In a move that could reshape both crypto and legal funding markets, Seven Stars Structured Solutions (UK) and PayTech (Dubai) have announced the launch of the world’s first “Real World Staking” bond—an investment vehicle that allows cryptocurrency holders to fund UK litigation assets and earn a fixed 14% annual return.

A press release from Seven Stars Legal details how the offering bridges the $2.3 trillion crypto market and the traditionally conservative litigation finance sector. Issued under a Dubai VARA-regulated framework and processed through licensed VASP GCEX, the bond enables high-net-worth and institutional crypto investors to earn yield from UK legal claims—specifically, the massive discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) claims market following a recent UK Supreme Court ruling.

Unlike conventional DeFi staking models that depend on volatile smart contracts, this new “Real World Staking” concept ties digital assets to real-world legal outcomes. Proceeds fund Seven Stars’ litigation strategies, which have seen over £40 million deployed across 56,000 cases with a reported 90%+ success rate. Investors can receive returns in USDC or GBP and benefit from a three-jurisdiction compliance structure involving Dubai, the UK, and the EU.

This initiative is being billed as a milestone in the institutional adoption of digital assets, offering crypto holders both fixed income potential and exposure to a highly regulated, historically insulated asset class. It also underscores a broader trend of convergence between blockchain technology and traditional finance.

If successful, this model could set a template for future tokenized legal finance products, raising key questions about the role of crypto infrastructure in expanding access to alternative legal assets. Legal funders and institutional investors alike will be watching closely.

The law firm leading one of the UK’s largest-ever class actions is facing a destabilizing internal revolt that could ripple through a landmark case. Pogust Goodhead—fronting a £36 billion claim against BHP tied to the 2015 Mariana dam disaster—has seen senior lawyers depart and staff raise concerns over governance and independence as tensions mount with its principal backer, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in Financial Times reports that the flashpoint follows the abrupt replacement of co-founder Tom Goodhead as CEO and a subsequent $65 million credit top-up from Gramercy, on top of an earlier substantial funding package. According to the FT, at least two senior partners—previously central to marquee matters, including BHP and Dieselgate—have stepped down, while a staff group has challenged transparency around funder involvement. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is said to be monitoring events as BHP’s counsel queries whether the firm can stay the course. Pogust’s chair rejects any suggestion of external control, insisting the firm remains independently managed and committed to clients.

For litigation finance observers, the story lands at the intersection of capital intensity, governance, and case continuity. Large, multi-year collective actions carry heavy, lumpy spend profiles and complex funder covenants; when leadership flux and fresh capital coincide mid-stream, questions naturally arise about strategic autonomy, settlement posture, and reputational risk.

If the rift deepens, the implications extend beyond a single case: market confidence in high-leverage portfolio strategies could be tested, and counterparties may push harder on disclosure or consent terms. The episode will likely fuel ongoing debates over funder influence and the safeguards needed when billions—and access to justice—are on the line.

Fresh on the heels of Siltstone's announcement of a trade secrets lawsuit against former GC Mani Walia, another funder-versus-insider fight has broken out - this time in Nevada federal court, where Archetype Capital Partners alleges that its former co-founder orchestrated a “lift-out” of confidential risk models and deal intelligence to seed a rival venture.

Reuters reports that the $100 million complaint names Andrew Schneider and Georgia-based Bullock Legal Group, claiming they misappropriated Archetype’s proprietary underwriting, pipelines and client data tied to the firm’s mass-tort thesis—including lawsuits targeting alleged videogame-addiction harms. The suit also points to nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations Archetype says were ignored, with knock-on damages measured in lost opportunities and diverted investors.

Defendants have not yet responded publicly. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (No. 2:25-cv-01686), the case frames a familiar narrative as litigation finance matures: the more funders professionalize and productize origination and risk analytics, the more those intangible assets look like trade secrets worth fighting over. Archetype says its internal marketing strategies, investment criteria and pricing models were lifted to help secure outside capital and counterparties for a competing platform.

Expect more of this as fundraising cycles lengthen and origination competition intensifies. Litigation finance is inheriting private-equity-style playbooks on noncompetes, clawbacks and trade-secret enforcement. The sector could soon see a wave of policy upgrades—employee handbooks, offboarding policies, and standardized NDAs—that add friction in the near term but reduce leakage risk and protect valuation over time.

Litigation funder Nera Capital has announced a major milestone, revealing its portfolio’s expected realisation value (ERV) has now exceeded $1 billion—a figure that reflects both realised and anticipated returns net of investor repayments. The Dublin-based firm, which also maintains offices in Manchester, the Netherlands, and the United States, says this landmark demonstrates its rapid growth and underlines its place among the leading players in the litigation finance space.

A press release from Nera Capital notes that this surge in ERV comes just months after Nera crossed $100 million in cumulative investor repayments. That figure is now expected to top $150 million this quarter. The firm credits its success to a disciplined approach to case selection, a tech-enabled risk management strategy, and an emphasis on scalable funding models—particularly in the realms of financial mis-selling, cartel damages, and mass consumer redress.

ERV, a key industry metric, estimates the net value funders expect to realise after satisfying investor obligations. For Nera, surpassing $1 billion in ERV underscores its capacity to manage high-volume, high-impact litigation with robust financial discipline. “This milestone isn’t just about numbers—it validates our model and our mission,” said co-founder and director Aisling Byrne.

The firm’s trajectory has been marked by strategic expansion, including a $75 million new fund, increased institutional support, and the appointment of seasoned finance lawyer James Benson as General Counsel. Nera also reiterated its commitment to supporting claims with measurable damages, strong merits, and potential for positive societal impact.

A funder-versus-insider fight has erupted in Texas, where Siltstone Capital alleges its former general counsel Manmeet Walia secretly formed a rival vehicle and siphoned opportunities using Siltstone’s confidential materials. The complaint names a would-be investor, Hazoor Select LP, and a new venture, Signal Peak Partners, as pieces of the purported plan.

According to Bloomberg Law, Siltstone contends that Walia set up the competing effort while still employed, diverting deals and leveraging trade secrets. Details on damages and requested relief weren’t immediately available, but the fact pattern reads like a classic private-capital dust-up: restrictive covenants, fiduciary duties, and the hard-to-quantify value of a nascent pipeline in a niche asset class.

The case spotlights the growing institutionalization of litigation finance: the closer the industry looks to mainstream private credit or PE, the more it inherits their playbook of non-competes, IP enforcement, and investor-relations friction.

A decisive ruling could nudge funders toward more standardized employment covenants and trade-secret protocols—especially around deal pipelines and model IP—potentially raising operating costs but lowering leakage risk across the sector.

Burford Capital has taken a strategic step further into firm-side infrastructure, investing in Kindleworth—the operations partner behind a wave of high-performing specialist law firms—in a bid to accelerate launches and scale boutique platforms.

A press release in PR Newswire reports that Kindleworth has helped bring more than 50 firms and offices to market globally, supporting over 1,000 lawyers across strategy, compliance, finance, technology and BD/marketing. The investment is pitched as fuel for “next-generation” firms: elite, focused teams that prefer an outsourced, non-legal backbone to preserve partner time for client work. Recent Kindleworth-supported names include Three Crowns LLP, Northridge Law and Pallas Partners—case studies for how a fit-for-purpose MSO model can enable premium work without BigLaw overhead.

For Burford, the move underscores its foray into law-firm operations, where capital can unlock growth in tech, talent, and pricing innovation without touching the practice of law. It also dovetails with the industry’s growing interest in MSO structures that separate ownership of back-office functions from lawyer-owned entities, sidestepping non-lawyer ownership bans while still injecting outside capital into operations.

If early results show faster time-to-launch, healthier margins, and better cost control for boutiques, expect rivals to explore similar partnerships with legal-ops platforms—or to stand up their own. Open questions remain around governance: how information flows between an MSO partner and a funder, how conflicts are policed, and whether ethics regulators will ask for clearer guardrails as more deals close.

Litigation funding may soon be more than a tool for plaintiffs — it’s shaping up to be a cornerstone of growth strategy for tech startups, according to a new thought piece by funder WinJustice.

A recent post on LinkedIn from the firm outlines how litigation funders are expanding their remit to support LegalTech and SaaS companies embroiled in high-stakes litigation over IP, data privacy, and cross-border regulatory issues. As these companies scale, legal exposure often rises faster than revenue, making litigation finance not just a defensive tool, but a growth enabler.

For early- and growth-stage tech firms, litigation costs can cripple cash flow and deter investment. WinJustice argues that non-recourse funding allows companies to protect IP and contractual rights without diverting resources from R&D or expansion. By absorbing litigation costs — and recovering only on success — funders offer startups a financial shield that levels the playing field against larger adversaries.

The piece also explores how LegalTech platforms are feeding value back into the funding ecosystem. AI tools now assist funders with diligence, risk modeling, and portfolio management, creating what WinJustice calls a “two-way synergy” between finance and technology. The UAE, with its dual ecosystems in litigation funding (DIFC and ADGM) and tech innovation, is spotlighted as an ideal hub for this convergence.

The strategic implications stretch across stakeholders: founders get breathing room, legal departments shift from cost centers to value creators, and funders broaden their pipeline while enhancing operational efficiency. As litigation funding migrates from courtrooms to cap tables, WinJustice paints a future where disputes are assets, not liabilities.

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) has set a timetable for its next major disclosure, telling the market it will release audited results for the year ended June 30, 2025, on Wednesday, October 1. The notice gives investors and counterparties a clear marker for updates on realizations, fair-value movements, new commitments, and progress across single-case, portfolio, and claims-acquisition strategies. With funding markets steady and secondary activity picking up, attention will focus on monetizations and cash generation as LCM cycles older matters and deploys into new ones.

An announcement on Investegate dated September 8 confirms the reporting date and recaps LCM’s operating model: direct investments from balance sheet capital alongside third-party fund management, pursuing single-matter funding, portfolio structures, and acquisitions of claims. The company notes it derives revenue both from direct investments and from performance fees on managed capital. The notice also reiterates LCM’s international footprint, with headquarters in Sydney and offices in London, Singapore, and Brisbane, reflecting a pipeline that spans common-law jurisdictions and arbitration hubs.

While the update is procedural, the date sets expectations for details on commitments, deployments, and realizations through fiscal 2025—metrics that typically drive NAV, fee accruals, and liquidity for further commitments. Investors will also look for commentary on case duration, provisioning, and any balance-sheet recycling that can support new originations without dilutive capital raises.

Against a backdrop of competitive pricing and increasingly bespoke structures, LCM’s disclosures should offer a read-through on demand for commercial funding and the cadence of exits across core verticals. If realizations and commitments point in the right direction, expect continued momentum in portfolio-level and acquisition strategies as funders lean into capital-efficient growth.

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.

A new white paper commissioned by the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia and conducted by YouGov reveals overwhelming public support for litigation funding and class actions as essential tools for justice and corporate accountability.

According to the white paper, YouGov surveyed a nationally representative sample of 3,311 Australians, uncovering a striking consensus: 69% believe litigation funding helps level the playing field between individuals and powerful corporations, while only 7% disagreed. Similarly, 62% regard class actions funded by third-party funders as critical for holding corporations accountable, compared to just 9% who disagreed.

The data suggests deep-rooted public skepticism toward corporate influence. A staggering 85% of respondents expressed concern about big business’s sway over government decision-making, and 76% believe corporations are held to different standards than the average person. In this context, litigation funding is perceived not only as beneficial but necessary: 73% said pursuing legal action would be more difficult without it—56% calling it “extremely difficult.”

The survey also reveals political implications. Two-thirds of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a Member of Parliament who supports laws restricting class actions, and 70% said they would outright oppose such legislation. Cost remains the largest barrier to legal action, with 84% citing it as a prohibitive factor.

With such widespread support, the findings raise questions about the political and regulatory appetite for curbing litigation funding. Would similar sentiments emerge in the UK or US? The report’s authors suggest expanding the survey to YouGov’s other global markets to test that theory.

The implications for the legal funding sector are significant: despite regulatory headwinds, public sentiment strongly supports the role of funders. The challenge ahead may be less about winning hearts and minds—and more about converting public consensus into informed policy.

LionFish Litigation Finance has officially rebranded as LionFish Capital, marking a strategic pivot toward broader capital solutions and signaling its intent to evolve beyond traditional litigation finance. The London-based funder, acquired by Foresight Group LLP-managed funds in 2023, announced the rebrand alongside a series of senior hires, bolstering its ambition to become a leading provider of structured capital solutions in complex commercial disputes.

A post on LionFish Capital's LinkedIn page outlines the move as a milestone in the company's ongoing expansion, emphasizing its decision to eschew consumer opt-out collective actions in favor of backing meritorious claims by under-resourced victims of commercial misconduct. CEO Tets Ishikawa reiterated the firm’s commitment to transparency and industry best practices, including the continued public availability of standardized funding documents and a bespoke waterfall calculator to enhance cost predictability for claimants.

The rebrand comes with two prominent leadership appointments. Andrew Saker, former CEO of Omni Bridgeway, joins as Strategic Adviser, bringing global operational insight from one of the industry’s largest platforms. Returning to the firm is Neil Rowden as COO, a founding team member whose return underscores LionFish Capital’s focus on internal continuity and operational strength.

Further bolstering its advisory bench, the firm added several seasoned legal professionals with strong defense-side pedigrees, including Paul Abbott (ex-Freshfields), Joanne Keillor (ex-Herbert Smith Freehills), and Matthew Blower (ex-Dorsey & Whitney), among others. Their inclusion aligns with LionFish Capital’s commitment to nuanced, high-caliber dispute finance.

This rebrand and leadership expansion reflect broader industry trends: litigation funders are increasingly diversifying their offerings, sharpening focus on transparency, and investing in senior talent to differentiate themselves in a maturing market.

Fortress Investment Group, through its affiliate CF ESQ Holdco, has acquired a 20% economic interest in Esquire Law, a personal injury firm in Arizona, under the state's alternative business structure (ABS) framework. This marks the first known instance of a major U.S. asset manager entering law-firm ownership via ABS, signaling a widening scope for litigation finance beyond debt financing to direct equity participation in law firms.

An article in Bloomberg notes that Esquire Law, which handles car-accident cases and has recovered over $10 million for clients, maintains majority ownership (80%) through its named partners from Steinger, Greene & Feiner. In recent years, Fortress has committed substantial capital to legal assets—including $6.6 billion in litigation finance and an additional $2.9 billion toward intellectual property ventures—highlighting its prominence in the sector.

Consulting experts, including Lucian Pera of Adams & Reese, suggest that investor appetite for legal services is growing, especially as ABS frameworks offer legal access to outside capital in jurisdictions like Arizona. This approach is consistent with broader industry developments—Burford Capital, for example, is exploring similar paths through both ABS investments and managed services organizations (MSOs).

Fortress’s equity stake via Arizona’s ABS model represents a bold evolution in litigation finance—moving from traditional debt-based funding into direct law-firm ownership. While lauded by the industry, the move raises some important questions in a time of enhanced regulatory scrutiny: Could this model expand to other states or types of legal services? What are the implications for the ethical obligations of lawyers versus investor interests? And how might this trend shape the future relationship between capital and legal practice?

Omni Bridgeway has reported a step-change year, pairing robust investment performance with a balance sheet reset that positions the platform for its next growth phase. The ASX-listed funder highlighted headline income of $651.3 million, a $3.6 billion portfolio (up 29% year over year), and A$5.2 billion in assets under management. Returns were anchored by a 2.5x MOIC across 60 full and partial completions, while operating discipline showed through with a 6.2% reduction in cash opex. Management framed FY25 as both a consolidation of strategy and a proof point for the firm’s fair value marks.

An article in PR Newswire notes the year also brought 52 new investments totaling A$517 million in commitments and A$525.9 million added to fair value. Crucially, Omni executed its Fund 9 transaction with Ares—fully deleveraging and “significantly derisking” the balance sheet—while also validating its model with third-party institutional capital. CEO Raymond van Hulst called FY25 “a positive year with excellent investment returns and a transformative transaction,” adding that the platform is well placed for continued growth.

For a sector navigating evolving regulation and disclosure debates, the numbers matter—but so does capital formation. Omni’s ability to recycle capital, expand AUM and originate across jurisdictions reinforces the durability of legal assets as an alternative class.

Cartiga, a long-standing player in consumer and attorney funding, is heading to the public markets. The company agreed to combine with Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp. 1 in a transaction pegged at $540 million in equity consideration, positioning the platform to scale its data-driven approach to underwriting and portfolio management. Management frames the move as about reach and efficiency: tapping a listed currency, broadening investor access to the asset class, and accelerating inorganic growth.

An article in MarketWatch reports that the proposed business combination would take Cartiga public via Alchemy’s SPAC, with the parties emphasizing how a listing could support growth initiatives and acquisitions. The piece notes the strategic rationale—public-market transparency and capital flexibility—as the platform seeks to deepen its footprint in funding for legal claims and law firms.

While final timing remains subject to customary steps (including the shareholder vote and regulatory filings), the announcement marks one of the most significant U.S. litigation-finance capital-markets events of the year.

Cartiga’s trajectory reflects a broader institutionalization of legal finance: more data, more discipline, and more diversified funding channels. The company’s model—providing non-recourse advances to plaintiffs and working capital to law firms—relies on proprietary analytics and scale to manage risk and returns across cycles. A public listing, if completed, would put Cartiga alongside other listed peers globally and provide investors with another pure-play exposure to the asset class’s uncorrelated return profile.

Private equity (PE) firms often view legal disputes involving portfolio companies as liabilities—not opportunities for value creation. However, in a recent blog post, Omni Bridgeway argues that when properly modeled and leveraged, dispute finance can unlock hidden value throughout a PE investment lifecycle.

An article on Omni Bridgeway’s website explains that dispute finance enables PE firms to convert uncertain legal claims into a probability‑weighted, risk‑adjusted net present value (NPV), which can be used as a powerful negotiating lever in acquisitions. The firm illustrates this with an example: a $10 million litigation claim, after probabilistic weighting, legal cost deductions, and discounting, yields a risk‑adjusted NPV of roughly $3.5 million—highlighting how firms can avoid overpaying for speculative legal value

Once the investment is underway, dispute finance can preserve EBITDA by funding legal costs outside the P&L, since such non‑recourse financing isn’t treated as an SG&A expense or recorded as debt. Omni Bridgeway demonstrates that a $2 million litigation expense can be eliminated from SG&A, boosting EBITDA from, say, $11 million to $13 million.

As dispute finance becomes more accepted in M&A workflows, funders that offer robust valuation frameworks and flexible, non‑recourse instruments may gain a competitive edge. Overall, Omni Bridgeway’s post highlights that monetising legal claims—through non‑recourse capital advances or outright sale to a funder—can free up liquidity for operational initiatives without increasing downside risk.

Express Legal Funding announced it has reached its fifth year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), underscoring a commitment to best practices in an often-polarized pre-settlement space. For a company that brands itself around transparent pricing and consumer education, the ARC imprimatur doubles as a marketing and compliance asset—especially as statehouses revisit disclosure, APR caps and contract clarity.

An announcement in PR Newswire positions the milestone within a “rapidly growing” lawsuit-cash-advance market. While the release is light on metrics, the message tracks with the broader U.S. consumer-funding narrative: pressure from insurers and tort-reform groups on one side; advocates and funders emphasizing access to liquidity and non-recourse safety on the other.

For plaintiff firms, vendor due diligence remains a reputational imperative; for consumers, independent accreditation—however voluntary—can serve as a quick proxy for baseline standards when shopping funding offers. The strategic subtext is clear: as more states contemplate rules around discoverability, disclosures and rate structures, firms that can point to consistent adherence to codes like ARC’s may enjoy smoother law-firm relationships and fewer regulatory headwinds.

With regulatory skirmishes likely to continue at the state level, recurring membership signals (ARC or otherwise) will matter more.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article stated that Express Legal Funding reached its fifth consecutive year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. Express Legal Funding reached its fifth year, but not consecutively. We regret the error.

A new salvo in the UK’s collective actions saga puts third-party funding in the spotlight. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has criticized aspects of mass-consumer practices—specifically around funding and referral fees—raising uncomfortable questions for claimant firms and their financial backers. The latest flashpoint again involves Innsworth, the funder behind the long-running Mastercard litigation brought by class representative Walter Merricks CBE, where wrangling over settlement distribution and funder economics has spilled into public view.

An article in The Times reports that the watchdog sees “poor practices” in parts of the market and notes escalating tensions tied to the £200 million Mastercard settlement—well below the claim’s original £14 billion headline—prompting Innsworth’s threatened action over the deal’s terms. The piece underscores the funding dynamics now woven into virtually every major UK mass claim, from opt-out competition cases to data-privacy suits; the SRA’s framing suggests a harder regulatory edge on fee flows and governance in arrangements that align firms, funders and marketing affiliates.

Beyond the immediate case drama, two structural trends are converging. First, post-PACCAR contract examination has left funders and class reps renegotiating economics and disclosure with tribunals watching closely. Second, political and judicial appetite for “light-touch” oversight (rather than price caps) remains in flux, even as market size and claimant outreach expand.

If the SRA proceeds from cautionary statements to targeted enforcement, firms may re-paper referral arrangements and introduce additional ring-fencing around funder influence to avoid conflicts.