Burford Capital’s proposal to take minority, non-controlling stakes in U.S. law firms via management services organization (MSO) structures has sparked a fresh round of debate over investor involvement in legal practice. The funder frames the plan as a way to provide growth capital while remaining a passive owner outside the practice of law. Critics counter that any move toward outside ownership, even indirectly through MSOs, risks putting investor preferences ahead of client interests and could entangle firms in thorny ethics issues across multiple jurisdictions.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that Burford Chief Development Officer Travis Lenkner said the firm is “pursuing strategic minority investments” and would be a passive investor. The piece canvasses pushback from the Florida Justice Reform Institute and outlines the patchwork of state rules: most jurisdictions still bar nonlawyer ownership; Arizona allows it directly; and a recent Texas ethics opinion signaled that well-structured MSOs can be permissible if they don’t engage in the practice of law or share fees.

Insurance Journal also notes the broader political and regulatory context—more states moving toward disclosure or licensing of funders—while highlighting unresolved questions about how courts and bars might treat MSO-based ownership in practice.

For funders, the proposal—if accepted by regulators and clients—could represent a new pipeline to origination and data, deeper relationships with firms, and adjacencies to traditional case funding. For firms, it dangles capital for tech, talent, and operations without ceding control of fee streams. The near-term test is whether any first-mover deals clear ethics review and demonstrate independence in substance, not just form. If they do, expect a competitive race among funders and private capital to define the template. If not, this episode may reinforce the status quo—and accelerate states’ efforts to spell out guardrails for third-party finance and law-firm ownership models.

Law firms across England and Wales are experiencing a rare reprieve in professional indemnity insurance (PII) costs, with a wave of new market entrants and increased capacity pushing premiums downward for the first time in years.

An article in the Law Gazette reports that firms of all sizes have seen rate reductions—most notably larger firms, where primary layer premiums have dropped by 5%–10%. Mid-sized firms are also benefiting, with typical decreases of 2%–5%, while smaller firms face a more uneven landscape. Brokers attribute the softening market to heightened competition among insurers and a lack of the anticipated post-Covid surge in claims, particularly in conveyancing.

Yet insurers remain cautious. The severity of claims is on the rise, with 20% now pleading losses above £3 million, per Lockton data. Notably, litigation funders are increasingly cited as a key contributor to this trend. Funders’ financial backing, or “war chests,” allow claims to proceed further than before, raising concerns for insurers and heightening law firm liability. Administrators and funders alike are probing legal advice as part of post-insolvency investigations, bringing a new wave of high-value, third-party claims.

In response, insurers are urging firms to reassess their risk profile, invest in excess coverage, and present stronger underwriting narratives. Brokers also report growing interest in regulatory defense cover, as SRA-related claims become more frequent.

Meanwhile, cyber risk and artificial intelligence loom large. Despite rising ransomware attacks and a 77% spike in cyber threats, only 28% of firms carry standalone cyber policies. Insurers are urging firms to adopt multi-factor authentication, conduct risk assessments, and develop AI usage policies to mitigate exposure.

A new third-party funder has joined Australia’s increasingly competitive class actions market. Ninety Mile Capital, founded in Melbourne by former Therium executives Simon Dluzniak and Louise Hird, will focus on financial services, consumer and environmental claims domestically, while also eyeing opportunities in Singapore-seated arbitration. The launch comes amid continuing portfolio realignments among global funders and sustained claimant appetite for vehicles that can shoulder the cost and risk of complex, multi-year disputes.

An article in CDR News notes that Dluzniak will serve as director and Hird as chief investment officer, following their departures from Therium earlier this year. Their new vehicle signals a back-to-basics thesis in Australia: target well-defined class cohorts and regulatory-driven harms in financial services and consumer protection, where causation and damages models are increasingly standardized and courts are familiar with funded proceedings.

For practitioners and claimants, Ninety Mile Capital’s arrival could widen the field of potential terms on offer. Competition among funders has already tightened pricing and diversified structures; from single-matter to portfolio and even hybrid credit facilities. A new entrant with local experience may also accelerate filings in environmental claims, where granular scientific evidence and regulatory interplay often demand both capital and patience. The international dimension—scouting Singapore—underscores how funders with Australian DNA are increasingly structuring for regional reach, syndication options and enforcement pathways beyond a single jurisdiction.

If Ninety Mile Capital executes on its targeted strategy, expect incremental pressure on incumbents in Australia and more cross-forum coordination with Singapore. The bigger question for the industry: does this signal a new wave of specialist boutiques spinning out of legacy platforms?

Litigation finance has become an increasingly utilized tool to support valuable claims in financially distressed bankruptcies. However, a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas—voiding a $2.3 million litigation funding agreement between a liquidating trustee and a funder—has reignited scrutiny over how these arrangements are structured and approved.

An article on McDonald Hopkins's website emphasizes best practices in the wake of that ruling, urging parties to proactively ensure enforceability of funding agreements. Even when plan documents appear to authorize litigation funding, it’s strongly recommended that parties secure explicit approval from the bankruptcy court. Such approval enhances certainty, mitigates future challenges, and solidifies the funder's standing against all estate stakeholders.

Key recommendations from the advisory include:

• Prepare for judicial and stakeholder scrutiny. Courts are likely to closely examine the economics and procedural fairness of funding agreements. Demonstrating that terms are fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the estate and creditors is essential.
• Review existing agreements carefully. Funders and trustees should verify that their authority is clearly established in underlying plan or trust documents and confirm whether the arrangement has been properly disclosed and court‑approved. If not, consider options like negotiating revised terms or seeking court ratification.
• Maintain transparency and documentation. Keep detailed records of communications, payments, and disclosures. Monitor developments in the case for challenges to funding arrangements.
• Engage experienced bankruptcy counsel. Legal guidance is critical to respond to objections and navigate the nuanced landscape of litigation finance in reorganization contexts.

This ruling serves as a clear reminder: litigation funding in bankruptcy requires far more than a signed agreement—it demands judicial scrutiny and explicit approval. Stakeholders must prioritize transparency, heavy documentation, and procedural integrity to ensure arrangements are respected.

A new salvo has been fired in the debate over transparency in litigation finance. Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) has submitted a comment letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules exposing what it says are extensive control provisions in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) contracts—contradicting funders’ public assertions of passivity.

A press release from Lawyers for Civil Justice highlights excerpts from nearly a dozen funding agreements, including contracts involving Burford Capital, that purportedly grant funders authority to select counsel, approve or reject settlements, and even continue litigation after the plaintiff exits the case. These “zombie litigation” provisions, LCJ argues, represent de facto control by financiers—despite repeated funder claims that they do not direct litigation strategy.

At stake is a proposed federal rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding agreements in civil cases. LCJ’s letter offers ammunition to supporters of mandatory disclosure, citing examples such as a Burford-Sysco agreement that bars settlement without funder consent, and an International Litigation Partners contract that allows the funder to issue binding instructions to attorneys. In one instance, a funder retained the right to continue litigation in its own name even after the plaintiff had withdrawn—raising red flags over who actually drives case outcomes.

Funders have long argued they are “passive investors” and do not “control legal assets.” But the LCJ analysis directly challenges these claims, suggesting a significant gap between public narrative and contractual reality.

If adopted, a federal disclosure rule would mark a seismic shift in how courts assess conflicts of interest and strategic control in funded litigation. For the legal funding industry, the debate underscores a pivotal question: can funders claim passivity while retaining the contractual tools of influence?

Editor's Note: A previous version of this article referenced Fortress in LCJ's letter. Fortress is only referenced in a single footnote, with no contracts or specific cases mentioned. We regret the error.

Initial reactions from major US law firms suggest that Burford Capital’s push to invest in firm-side operations via managed services organizations (MSOs) will be a tougher sell than the funder’s splashy rollout implied. While the model aims to channel outside capital into back-office functions like billing, HR, and tech — leaving the lawyer-owned entity to practice law — several BigLaw leaders question the need for new money and the wisdom of ceding any control to non-lawyer investors, however indirectly.

Bloomberg Law reports that Burford, which has deployed roughly $11 billion in traditional litigation finance since 2009, is courting select US firms with minority-stake proposals modeled on structures common in healthcare and accountancy. Hogan Lovells CEO Miguel Zaldivar flagged cultural and control concerns, while other leaders said partner capital and bank lending already cover priorities — including AI investments — without the governance trade-offs an MSO may entail.

Burford’s chief development officer, Travis Lenkner, countered that MSOs would be passive, contract-bound investors and could “unlock” equity value and free cash flow for tech, laterals, or even acquisitions. Notably, US megafirms have not publicly embraced the idea; investor appetite may skew toward boutiques and mid-sized firms, where a $25 million Catalex Network fund is already targeting MSO-style plays.

For litigation finance, the stakes are high. If MSOs catch on, funders could extend beyond case-by-case or portfolio deals into durable, annuity-like firm relationships that complement core financing. If BigLaw continues to demur — citing Model Rule 5.4 sensitivities and “who’s in charge” worries — the immediate opportunity could migrate to smaller platforms or remain centered in more permissive jurisdictions (e.g., the UK), where Burford previously took a 32% stake in PCB Litigation. Either way, today’s pushback underscores a growing question: will US law-firm ownership rules evolve fast enough for funders’ equity ambitions to move from pitch deck to practice?

The legal and financial pressures bearing down on 777 Partners have sharpened. A Delaware Chancery decision—unsealed August 18—orders the Miami-based investor and litigation funder into a limited receivership until it satisfies advancement obligations to a former executive. For an investor whose portfolio has spanned sports, aviation, and legal finance, the ruling adds court-supervised urgency to a cash-management dispute, with the magistrate imposing a conditional daily fine and appointing a receiver to enforce payment.

Ch-Aviation reports that the court rejected 777’s financial hardship arguments, finding the firm paid millions in other legal fees while deferring nearly $600,000 owed to the ex-CFO. The receivership, initially set for 59 days, may be extended if obligations remain unmet. LFI subsequently flagged the development for the disputes-finance community, noting the order’s narrow scope, but wider signaling effect for counterparties assessing 777’s liquidity and governance posture.

For funders and law-firm borrowers, the episode underscores the premium investors and counterparties place on governance, disclosure, and cash-flow discipline—especially where cross-sector portfolios complicate risk assessment. Expect heightened diligence on funder balance sheets and inter-affiliate cash flows, and, for funders, a renewed emphasis on ring-fencing legal-asset vehicles from unrelated portfolio stresses.