios. Yet volatility, regulatory patchwork and questions around enforceability of on-chain securities could temper enthusiasm. Expect rival funders to watch TITAN2’s uptake closely as they weigh whether crypto rails offer a competitive edge or merely fresh compliance headaches.

Senate Trims Litigation Finance Tax, ILFA Still Objects

By John Freund |

Senate Republicans have softened—but not scrapped—their bid to impose a hefty new levy on litigation funders. The latest draft of Sen. Thom Tillis’s tax-reconciliation package cuts the proposed tax on litigation-finance proceeds to the still onerous 31.8%, down from an eye-watering 40.8% floated earlier this month. Yet other, more punitive features remain, including a bar on offsetting gains with losses and the removal of protections for tax-exempt backers, leaving funders warning that the measure still threatens to “wipe out” a $16 billion industry.

An article in Bloomberg Law notes that the rate tweak is part of a frantic bid by GOP leaders to meet President Trump’s July 4 deadline for passage of the broader budget package.

Industry pushback has been fierce. Paul Kong, executive director of the International Legal Finance Association, said the revision “doesn’t change” the bill’s apparent aim of shuttering third-party funding and “shutting down corporate accountability.” The association, along with major funders and their law-firm partners, has ramped up lobbying in recent weeks, courting swing-state senators and warning that the proposal would chill access-to-justice initiatives by making case financing uneconomical. The provision first surfaced in a standalone Tillis bill in May, pitched as a transparency measure, before being folded into the fast-moving reconciliation vehicle unveiled on June 4

Even at a reduced 31.8%, the tax could erode margins on diversified litigation portfolios, particularly if Congress refuses loss offsets. If the clause survives the July 4 vote, expect funders to accelerate efforts to domicile investments offshore, securitize portfolios to spread risk, or pursue lower-profile growth markets overseas.

Omni Bridgeway Tops 2025 Chambers Rankings

Global funder Omni Bridgeway has notched the highest number of Band 1 recognitions worldwide in Chambers and Partners’ freshly released 2025 Litigation Support Guide.

A Mondaq press release details how the Sydney-listed financier swept the board across North America, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia, Canada and Latin America, while also taking top global slots for international arbitration, asset tracing, and recovery. The guide also singled out a dozen Omni executives—among them Canada’s PJ Bouchard and IP specialist Sarah Tsou—for individual accolades, reinforcing the depth of the firm’s bench.

Chambers’ research hinges on extensive client and peer interviews, making repeat Band 1 status a rigorous endorsement of Omni’s investment track record and client service. The firm’s geographic breadth—24 offices on five continents—has been a differentiator, enabling cross-border portfolio solutions that smaller rivals struggle to match. CEO Andrew Saker credited the “skills-plus-capital model” and doubled-down on Omni’s pledge to stay a 20 % co-investor in its core funds, keeping skin in the game alongside LPs.

Another global funder, Deminor, was awarded a Band 1 rating in Europe, whilst also notching a fresh Band 2 placement for Southeast Asia and Band 4 debut in the UK, alongside a Band 2 nod for international arbitration—a strategic triad that mirrors the firm’s recent office launches in Hong Kong, London and Stockholm. CEO Erik Bomans called the multi-jurisdictional sweep a “defining moment,” highlighting Deminor’s 77.8 % recovery rate across 23 jurisdictions.

The full Chambers and Partners ratings can be found here.