Trending Now

All Articles

3833 Articles
Announcements Commercial Deals

Apex Group Ltd Selected to Support Seven Stars Legal Group Ltd’s Pioneering Tokenised Litigation Fund in Dubai

By John Freund |

Apex Group Ltd (“Apex Group”), one of the world's largest fund administration and solutions providers, today announced it has been selected to provide fund administration and digital asset infrastructure for the anticipated Seven Stars Legal Group Ltd (“Seven Stars”) Tokenised Litigation Fund, a pioneering investment vehicle that will combine institutional-grade litigation finance with blockchain technology.

The proposed fund, targeting GBP 50-250 million in commitments with an anticipated first close of GBP 50 million by March 31, 2026, represents a significant innovation in alternative investments. Once launched, the tokenised structure is expected to reduce traditional investment minimums from GBP 1 million to GBP 50,000, making institutional-quality litigation finance accessible to a broader range of qualified investors.

Subject to regulatory approvals and successful fund structuring, Apex Group is positioned to provide comprehensive fund administration services, while its digital asset platform, Apex Digital 3.0 (including Tokeny), would handle the token issuance and management infrastructure. This dual capability positions Apex Group as the sole provider managing both traditional fund administration and digital asset components under one unified platform.

Upon launch, Seven Stars will act as Investment Manager responsible for portfolio selection and management.

“Our selection to support Seven Stars' innovative fund structure exemplifies our commitment to bridging traditional finance with digital innovation,” said Agnes Mazurek, Global Head of Digital Assets at Apex Group. “By providing both conventional fund administration and tokenisation infrastructure, we're positioned to help fund managers unlock new distribution channels and operational efficiencies while maintaining institutional-grade governance and compliance standards.”

Offering up to a capped 16% annual return backed by diversified UK litigation portfolios, Seven Stars brings significant experience to the venture, having already deployed over GBP 44 million in UK litigation finance and funded more than 56,000 legal claims with a proven track record of performance, together with a team which includes leading Silk, Louis Doyle KC, who sits on the board and Advisory Committee at Seven Stars.

“Apex Group's expertise in both traditional fund administration and digital assets makes them the ideal partner for this groundbreaking initiative,” said Leon Clarance, Chief Strategy Officer at Seven Stars. "Their infrastructure will enable us to deliver the operational efficiency gains of tokenisation while maintaining the rigorous compliance and reporting standards our institutional investors expect.”

Mazurek added: “We are pleased to be supporting Seven Stars in this groundbreaking project. Our mission at Apex Group is to help clients bridge the TradFi and DeFi universes and this project perfectly represents this connectivity.”

Planned Partnership Capabilities

The anticipated partnership would leverage several key Apex Group capabilities:

  • Fund Administration: NAV calculation, investor services, and regulatory reporting 
  • Digital Asset Infrastructure: Token issuance, custody, and lifecycle management via Apex Digital 3.0
  • Regulatory Compliance: Full regulatory oversight and compliance monitoring 
  • Investor Onboarding: Streamlined KYC/AML processes for both traditional and digital investors

The proposed tokenised structure would enable secondary trading after a 6-month lock-in period, providing liquidity options traditionally unavailable in litigation finance funds. Smart contract automation is projected to reduce administrative costs by up to 90%, with anticipated savings passed through to investors.

This announcement follows Apex Group's recent expansion of its digital asset capabilities in the DIFC, positioning the firm as a leader in supporting the convergence of traditional finance and blockchain technology in the Middle East's premier financial hub.

About Apex Group

Apex Group is dedicated to driving positive change in financial services while supporting the growth and ambitions of asset managers, allocators, financial institutions, and family offices. Established in Bermuda in 2003, the Group has continually disrupted the industry through its investment in innovation and talent.

Today, Apex Group sets the pace in fund and asset servicing and stands out for its unique single-source solution and unified cross asset-class platform which supports the entire value chain, harnesses leading innovative technology, and benefits from cross-jurisdictional expertise delivered by a long-standing management team and over 13,000 highly integrated professionals.   

Apex Group leads the industry with a broad and unmatched range of services, including capital raising, business and corporate management, fund and investor administration, portfolio and investment administration, ESG, capital markets and transactions support. These services are tailored to each client and are delivered both at the Group level and via specialist subsidiary brands.

The Apex Foundation, a not-for-profit entity, is the Group’s passionate commitment to empower sustainable change. 

About Seven Stars Legal

Seven Stars Legal is a specialist litigation finance provider focused on high-volume, precedent-based UK consumer claims. Founded by a team with over GBP 380 million in litigation finance experience, the company provides institutional investors with access to uncorrelated, asset-backed returns through secured lending to regulated UK law firms. Seven Stars has funded over 56,000 claims since 2022, maintaining a zero-default track record through its multi-layered security framework and AI-enhanced due diligence processes

Commercial Regulatory Issues

U.S. Bill Seeks to Ban Foreign-Backed Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

U.S. lawmakers are intensifying their efforts to regulate third-party litigation funding, with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introducing the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. This bill mirrors H.R. 2675, which is already progressing through the House, and targets alleged foreign influence in U.S. litigation, particularly from state-owned entities and sovereign wealth funds.

Insurance Journal reports that the proposed legislation would prohibit foreign governments and their affiliated investment arms from financing litigation in U.S. courts. It would also introduce mandatory disclosure requirements, compelling funders to report their arrangements to both the courts and the Department of Justice. Additionally, the bill empowers the DOJ’s National Security Division to review and monitor foreign litigation investments as a matter of national interest.

Supporters of the bill, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), argue that litigation funding sourced from foreign entities presents a tangible threat to national security and economic resilience. APCIA’s senior leadership described it as a “clear and present risk” that could influence legal outcomes and distort the civil justice system.

For the legal funding industry, the implications are significant. If enacted, the law would alter the landscape for funders operating in the U.S. market, especially those reliant on foreign capital. It raises pressing questions about how funders are going to combat this continued assault on the very existence of the industry.

Commercial

A Framework for Measuring Tech ROI in Litigation Finance

This article was contributed by Ankita Mehta, Founder, Lexity.ai - a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

How do litigation funders truly quantify the return on investment from adopting new technologies? It’s the defining question for any CEO, CTO or internal champion. The potential is compelling: for context, according to litigation funders using Lexity’s AI-powered workflows, ROI figures of up to 285% have been reported.

The challenge is that the cost of doing nothing is invisible. Manual processes, analyst burnout, and missed deals rarely appear on a balance sheet — but they quietly erode yield every quarter.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. This article introduces a pragmatic framework for quantifying the true value of adopting technology solutions, replacing ‘low-value’ manual tasks and processes with AI and freeing up human capital to focus on ‘high-value’ activities that drive bottom line results  .

A Pragmatic Framework for Measuring AI ROI

A proper ROI calculation goes beyond simple time savings. It captures two distinct categories:

  1. Direct Cost Savings – what you save
  2. Increased Value Generation – what you gain

The ‘Cost’ Side (What You Save)

This is the most straightforward calculation, focused on eliminating “grunt work” and mitigating errors.

Metric 1: Direct Time Savings — Eliminating Manual Bottlenecks 

Start by auditing a single, high-cost bottleneck. For many funds, this is the Preliminary Case Assessment, a process that often takes two to three days of an expert analyst's time.

The calculation here is straightforward. By multiplying the hours saved per case by the analyst's blended cost and the number of cases reviewed, a fund can reveal a significant hard-dollar saving each month.

Consider a fund reviewing 20 cases per month. If a 2-day manual assessment can be cut to 4 hours using an AI-powered workflow, the fund reallocates hundreds of analyst-hours every month. That time is now moved from low-value data entry to high-value judgment and risk analysis.

Metric 2: Cost of Inconsistent Risk — Reducing Subjectivity 

This metric is more complex but just as critical. How much time is spent fixing inconsistent or error-prone reviews? More importantly, what is the financial impact of a bad deal slipping through screening, or a good deal being rejected because of a rushed, subjective review?

Lexity’s workflows standardise evaluation criteria and accelerate document/data extraction, converting subjective evaluations into consistent, auditable outputs. This reduces rework costs and helps mitigate hidden costs of human error in portfolio selection.

The ‘Benefit’ Side (What You Gain)

This is where the true strategic upside lies. It’s not just about saving time—it’s about reinvesting that time into higher-value activities that grow the fund.

Metric 3: Increased Deal Capacity — Scaling Without Headcount Growth

What if your team could analyze more deals with the same staff? Time saved from automation becomes time reallocated to new higher value opportunities, dramatically increasing the value of human contributions.

One of the funds working with Lexity have reported a 2x to 3x increase in deal review capacity without a corresponding increase in overhead. 

Metric 4: Cost of Capital Drag — Reducing Duration Risk 

Every month a case extends beyond its expected closing, that capital is locked up. It is "dead" capital that could have been redeployed into new, IRR-generating opportunities.

By reducing evaluation bottlenecks and creating more accurate baseline timelines from inception, a disciplined workflow accelerates the entire pipeline. 

This figure can be quantified by considering the amount of capital locked up, the fund's cost of capital, and the length of the delay. This conceptual model turns a vague risk ("duration risk") into a hard number that a fund can actively manage and reduce.

An ROI Model Is Useless Without Adoption

Even the most elegant ROI model is meaningless if the team won't use the solution. This is how expensive technology becomes "shelf-ware."

Successful adoption is not about the technology; it's about the process. It starts by:

  1. Establish Clear Goals and Identify Key Stakeholders: Set measurable goals and a baseline. Identify stakeholders, especially the teams performing the manual tasks- they will be the first to validate efficiency gains.
  2. Targeting "Grunt Work," Not "Judgment": Ask “What repetitive task steals time from real analysis?” The goal is to augment your experts, not replace them.
  3. Starting with One Problem: Don't try to "implement AI." Solve one high-value bottleneck, like Preliminary Case Assessment. Prove the value, then expand. 
  4. Focusing on Process Fit: The right technology enhances your workflow; it doesn’t complicate it.

Conclusion: From Calculation to Confidence

A high ROI isn't a vague projection; it’s what happens when a disciplined process meets intelligent automation.

By starting to measure what truly matters—reallocated hours, deal capacity, and capital drag—fund managers can turn ROI from a spreadsheet abstraction into a tangible, strategic advantage.

By Ankita Mehta Founder, Lexity.ai — a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital’s $35 M Antitrust Funding Claim Deemed Unsecured

By John Freund |

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

Commercial

Manolete Partners PLC Posts Flat H1 as UK Insolvency Funding Opportunity Grows

By John Freund |

The UK‑listed litigation funder Manolete Partners PLC has released its interim financial results for the half‑year ended 30 September 2025, revealing a stable but subdued performance amid an expanding insolvency funding opportunity.

According to the company announcement, total revenue fell to £12.7 million (down 12 % from £14.4 million a year earlier), while realised revenue slipped to £14.0 million (down 7 % from £15.0 million). Operating profit dropped sharply to £0.1 million, compared to £0.7 million in the prior period—though excluding fair value write‑downs tied to the company’s truck‑cartel portfolio, underlying profit stood at £2.0 million.

The business completed 146 cases during the period (up 7 % year‑on‑year) and signed 146 new case investments (up nearly 16 %). Live cases rose to 446 from 413 a year earlier, and the total estimated settlement value of new cases signed in the period was claimed to be 31 % ahead of the prior year. Cash receipts were flat at about £14.5 million, while net debt improved to £10.8 million (down from £11.9 million). The company’s cash balance nearly doubled to £1.1 million.

In its commentary, Manolete emphasises the buoyant UK insolvency backdrop — particularly the rise of Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations and HMRC‑driven petitions — as a tailwind for growth. However, the board notes the first half was impacted by a lower‑than‑average settlement value and a “quiet summer”, though trading picked up in September and October. The firm remains confident of stronger average settlement values and a weighting of realised revenues toward the second half of the year.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

EU Says “No” to New Regulation of Third‑Party Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The European Commission has stepped back from plans to impose EU‑wide regulation on third‑party litigation funding. At the closing of its “Justice for Growth” forum this week, Commissioner Michael McGrath bluntly stated that stakeholders reported “no need to regulate third‑party litigation funding at EU level”. Instead, the Commission will shift focus toward monitoring how the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) is being implemented across member states.

An article in Law 360 notes that the decision comes after a consultative process and stakeholder feedback via the Commission’s high‑level forum, which included representatives from business, consumer interest groups, and member‑state institutions.

Industry reaction was swift and positive. The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) welcomed the announcement, noting that potential new regulation had created “considerable uncertainty for the sector.” ILFA expressed relief that the “talk of the need for new regulation … appears to be closed.”

Nevertheless, the decision comes at a complex moment. Earlier this year, the Commission published a detailed study on mapping third‑party litigation funding in the European Union, which had outlined three options for regulatory intervention: no regulation, light‑touch regulation, or full regulation. While the choice of “no new legislation” appears to align with the industry’s preference, the heightened scrutiny of the RAD’s implementation could signal more targeted oversight of how funders participate in consumer collective redress actions.

Implications for the legal funding industry: With the Commission refraining from new legislation, funders operating across the EU now have greater regulatory clarity, at least for the near term. But the decision also places the spotlight on national implementation of the RAD and raises questions about whether member states might adopt their own regulatory responses instead.

Commercial

WilmerHale Critiques VC-Style Patent Funding for Misaligned Incentives

By John Freund |

In a provocative new white paper, WilmerHale attorneys argue that venture capital–style strategies applied to patent litigation funding are fueling a wave of meritless lawsuits and stifling innovation in the U.S. tech economy.

An article in JD Supra outlines the firm's concerns about how litigation funders increasingly adopt a venture capital mindset when backing large portfolios of patent suits with the expectation that one or two major wins will offset the losses.

The paper contends that this model encourages the pursuit of weak or overbroad claims by non-practicing entities (NPEs), often through shell companies that obscure the funders' identities and incentives. In one example cited, a single defendant was forced to defend against dozens of claims, most of which were later dropped or invalidated, resulting in significant financial and operational burdens.

The authors also raise national security concerns, pointing to the lack of transparency around foreign investors that may leverage U.S. litigation as a strategic tool. In response, WilmerHale recommends mandating up-front disclosure of litigation funders, expanding fee-shifting mechanisms under laws such as 35 U.S.C. § 285, and amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve accountability.

These calls for reform arrive at a moment of increased scrutiny on third-party litigation finance, particularly in the intellectual property space. With transparency and disclosure at the center of WilmerHale’s proposed solutions, the paper adds to a growing chorus of voices calling for more regulatory oversight in the litigation finance ecosystem.

Announcements Commercial

ILFA Welcomes Commissioner McGrath’s Rejection of EU Regulation for Third-Party Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

On 18 November 2025, European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath closed the final meeting of the EU’s High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth with a clear statement that the Commission does not plan new legislation on Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF). 

He added that Forum participants also indicated that there is no need to further regulate third-party litigation funding.

Instead, Commissioner McGrath said the Commission will prioritise monitoring the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) over any new legislative proposals. 

(video from 2.32 here). 

Paul Kong, Executive Director of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), said:  “We’re delighted to see Commissioner McGrath’s clear statement that EU regulation for third-party litigation funding is not planned. This appears to close any talk of the need for new regulation, which was completely without evidence and created considerable uncertainty for the sector.

Over several years, ILFA has consistently made the case that litigation funding plays a critical role in ensuring European businesses and consumers can access justice without financial limitations and are not disadvantaged against larger and financially stronger defendants. New legislation would have choked off the availability of financial support to level the playing field for claimants. 

We will continue to work closely with the Commission to share the experiences of our members on the implementation of the RAD across the EU, ensuring it also works for claimants in consumer group actions facing defendants with deep pockets.”

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com or @ILFA_Official. 

About the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth

European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath launched the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth in March 2025 to bring together legal industry experts to “focus on and discuss together how justice policies can contribute to – and further support – European competitiveness and growth”. The final meeting of the Forum took place on 18 November 2025, in Brussels. 

Commercial

Litigation-Funding Investment Market to Hit USD 53.6B by 2032

By John Freund |

A new report projects that the global litigation-funding investment market will reach approximately USD 53.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 13.84 percent. This robust growth forecast is driven by increasing demand for third-party financing in commercial litigation, arbitration, and high-stakes legal disputes. Investors are seeking exposure to legal-asset strategies as an uncorrelated return stream, while funders are scaling up to handle more complex, higher-value outcomes.

According to the article in Yahoo News, the market’s expansion is fueled by several structural shifts: more claimants are accessing capital through non-traditional financing models, law firms are leaning more on outside capital to manage cost and risk, and funders are expanding their product offerings beyond single-case funding. While the base market size was not specified in the summary, earlier industry data suggests significant growth from previous levels, with the current projection indicating a several-fold increase.

Still, the path forward is not without challenges. Macroeconomic factors, regulatory ambiguity, and constraints within the legal services ecosystem could affect the pace and scale of growth. Funders will need to maintain disciplined underwriting standards and carefully manage portfolio risks—especially as the sector becomes increasingly mainstream and competitive.

For the legal funding industry, this forecast reinforces the asset class's ongoing maturation. It signals a shift toward greater institutionalization and scale, with potential implications for pricing, transparency, and regulatory scrutiny. Whether funders can balance growth with rigor will be central to the market’s trajectory over the coming decade.