A unanimous Court of Appeal has delivered Britain’s litigation-funding industry its most decisive post-PACCAR victory to date, green-lighting the revised financing agreements that underpin multibillion-pound collective actions against Apple, Sony, Visa and Mastercard.

Legal Futures reports that the court rejected arguments claiming a damages cap turns a multiple-based LFA into an illegal damages-based agreement. Writing for the court, Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux held that such caps merely shield class members from excessive returns and do not offend section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act. The judgment restores commercial certainty after the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR decision invalidated percentage-based LFAs and froze dozens of collective actions. Four Competition Appeal Tribunal claims—covering interchange-fee suits and consumer-electronics overcharge allegations—had been stayed pending clarity; they are now expected to restart swiftly.

Practically, the ruling affirms the post-PACCAR template most funders adopted: a defined-multiple return with a protective ceiling expressed as a share of recoveries. Claimant firms may revisit stalled cases once deemed unfundable, while policymakers can pause calls for emergency legislation.

Corporate general counsel are increasingly treating litigation finance as a mainstream treasury tool. A new commentary from Abu Dhabi–based funder WinJustice frames third-party capital as a way to convert disputes from cost centres into balance-sheet assets, letting companies pursue high-value claims without raiding R&D budgets or elevating cost-of-capital pressures

An article on LinkedIn sets out six drivers behind that shift. First is financial efficiency: shifting fees and adverse-cost exposure off-balance sheet insulates earnings from litigation volatility. Second, freed-up cash can be redeployed to core business lines, while funder backing materially strengthens settlement leverage. Third-party diligence and industry specialists sharpen strategy, and predictable accounting keeps shareholders and analysts on-side.

Funding also revives meritorious matters that once languished for lack of budget, the piece notes, letting departments engage top-flight counsel, survive discovery battles and finance costly enforcement campaigns. Collectively, these advantages reframe contentious work as a managed investment—an approach that dovetails with the data-driven, ROI-oriented ethos now spreading through corporate legal ops.

WinJustice positions itself as the MENA region’s leading provider of such capital. Operating from the Abu Dhabi Global Market, it offers non-recourse funding for attorney fees, expert witnesses, ADR deposits and post-judgment enforcement, backed by rigorous due diligence that—as the firm puts it—creates “virtuous loops of funding, access to justice and efficient conflict resolution."

Congressional negotiators shocked the legal-funding world by deleting, at the eleventh hour, a punitive tax on litigation-finance proceeds that had sailed through committee only weeks earlier.

An article in Law360 captures the collective sigh of relief: investment managers told the outlet that a 41 percent flat levy “would have erased double-digit IRRs overnight,” freezing new deals and stalling case portfolios mid-stream. Yet relief was tempered by unease. Lobbyists highlighted Biden-era IRS notices that already scrutinize fund structures, warning that future reconciliation cycles could revive similar measures under the banner of closing “loopholes.”

The scuttled clause, championed by Sen. Thom Tillis, aimed squarely at non-recourse funding agreements—lumping them with payday loans despite fundamental differences in risk and consumer exposure. Industry advocacy groups argued the tax would simply throttle access to counsel for under-capitalized plaintiffs, while doing little to curb perceived abuses.

For now, the world’s largest funders are pivoting to opportunity: several managers signaled press outreach emphasizing their role in financing meritorious claims after the Senate’s tacit endorsement. But as White House and Senate drafters restart budget talks this autumn, funders may find themselves again in fiscal cross-hairs—prompting fresh advocacy campaigns around transparency, consumer protection, and economic impact.

As Southern California tallies the ruinous cost of this year’s Eaton and Palisades fires, Wall Street’s appetite for mass-tort risk is blazing. Bloomberg reporters tell Carrier Management that investment bank Jefferies Financial Group and rival Oppenheimer are courting plaintiffs’ firms with eight-figure credit lines to bankroll suits against Edison International and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.

An article in Carrier Management details solicitation emails in which brokers tout double-digit interest returns for lenders willing to absorb the high-stakes cost of expert testimony, aerial burn-mapping, and client acquisition. Litigation finance specialists already active in mass torts are circling as well, drawn to damages estimates topping $10 billion.

The report quotes Wake Forest law professor Samir Parikh, who calls wildfire finance litigation “the next evolution” of an industry that has made headlines backing opioids and talc claims. For funders, California wildfires offer scale, sympathetic plaintiffs and publicly traded utilities with insurance towers. Yet the capital churn also revives criticism from insurers that contend aggressive financing fuels social inflation. Skyward Specialty’s CEO recently vowed to shun counterparties dabbling in TPLF—a stance that could spread if wildfire verdicts balloon.

Whether Jefferies-style syndications become mainstream will hinge on judicial management of mass-tort inventories and on potential legislative moves to mandate financing disclosures in state courts. Either way, the embers of this year’s fires may ignite a new, high-profile proving ground for Wall Street’s legal-asset ambitions.

Canadian miner Lupaka Gold has landed the sort of out-of-the-blue windfall that keeps arbitration funders in business. An ICSID tribunal has ordered the Republic of Peru to pay the TSX-V-listed junior roughly $65 million—the full compensation Lupaka sought over the 2018 shuttering of its Invicta gold project, plus costs and compound interest dating back nearly six years.

A press release in GlobeNewswire states that Lupaka will not be the first to collect the proceeds. Under its non-recourse financing agreement, the initial distributions flow to Bench Walk Advisors, the New York- and London-based funder that bankrolled the treaty claim and fronted more than US $4 million in arbitration costs. Only after Bench Walk is made whole—and receives its agreed return—will the miner’s shareholders see any cash.

The award exemplifies how litigation finance is reshaping investor-state disputes. Bench Walk assumed the risk that Peru might prevail or drag the process out indefinitely; in exchange it now stands to crystalise a sizeable, near-term return once enforcement begins. Lupaka’s management, for its part, concedes that “a few more hoops” remain before Peru’s treasury wires the money, but the tribunal’s merits ruling removes the biggest hurdle.

The case reinforces third-party funding’s strategic utility for smaller resource companies facing sovereign interference—especially in Latin America’s mining belt, where political risk remains acute. Funders will parse the award’s interest mechanics as a template for quantifying damages over protracted timelines. More broadly, the result helps validate Bench Walk’s aggressive expansion into treaty arbitration and may spur peers to chase similar high-beta opportunities, even as governments and the UN-backed ICSID reform process debate tighter disclosure around funding arrangements.

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.

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.

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.”