Litigation funder Burford Capital has secured a notable appellate victory in a long running antitrust dispute tied to allegations of price fixing in the US meat industry. The decision strengthens Burford’s position in a case that has drawn attention for both its financial scale and the broader questions it raises about the role of third party funders in settlement negotiations.

An article in Reuters reports that the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that would have enforced a proposed $50 million settlement between Sysco Corp and poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride. The appellate court concluded that Sysco had not entered into a binding settlement agreement because key terms were still unresolved at the time the offer was purportedly accepted. As a result, the court vacated the settlement and cleared the way for the claims to continue.

Burford had financed Sysco’s antitrust claims since 2019, committing approximately $140 million to support litigation alleging collusion among chicken, beef, and pork producers. When Sysco moved to accept the $50 million settlement offer, Burford objected, arguing the amount dramatically undervalued the claims. The funder sought and obtained a court order blocking the settlement, after which Sysco transferred its rights in the litigation to a Burford affiliate, Carina Ventures. That transfer positioned Burford to directly pursue the claims following the appeal.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge David Hamilton emphasized that the email exchanges cited by Pilgrim’s Pride did not reflect a final agreement. A concurring opinion, however, raised concerns about the degree of influence exercised by litigation funders over settlement decisions, suggesting that funder involvement can complicate negotiations and introduce competing incentives. Burford rejected that characterization, stating that the record did not support claims of undue influence.

A pivotal prosecution witness in the federal criminal case against prominent Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein saw his credibility sharply undermined under cross-examination, raising new questions about the strength of the government’s case and the handling of key evidence.

Bloomberg reports that at the center of the dispute is Walter Deyhle, a former accountant who prepared Goldstein’s tax returns and testified for the government regarding alleged underreporting of gambling winnings. Under questioning from the defense, Deyhle acknowledged that his earlier statements to investigators conflicted with documentary evidence, including a contemporaneous email from Goldstein describing significantly higher gambling income than Deyhle had initially conveyed. The defense emphasized that these discrepancies were material, particularly given the government’s reliance on Deyhle to establish intent and knowledge in its tax-related charges.

The cross-examination also exposed admitted errors in Deyhle’s tax preparation work, further eroding his reliability in the eyes of the jury. Defense counsel argued that these mistakes, combined with incomplete or inaccurate recollections, weakened the foundation of the prosecution’s narrative and cast doubt on whether Goldstein knowingly misled tax authorities.

Compounding matters, the defense accused prosecutors of failing to timely disclose information related to a meeting in which the incriminating email was first presented to Deyhle. The alleged disclosure lapse prompted a dispute over the government’s evidentiary obligations, with the court ordering additional briefing to determine whether any remedial action is warranted.

The proceedings additionally brought attention to testimony from a senior executive at Parabellum Capital, the litigation finance firm that previously provided financial assistance to Goldstein. The testimony offered rare insight into the nature of the funding arrangement, which included support to address tax liabilities and personal financial pressures. While not accused of wrongdoing, the funder’s involvement illustrated how litigation finance can intersect with personal financial distress in high-stakes legal matters.

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.

Red Lion Chambers has taken a notable step in strengthening its engagement with litigation funders and commercial clients by appointing a former senior figure from the funding industry into a newly created client-facing role. The move reflects the increasingly close relationship between the UK Bar and third-party litigation finance, particularly in complex commercial and group actions where funding strategy and legal execution are closely intertwined.

An article in Global Legal Post reports that Red Lion Chambers has appointed James Hartley, formerly a director at Harbour Litigation Funding, as its first director of client relationships. In this newly established position, Hartley will be responsible for developing relationships with solicitors, funders, and other clients, as well as helping to align the chambers’ barristers with funded opportunities across commercial litigation, arbitration, and competition claims.

Hartley brings several years of experience from the funding side of the market, having worked at Harbour Litigation Funding where he was involved in evaluating claims, structuring funding arrangements, and working closely with law firms and counsel on strategy. His move to Red Lion Chambers underscores the value chambers are placing on individuals who understand both the legal and financial dynamics of funded disputes, as well as the commercial drivers behind claim selection and case management.

According to the report, Red Lion Chambers sees the appointment as part of a broader effort to modernise how barristers’ chambers engage with the market, particularly as clients and funders increasingly expect a more coordinated and commercially aware approach from counsel. The role is intended to complement, rather than replace, the traditional clerking function, with a specific focus on strategic relationships and long-term growth areas.

A new lawsuit has placed litigation funder Longford Capital Corp and prominent US trial firm Susman Godfrey LLP at the center of a high-stakes dispute over the ownership and allocation of arbitration proceeds, highlighting the growing complexity and occasional friction in funded litigation arrangements. The case stems from a roughly $32 million arbitration award tied to patent litigation recoveries and raises questions about the enforceability of funding agreements, arbitration clauses, and the definition of recoverable proceeds.

An article in Reuters reports that the lawsuit was filed in Texas state court by Arigna, an Ireland-based patent monetization company that previously worked with Susman Godfrey to pursue semiconductor-related patent claims. Arigna alleges that it was improperly forced into arbitration and that the resulting award in favor of Longford was tainted by arbitrator misconduct. According to the complaint, Arigna is seeking to have the arbitration award vacated and to recover approximately $5.5 million in settlement funds currently held in escrow.

The dispute traces back to a funding arrangement entered into after Arigna retained Susman Godfrey to pursue patent enforcement actions. Susman subsequently secured third-party litigation financing from Longford Capital. Tensions emerged over how Longford’s entitlement to proceeds should be calculated, particularly in relation to settlements involving multiple defendants and intellectual property assets that Arigna claims were outside the scope of the original funding deal. An earlier federal court battle over whether the dispute belonged in court or arbitration ultimately resulted in the matter being sent to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in Longford’s favor.

Now, Arigna argues that the arbitration should never have occurred and that Longford and Susman overreached in asserting rights to settlement proceeds. Longford has defended the award as valid and enforceable, while Susman Godfrey is also named as a defendant due to its role in structuring and executing the underlying legal and funding arrangements.

LitFin, the Prague-headquartered litigation financier, has reached a major procedural milestone in one of Europe’s largest coordinated private antitrust actions, backing claims on behalf of more than 1,700 agricultural businesses harmed by a long-running pesticide cartel in Germany. In December 2025, damages claims approaching €250 million, including interest, were formally filed against wholesale distributors of plant protection products found to have engaged in unlawful price-fixing over nearly two decades.

LitFin reports that the claims are grounded in binding findings by Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, which determined that cartel conduct spanned from 1998 to 2015 and covered almost the entire market for plant protection products. That infringement resulted in administrative fines totaling approximately €157 million. Under German and EU competition law, such findings create a strong presumption that purchasers paid unlawful price surcharges during both the cartel period and its after-effects—forming the economic basis of the damages now being pursued by affected farmers.

The lawsuit has been filed by WAGNER LEGAL Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, a Hamburg-based firm specializing in antitrust damages litigation, working in close coordination with the funder. According to LitFin, the claims are supported by a comprehensive economic analysis prepared by competition experts at Charles River Associates, quantifying the alleged overcharges suffered by claimants across the German agricultural sector.

For the agricultural businesses involved, the filing represents more than just a legal step forward. Without third-party funding, coordinating and prosecuting claims of this scale against well-resourced defendants would likely have been impractical. LitFin’s involvement enabled aggregation of claims, risk-sharing, and the deployment of specialist legal and economic expertise across a complex, multi-claimant proceeding.