Litigation funder Legalist is moving beyond its core offering of case-based finance and launching a new product aimed at helping government contractors manage cash flow. The San Francisco-based firm, which made its name advancing capital to plaintiffs and law firms in exchange for a share of litigation proceeds, is now offering loans backed by government receivables.
An article in Considerable outlines how Legalist’s latest product is designed to serve small and midsize contractors facing long payment delays—often 30 to 120 days—from federal agencies. These businesses frequently struggle to cover payroll, purchase materials, or bid on new work while waiting for disbursements, and traditional lenders are often unwilling to bridge the gap due to regulatory complexities and slow timelines.
Unlike litigation finance, where returns are tied to legal outcomes, these loans are secured by awarded contracts or accounts receivable from government entities. Legalist sees overlap in risk profiling, having already built underwriting systems around uncertain and delayed payouts in the legal space.
For Legalist, the move marks a significant expansion of its alternative credit offerings, applying its expertise in delayed-cashflow environments to a broader market segment. And for the legal funding industry, it signals the potential for funders to diversify their revenue models by repurposing their infrastructure for adjacent verticals. As more players explore government receivables or non-litigation-based financing, the definition of “litigation finance” may continue to evolve.
Litigation funding contracts are usually sealed from public view—but recently disclosed agreements suggest they often grant funders much more power than commonly acknowledged. A batch of nine contracts submitted by Lawyers for Civil Justice, a corporate and defense‑oriented group, to a judicial panel considering a proposed federal rule to mandate disclosure reveals funders in some instances reserve the right to reject settlement offers, choose or even replace counsel, and take over lawsuits entirely.
An article in Reuters explains that one example involves a 2022 contract between Burford Capital and Sysco Corp, in which Sysco is forbidden to accept a settlement without the funder’s written approval. Another case shows a contract with Longford Capital treating a change of counsel as a “Material Adverse Event,” again requiring funder consent. These terms reveal control far beyond the “passive investor” role many funders claim.
Currently, many funders argue that because their agreements do not always alter case control in practice, full disclosure of the contracts is unnecessary. But defenders of transparency say even the potential for control—whether or not exercised—can materially affect litigation outcomes, especially in settlement negotiations.
There is increasing momentum toward mandatory disclosure. Over 100 corporations, including those in tech, pharma, and automotive sectors, have urged the U.S. Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to adopt a rule requiring disclosure of funder identities and control rights. Several states (like Kansas, Louisiana, Indiana, West Virginia) have also put disclosure requirements into law. In Kansas, for instance, courts may review full funding agreements in private, while opposing parties receive more limited disclosures.
Litigation Capital Management has pulled funding from a long-running Australian class action brought by commercial fishers against the state-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation, opting to cut its losses and reset capital allocation. The funder said the case has now settled on terms that provide a full release between the parties and a payment to the defendant toward costs—covered in full by after-the-event insurance—pending court approval in late October.
An announcement on Investegate details that LCM will write off A$30.8 million, equal to its cash invested, and has launched a formal strategic review with Luminis Partners. Management attributed the exit to portfolio discipline following adverse outcomes and noted preparation issues and aspects of expert evidence that, in the company’s view, no longer supported the case theory.
LCM is pursuing two potential recovery avenues: a costs assessment it says could recoup a portion of legal fees paid, and a prospective claim against the original solicitors for alleged breach of contract and negligence. Beyond this case, LCM flagged near-term milestones: an expected judgment within roughly three weeks in a separate UK commercial litigation co-funded alongside Fund I (A$20.6 million LCM capital at stake), and a decision soon on permission to appeal an April 1 arbitration loss.
Full-year FY25 results will be presented on October 1, when management plans to update investors on strategy and portfolio priorities.
Austrian litigation funder Padronus is financing the largest collective action ever filed in the German-speaking world. The case targets Meta’s illegal surveillance practices.
Together with the Austrian Consumer Protection Association (VSV) as claimant, the German law firm Baumeister & Kollegen, and the Austrian law firm Salburg Rechtsanwälte, Padronus has filed collective actions in both Germany and Austria against Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. The lawsuits challenge Meta’s extensive surveillance of the public, which, according to Padronus and VSV, violates European data protection law.
“Meta knows far more about us than we imagine – from our shopping habits and searches for medication to personal struggles. This is made possible by so-called business tools that are deployed across the internet. The U.S. corporation is present on third-party sites even when we are logged out of its platforms or when our browser settings promise privacy. This breaches the GDPR,” explains Richard Eibl, Managing Director of Padronus.
Meta generates revenue by allowing companies to place paid advertisements on Instagram and Facebook. Which ad is shown to which user depends on the user’s interests, identified by Meta’s algorithm based on platform activity and social connections. In addition, Meta has developed tools such as the “Meta Pixel,” embedded on countless third-party websites, including those dealing with sensitive personal matters. The “Conversions API” is integrated directly on web servers, meaning data collection no longer occurs on the user’s device and cannot be detected or disabled, even by technically savvy users. It bypasses cookie restrictions, incognito mode, or VPN usage.
Millions of businesses worldwide use these tools to target consumers and analyze ad effectiveness. “Use of these technologies is now omnipresent and an integral part of daily internet usage. Every user becomes uniquely identifiable to Meta at all times as soon as they browse third-party sites, even if not logged into Facebook or Instagram. Meta learns which pages and subpages are visited, what is clicked, searched, and purchased,” says Eibl. He adds: “This surveillance has gone further than George Orwell anticipated in 1984 – at least his protagonist was aware of the extent of his surveillance.”
While Meta users can configure settings on Instagram and Facebook to prevent the collected data from being used for the delivery of personalized advertising, the data itself is nevertheless already transmitted to Meta from third-party websites prior to obtaining consent to cookies. Meta then, without exception, transfers the data worldwide to third countries, in particular to the United States, where it evaluates the data to an unknown extent and passes it on to third parties such as service providers, external researchers, and authorities.
Numerous German district courts (including Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, Leipzig) and more than 70 other courts have already confirmed Meta’s illegal surveillance in over 700 ongoing individual lawsuits. These first-instance rulings, achieved by lawyers Baumeister & Kollegen, are not yet final. Eibl notes: “The courts have awarded plaintiffs immaterial damages of up to €5,000. If only one in ten of the up to 50 million affected individuals in Germany joins the collective action, the dispute value rises to €25 billion. This is the largest lawsuit ever filed in the German-speaking world.”
Meta’s lack of seriousness about user privacy is well-documented. In 2023, Ireland’s data protection authority fined Meta €1.2 billion for illegal U.S. data transfers. In 2021, Luxembourg imposed a €746 million fine for misuse of user data for advertising. In 2024, Ireland again fined Meta €251 million for a major security breach. In July 2025, a U.S. lawsuit was launched against several Meta executives, demanding $8 billion in damages for systematic violations of an FTC privacy order. Richard Eibl notes: “This case goes to the heart of Meta’s business model. If we succeed, Meta will have to stop this unlawful spying in our countries.”
The new collective action mechanism for qualified entities such as VSV is a novel legal instrument. If successful, the unlawful practice must be ceased, and compensation paid to consumers who have joined the case.
The lawsuit is expected to trigger political tensions with the current protectionist U.S. administration. Only last week, the U.S. President again threatened the EU with new tariffs after the Commission imposed a €2.95 billion fine on Google. “We expect the U.S. government will also try to exert pressure in our case to shield Meta. But European data protection law is not negotiable, and we are certain we will not bow to such pressure,” says Julius Richter, also Managing Director of Padronus.
Consumers in Austria and Germany can now register at meta-klage.de and meta-klage.at to join the collective action without any cost risk. Padronus covers all litigation expenses; only in the event of success will a commission be deducted from the recovered amount.
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.
Over the past decade, insurance companies, tort reform advocates, and certain think tanks have increasingly pointed to “social inflation” as a driving force behind higher insurance premiums and larger jury awards. Let’s be clear “social inflation” is not a formally a defined economic concept; it’s an insurance industry narrative that describes some real legal and cultural trends The term itself is elastic, meant to describe cultural, legal, and economic shifts that allegedly lead to outsized liability costs. Critics have attempted to lump Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) into this category, claiming that it somehow fuels runaway verdicts and higher settlement values.
But such claims are deeply flawed. Consumer Legal Funding is fundamentally distinct from litigation financing or any mechanism that could impact the cost of litigation or influence the size of awards. CLF does not bankroll attorneys, experts, or trial strategies; rather, it provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance to injured individuals so they can pay rent, keep the lights on, and buy groceries while their legal claims move through an often slow and complex justice system.
Consumer Legal Funding has nothing to do with social inflation by exploring the mechanics of CLF, unpacking the definition of social inflation, analyzing the evidence, and dismantling the arguments insurers use to conflate the two.
Understanding Social Inflation
“Social inflation” is a term widely used in the insurance industry but often poorly defined. Broadly, it refers to increases in insurance claims costs beyond what can be explained by general economic inflation. Insurers believe it is due to several factors, including:
Expanding liability concepts – Courts and legislatures allowing broader recovery for damages.
Plaintiff-friendly juries – Larger awards due to shifting attitudes toward corporations and insurers.
Aggressive plaintiff bar strategies – Creative legal theories, demand of damages at high levels.
Erosion of tort reform – Judicial rulings striking down statutory caps or limits.
While these elements may influence claims costs, they have little to do with the day-to-day survival assistance provided through Consumer Legal Funding. CLF is not part of the litigation itself—it is part of the consumer’s household economy.
What Consumer Legal Funding Actually Is
Consumer Legal Funding is a simple, consumer-focused financial product:
Non-recourse funds – The consumer receives a small amount of financial assistance (average $3,000–$5,000) against the potential proceeds of their legal claim. If they lose the case, they have no further obligation.
Restricted use – The funds cannot be used to pay legal fees or litigation costs. They are meant for everyday living expenses such as rent, medical co-pays, utilities, and food.
Separate from litigation – Attorneys remain fully in charge of legal strategy, and courts determine the value of the case without reference to whether a consumer has received CLF.
Statutory protections – In states where CLF is regulated, statutes explicitly prohibit the funds from being used to finance litigation.
In essence, CLF is about financing life, not litigation it ensures that injured consumers are not put into a “forced settlement” simply because they cannot afford to wait for fair compensation.
The False Link Between CLF and Social Inflation
Opponents of CLF often argue that providing consumers with financial breathing room allows them to hold out for larger settlements, thereby inflating claims costs. This narrative is problematic for several reasons:
Settlements are driven by case value, not desperation. Settlement negotiations are based on liability facts, damages evidence, and the likelihood of success at trial. A consumer’s ability to pay rent has no bearing on whether a defendant is legally liable for an injury.
CLF levels the playing field, not tips it. Insurers routinely exploit financial desperation to force low-ball settlements. CLF prevents this imbalance but does not artificially inflate case value, it simply ensures consumers can wait for the fair value of their settlement and not a forced settlement.
No evidence connects CLF to higher verdicts or insurance premiums. Despite repeated assertions, insurers have not produced empirical studies demonstrating that states with regulated CLF experience higher claim costs or premium growth compared to states without it.
Average funding amounts are too small to affect case economics. With fundings averaging just a few thousand dollars, it cannot influence the outcome of the litigation.
Social Inflation Drivers: CLF Isn’t One of Them
To further dismantle the narrative, it is important to examine what is thought to be the drivers of “social inflation” and show where CLF stands in relation.
1. Jury Attitudes and “Nuclear Verdicts”
Juries may award higher damages due to distrust of corporations or outrage over egregious conduct. These cultural and psychological factors are wholly unrelated to whether a consumer had help paying rent while waiting for trial.
2. Expanding Damages Categories
Courts and legislatures increasingly allow recovery for noneconomic damage or broaden definitions of liability. CLF has no influence over judicial doctrine or statutory reform.
3. Litigation Tactics
CLF contracts explicitly bar funding companies from interfering in legal strategy.
By every measure, CLF is not a driver of social inflation but a consumer protection tool.
Evidence From Regulated States
Roughly a dozen states—including Ohio, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont—have enacted statutes regulating Consumer Legal Funding. These states continue to have competitive insurance markets, and there is no evidence of outsized premium growth attributable to CLF.
If CLF were truly a driver of so-called social inflation, one would expect observable differences in these states’ insurance markets compared to others. None exists.
Insurer Motivations for Blaming CLF
Why, then, do insurers persist in linking CLF to social inflation? Several strategic motivations are at play:
Deflection from internal cost drivers. Insurers face rising costs due to investment losses, catastrophic weather events, and corporate overhead. Blaming “social inflation” provides a convenient external scapegoat.
Preservation of settlement leverage. Low-ball settlements save insurers billions annually. CLF disrupts this model by giving consumers the financial means to reject unfair offers.
Regulatory advantage. By conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance, insurers push for broad disclosure and restrictions that would make CLF less accessible, thereby tilting the field back in their favor.
In short, attacks on CLF are less about economics and more about control of the settlement process.
Consumer Stories: The Human Impact
Behind every policy debate are real people. Consider these examples:
Maria, a single mother in Ohio, suffered a serious injury in a car accident. While her case moved through litigation, she was unable to work. A $3,000 funding allowed her to pay rent and avoid eviction. Her case later settled for fair value based on her medical damages, not because she received CLF.
James, a factory worker in Tennessee, used a $4,500 funding to cover medical co-pays and keep food on the table for his family. Without CLF, he would have been pressured to accept an early, inadequate settlement. His attorney, free from outside interference, negotiated based on case facts.
These stories illustrate that CLF prevents forced settlements, a concept fundamentally at odds with the idea of social inflation.
Reframing the Debate: CLF as a Consumer Protection Tool
Instead of vilifying CLF, policymakers and regulators should recognize it as a consumer protection mechanism that:
Preserves access to justice by ensuring consumers can sustain themselves while cases proceed.
Protects vulnerable populations from financial exploitation by insurers.
Operates transparently under statutory frameworks that prohibit interference with litigation.
Provides an alternative to payday loans or credit card debt.
By reframing CLF in this way, legislators can see that it is part of the solution to financial inequity in the justice system, not a contributor to systemic cost drivers like “social inflation”.
Conclusion
The narrative that Consumer Legal Funding contributes to social inflation is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the mechanics of the product, and misleading its intent. CLF does not increase jury awards, expand liability doctrines, or drive insurance premiums. Instead, it provides a lifeline for consumers caught in the limbo of pending legal claims.
Policymakers should reject the false linkage and recognize Consumer Legal Funding for what it is: a narrow, humane financial product that has nothing to do with so called “social inflation”, but everything to do with justice and survival.
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?
Kerberos Capital Management has been named one of only four finalists nationwide for Chief Investment Officer (CIO) magazine’s 2025 Industry Innovation Awards in the Private Credit category.
Each year, CIO magazine honors organizations that demonstrate “truly exceptional approaches to the challenges of institutional asset ownership and asset management.” This recognition highlights Kerberos’ leadership in private credit and its innovative strategies that continue to set new standards in the institutional investing market.
“We are proud to be recognized among the top firms in the country for our work in private credit,” said Joe Siprut, CEO & CIO of Kerberos Capital Management. “This acknowledgment underscores our team’s commitment to innovation, disciplined risk management, and delivering differentiated value to our investors.”
Kerberos’ inclusion as a finalist reinforces its growing national reputation as a forward-thinking investment manager that thrives on tackling complex challenges, seeking to generate alpha from complexity but not from increased risk.
About Kerberos Capital Management
Kerberos Capital Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser and alternative investment manager, providing creative solutions for those seeking capital in special situations. Kerberos’ flagship private credit strategy emphasizes legal assets and other complex collateral. Kerberos manages both a pooled vehicle and separate accounts for institutional and high net worth investors worldwide.
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.
Apex Litigation Finance has strengthened its leadership team with the appointment of Gabriel Olearnik, a highly experienced litigation funding professional with a global track record in high-value dispute resolution and complex commercial matters.
Over the past five years, Gabriel has originated and reviewed more than 451 litigation funding cases worldwide with an aggregate value exceeding $116 billion, closing deals worth over $700 million. His recent work includes the successful settlement of a high-profile BIT matter as well as executive employment claims in the UK.
Gabriel’s career spans senior roles in UK, US and European litigation funders, where he was instrumental in structuring high-value transactions, securing strategic court orders and conducting multi-jurisdictional investigations. In 2023, he closed a £268 million litigation funding deal in just three weeks, underscoring his ability to deliver results under tight timelines.
Recognised by Lexology as one of only 66 lawyers worldwide to receive the Thought Leaders in Third Party Funding accolade, Gabriel has been involved in matters that have attracted daily media coverage and required innovative dispute strategies. His experience extends to training legal teams, advising on politically sensitive disputes, and executing complex enforcement actions.
“Gabriel brings exceptional global experience, deep sector knowledge, and a proven ability to deliver in high-stakes environments,” said Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance. “His appointment further enhances Apex’s market position and it’s ability to originate, evaluate and fund complex commercial claims for our clients.”
“I am delighted to join Maurice and the team at Apex,” said Gabriel. “Apex’s strong financial backing and their speed of execution make this a natural alignment. I look forward to building on the strong foundation set out by my predecessor, Stephen Allinson, and contributing to the future success of the business.”
Gabriel’s appointment reflects Apex’s ongoing growth in funding small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes and builds on the company’s commitment to delivering fast, fair, and competitive non-recourse litigation funding solutions to claimant’s who may be prohibited from pursuing meritorious cases due to cost and/or financial risk.
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.
When people talk about third party litigation financing, they often lump everything into one bucket—as if every type of funding that touches the legal system is essentially the same. But that’s a misconception. The world of legal finance is much more varied, and each type serves a distinct role for a distinct audience.
A good way to understand the differences is to step away from the courtroom and into the world of music. Think of Consumer Legal Funding as a rock band, Commercial Litigation Financing as a symphony orchestra, and Attorney Portfolio Financing as a gospel choir.
All three make music—they all provide funding connected to the legal system—but they produce very different sounds, are organized differently, and serve different purposes. Let’s explore these three “musical groups” of legal funding to understand how they work, why they exist, and what separates them.
Consumer Legal Funding: The Rock Band
Immediate, Personal, and Audience-Driven
A rock band connects directly with its fans. The music is raw, emotional, and often tied to the lived experiences of ordinary people. That’s exactly what Consumer Legal Funding does—it provides individuals with direct financial support while they are waiting for their personal injury cases to resolve.
Most people who seek consumer legal funding have been in a car accident, or experienced some other harm caused by negligence. While their cases work their way through the legal system, they still need to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and support their families. Consumer Legal Funding steps in to help them cover these day-to-day expenses.
Like a rock band that thrives on the energy of a crowd, Consumer Legal Funding is closely tied to the needs of everyday people. It’s not about abstract legal theories or corporate strategy. It’s about giving real people financial breathing room so they can withstand the pressure from insurers who might otherwise push them to settle for less than they deserve.
Flexibility and Accessibility
Just as a rock band doesn’t require a massive concert hall or multimillion-dollar backing, Consumer Legal Funding is accessible on a small, personal scale. A consumer can request a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to cover immediate needs, and repayment is contingent on the case outcome. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing.
This non-recourse structure mirrors the risk of a rock band going on tour—they might make money, or they might not, but the fans are there for the experience. Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding companies take the risk that the case might not succeed, and they may not get their investment back.
Critics and Misconceptions
Rock bands often face criticism for being too loud, too disruptive, or too unconventional compared to “serious” classical music. Consumer Legal Funding gets similar pushback. Critics sometimes argue it encourages frivolous lawsuits or drives up settlement costs. But the reality is the opposite—the funds provided to a consumer doesn’t fund lawsuits; they fund life necessities for individuals already in the legal system.
Consumer Legal Funding’s role is narrow but vital. Like a rock band giving a voice to ordinary people, it empowers individuals who might otherwise be silenced by financial hardship.
Commercial Litigation Financing: The Symphony Orchestra
Complex, Structured, and High-Stakes
Where Consumer Legal Funding is the rock band of the legal funding world, Commercial Litigation Financing is the full symphony orchestra—large, complex, and meticulously coordinated.
Here, the players are not individuals injured in accidents but corporations, investors, and law firms involved in high-value commercial disputes. These cases can involve intellectual property battles, antitrust issues, international contract disputes, or shareholder actions. The stakes often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Like an orchestra, Commercial Litigation Financing is structured and multi-layered. Each section—strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion—must work together under the baton of a conductor. In litigation finance, this “conductor” is the funding company, aligning investors, lawyers, and plaintiffs toward a common goal: seeing the case through to resolution.
Strategic and Long-Term
Orchestras don’t play three-minute songs; they perform long symphonies that require endurance, precision, and careful planning. Similarly, Commercial Litigation Financing is not about immediate cash flow. It’s about supporting a complex legal strategy over years of litigation.
Funds can cover attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and even corporate operations while a case drags on. The financing enables companies to pursue claims they might otherwise abandon because of the sheer cost and duration of litigation.
Audience and Impact
The audience for an orchestra is often more formal, more elite, and more willing to pay for a grand performance. Commercial Litigation Financing likewise serves a specialized, high-stakes audience: multinational corporations, hedge funds, and sophisticated investors. The outcomes affect entire industries and markets, not just individual households.
While a rock band might play in bars or stadiums, an orchestra plays in concert halls before an audience expecting refinement. That’s the difference in scale between Consumer Legal Funding and Commercial Litigation Financing.
Attorney Portfolio Financing: The Gospel Choir
Collective Strength and Community
If Consumer Legal Funding is a rock band and Commercial Litigation Financing is a symphony orchestra, then Attorney Portfolio Financing is a gospel choir. It’s powerful, collective, and rooted in the idea of strength in numbers.
Attorney Portfolio Financing provides capital to law firms by pooling together multiple cases—often personal injury or contingency fee cases—into one financing arrangement. Instead of betting on a single case, the funding spreads across a portfolio, much like the voices of a choir blend to create a unified sound.
Stability and Predictability
A gospel choir doesn’t rely on one soloist to carry the performance. If one voice falters, the rest keep singing. Similarly, portfolio financing reduces risk because the outcome of any one case doesn’t determine the success of the financing. The strength lies in the collective performance of many cases.
This allows law firms to take on more clients, expand their practices, and better withstand the financial ups and downs of litigation. For clients, it means their attorneys have the resources to see their cases through rather than being pressured into quick settlements.
Purpose and Spirit
Gospel choirs aren’t just about music—they’re about inspiration, resilience, and community. Attorney Portfolio Financing carries a similar spirit. It’s designed not only to provide financial stability for law firms but also to empower them to serve clients more effectively.
While the audience for a gospel choir is often the community itself, the “audience” for portfolio financing is law firms and, indirectly, the clients who benefit from better-resourced representation.
Comparing the Three Sounds
To appreciate the differences, let’s put the three side by side:
Type of Funding
Musical Analogy
Audience
Scale
Purpose
Consumer Legal Funding
Rock Band
Individuals waiting for case resolution
Small-scale, personal
Helps consumers cover living expenses while awaiting settlement
Commercial Litigation Financing
Symphony Orchestra
Corporations, investors, large law firms
Large-scale, complex
Funds high-stakes commercial disputes over years
Attorney Portfolio Financing
Gospel Choir
Law firms (and indirectly their clients)
Medium-to-large scale
Provides stability by funding multiple cases at once
Why These Distinctions Matter
Understanding these distinctions isn’t just an academic exercise—it has real implications for policy, regulation, and public perception. Too often, critics conflate Consumer Legal Funding with Commercial Litigation Financing or assume Attorney Portfolio Financing operates the same way as individual case advances.
But regulating a rock band as if it were an orchestra—or treating a gospel choir as if it were a solo act—would miss the point entirely. Each type of legal funding has its own purpose, structure, and audience.
Consumer Legal Funding keeps people afloat in times of crisis.
Commercial Litigation Financing enables corporations to fight complex battles on equal footing.
Attorney Portfolio Financing stabilizes law firms and expands access to justice.
All three are part of the broader “music” of legal finance, but they are distinct genres with distinct contributions.
Conclusion: Harmony Through Diversity
Music would be dull if every performance sounded the same. The same is true for legal finance. A rock band, a symphony orchestra, and a gospel choir all create music, but their sounds, audiences, and purposes differ dramatically.
Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding, Commercial Litigation Financing, and Attorney Portfolio Financing are all forms of legal finance, but each plays a unique role. Recognizing these differences is crucial for policymakers, industry professionals, and the public.
When we appreciate the rock band, the orchestra, and the choir for what they are, we begin to see the full richness of the legal finance “soundtrack.” Together, they form a diverse ecosystem that, when balanced correctly, ensures both individuals and institutions can pursue justice without being silenced by financial pressure.
Pollen Street Capital ("Pollen Street") today announces a new senior secured credit facility of up to £50 million to New North Litigation Capital (“New North”). New North is a commercial litigation finance company and a direct subsidiary of Capital Law, a Cardiff based law firm founded in 2006.
Capital Law has a strong track record in commercial litigation, having closed over 400 claimant cases since 2001 with a 95% win rate. Drawing on its senior leadership and experienced disputes team, Capital Law launched New North to address the underserved small to mid-market segment of commercial litigation market.
New North will be the only litigation financier in the UK owned and operated by practicing lawyers, bringing their day to day lived experience of handling mid-market litigation into pricing the risk and the funding investment decisions.
Christopher Nott, Founder and CEO of New North commented: “We are pleased to work with Pollen Street on this financing to launch New North Litigation Capital. The funding supports us to bridge a critical gap by funding claims that are often deemed too small by other players in the market. We are excited to work with the Pollen Street team as we create this new kind of litigation funding.”
Connor Marshall-Mckie, Investment Director at Pollen Street, commented: “New North addresses an important gap in the litigation funding space, focusing on smaller mid-market commercial litigation. With the significant opportunity available and the deep experience of the leadership team from Capital Law we are excited to partner with the team to support their growth.”
About Pollen Street
Pollen Street is a fast-growing and high-performing private capital asset manager. Established in 2013, the firm has built deep capability across the real estate, financial and business services sectors aligned with mega-trends shaping the future of the industry. Pollen Street manages over €7bn AUM across private equity and credit strategies on behalf of investors including leading public and corporate pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, endowments and foundations, asset managers, banks, and family offices from around the world. Pollen Street has a team of over 95 professionals.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
