John Freund's Posts

3334 Articles

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Ramco’s Cristina Soler on the Benefits of Monetizing Arbitration Awards

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered yesterday, the availability of legal funding is having a significant impact on the world of arbitration, with funders offering a variety of services from financing the initial claim to supporting claimants through the enforcement of awards.

In an interview with Confilegal, Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding, discusses the growing use of award monetization in arbitral proceedings and the increasing adoption of litigation funding both in Spain and across Europe. Confilegal spoke with Soler at the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje in Madrid, where she participated in a panel discussion with Emma Morales (Simmons & Simmons), Damian Vallejo (Dunning Rievaman & Macdonald LLP), Carlos Iso (SACYR). Lourdes Martínez de Victoria Gómez (Departamento de Arbitrajes Internacionales), and María Rodríguez (ACCIONA).

In the interview, Soler highlights that the end of any arbitration proceedings is never marked simply with a party obtaining an award, as the enforcement of that award is often a long and expensive process. Soler explains that funders like Ramco can provide support in one of two ways: either by providing the financing to cover the legal costs of enforcement, or through the monetization of an award where it is sold or assigned to the funder for an upfront payment.

Soler emphasises that the main benefits of award monetization are the immediate provision of liquidity to the claimant and the mitigation of any risk involved in the complex enforcement process. She also goes on to explain that award monetization has become more sophisticated with different payment structures available and a growing secondary market where these awards are bought and sold.

More insights from Soler are available in the full interview on Confilegal’s website.

JurisTrade CEO Discusses Litigation Asset Marketplace Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in March of this year, JurisTrade launched the first phase of its Litigation Asset Marketplace offering over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities, with the aim of bridging the gap between available capital and active cases in need of financing.

In an interview with Global Finance, JurisTrade’s CEO, James Koutoulas discusses the company’s new marketplace, explaining the benefits it offers to both investors and plaintiffs who find themselves in need of additional funding during a case. 

Koutoulas describes the platform as “the first secondary marketplace for litigation assets”, with the marketplace designed to allow investors to buy and sell these opportunities just like tradeable securities. Koutoulas says that this will generate “two or three turns on these cases”, with the flexibility of this model allowing “investors to pick when they want to come in, like VC investors pick the A-round or C-round.”

Koutoulas also clarifies that the marketplace is not targeting retail investors, as the minimum stake is set at $500,000. Instead JurisTrade’s platform is focused on offering these opportunities to institutional investors and family offices, highlighting that due to the variety of cases “every investment is very bespoke.” 

Legal-Bay Launches INSTALL Funding: Monthly Financial Relief for Plaintiffs Awaiting Settlement

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay, a leading pre-settlement funding company, has introduced a game-changing financial solution for plaintiffs embroiled in active litigation. Their newly launched INSTALL funding contract offers clients the ability to receive structured monthly payments instead of a traditional one-time advance, easing the burden of everyday living expenses during the often lengthy legal process.

This innovative funding option addresses a growing need among plaintiffs who face significant financial strain while their cases are pending. With INSTALL funding, individuals can rely on predictable monthly disbursements designed to cover essential costs such as legal fees, medical bills, and everyday housing expenses, allowing them to focus on their case without the added pressure of missed bills or mounting debt.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, says, "Legal battles can be incredibly stressful, especially when they drag on for months or even years. We created INSTALL funding to provide ongoing financial stability for our customers when they need it the most, when they are stuck at home and can't work, but still need to have their bills paid on the first of the month."

INSTALL funding is one of Legal-Bay's most popular products, because lawyers know their clients cannot fight a case without cash flow coming in each month.

So, if you are a lawyer and have a client—or If you're a plaintiff yourself—in an existing lawsuit who needs an immediate INSTALL funding contract against an anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

Unlike standard bank loans which often involve large lump sums and steep repayment terms, INSTALL funding is tailored to meet real-life needs. Clients only draw what they require each month, which can significantly lower the total repayment after a case is settled. This targeted approach helps prevent excessive borrowing and encourages responsible financial planning throughout the litigation process.

By providing installation-based funding with client-friendly terms, Legal-Bay offers clear, flexible solutions to their customers' financial needs. The program is ideal for individuals involved in personal injury, slip and fall, medical malpractice, motor vehicle accident, Workers Comp. or 3rd party workers comp. claims or work injury claims, and many other types of cases.

Legal-Bay is one of the best legal funding companies in the industry, known for their helpful staff and quick turnaround. While sometimes pre-settlement funds are referred to as loans on lawsuit or lawsuit loans, there are no credit checks or collateral required for legal funding. The money is an immediate cash advance against a plaintiff's anticipated settlement award, not a conventional loan. The non-recourse lawsuit funding is risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.

To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer your questions.

Gerchen Capital Partners Targets Corporate Monetizations and Late-Stage Cases with $600m Fund

By Harry Moran |

While some funders are looking towards the secondaries market as a way to expand their investment opportunities, one funder is moving in the opposite direction following the closing of its sixth fund. 

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the closing of a $600 million fund by Gerchen Capital Partners (GCP), with this latest fund representing a shift in the company’s strategy to expand its investments beyond the secondaries market. The new fund’s capital is set to be dedicated towards two key areas: monetizing litigation portfolios for corporations and funding late-stage or post-settlement matters.

Adam Gerchen, CEO of GCP, spoke with Bloomberg Law about the closing of the company’s sixth fund and explained that the funder’s original focus on secondaries was about addressing “this unmet market need.” On the pivot towards corporate monetization, Kelly Daley, managing director at GCP, suggested that it can be a valuable offering due to the level of instability in the financial market, arguing that “the more uncertainty there is in the market, the more appealing certainty is”.

The article also highlighted GCP’s growth over the past three years since it was founded, with around $1.9 billion in assets raised over that time. The growth has been bolstered by the recruitment of experienced industry professionals, like Daley, from other funders including Burford Capital. Daley explained her decision to move to GCP from Burford as being driven by the culture of the growing funder, saying: “The ability to be in a more nimble entrepreneurial environment was appealing to me.”

Burford Reports 1Q25 Financial Results

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its unaudited financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2025 ("1Q25"). The full detailed presentation of Burford's 1Q25 financial results can be viewed at http://investors.burfordcapital.com.

Burford's Chief Executive Officer Christopher Bogart commented:

"Burford delivered robust first quarter results in what is typically a lighter seasonal period, demonstrating the continued momentum of our portfolio. Both new business and realization activity were well above first quarter levels in recent years, establishing a great start to the year. We believe the uncorrelated nature of legal finance positions our business to perform through the volatile and uncertain market environment that investors face today. We remain focused on the core drivers of shareholder value discussed at our recent 2025 Investor Day: Growing the platform, turning the current portfolio into cash realizations and generating attractive returns on capital."  

Burford will hold a conference call for investors and analysts at 9.00am EDT / 2.00pm BST on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. For swift access to the conference call at the time of the event, pre-registration is encouraged at https://registrations.events/direct/Q4I881854. The dial-in numbers for the conference call are +1 (646) 307-1963 (USA) or +1 (800) 715-9871 (USA & Canada toll free) / +44 (0)20 3481 4247 (UK) or +44 800 260 6466 (UK toll free), and the access code is 88185. To minimize the risk of delayed access, participants are urged to dial into the conference call by 8.40am EDT / 1.40pm BST.

A live audio webcast and replay will also be available at https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/989634259, and pre-registration at that link is encouraged.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR) and works with companies and law firms around the world from its global network of offices.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Ciarb Releases Proposed Guidelines on Third-Party Funding

By Harry Moran |

With the growing prominence of third-party funding in arbitration proceedings, industry bodies are keen to establish best practices for those involved in funded matters, and to increase the broader levels of knowledge among all members of the wider arbitration community.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has today announced the release of its Proposed Guideline on Third-Party Funding, and has opened a call for comment to source feedback from members of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) community. 

Ciarb’s guideline is designed to support those involved in arbitration matters to navigate funding arrangements, and to assist all parties and arbitral tribunals to facilitate effective case management of funded proceedings. The proposed guideline is split into two parts, with the first section dedicated to providing a thorough overview of the funding process, whilst the latter part covers all aspects of arbitration proceedings that involve a funded party.

The call for comment is open to both Ciarb members and non-members, with the deadline to submit feedback set for 17 June 2025. The feedback form can be accessed here.

Drafting of the guideline was undertaken by Mercy McBrayer, Head of Arbitration Professional Practice at Ciarb, and Mohamed Sadiq, PPP Intern at Ciarb, and the drafting group committee was co-chaired by Philippa Charles (Twenty Essex) and Dr Hasan Tahsin Azizagaoglu (Bench Walk Advisors). The drafting group’s members also included: Christopher Bloch (Squire Patton Boggs), Julian Chamberlayne (Stewarts), Ayse Yazir (Bench Walk Advisors), Susan Dunn (Harbour), Napoleão Casado Filho (Clasen | Casado Filho | Longo | Caribé), Camilla Godman (Omni Bridgeway), Dana MacGrath (MacGrath Arbirtration), Viren Mascarenhas (Milbank), Kathryn Sanger (Herbert Smith Freehills), and Sarah Vasani (CMS).

Dr Hasan Tahsin Azizagaoglu described the guideline as “a clear and accessible roadmap for legal practitioners”, and noted that it is “unique in its commitment to full transparency”. Philippa Charles explained that although the drafting group “contains representation from practitioners and funders”, the call for comment aims to “ensure that a multiplicity of viewpoints on these matters is contained in the Guideline to make it as useful as possible.”

FirmPilot Closes $11.7 Million in Total Funding with Strategic Investments From Legal and Marketing Tech Leaders

By Harry Moran |

FirmPilot, the AI marketing engine for law firms, today announced that Thomson Reuters Ventures and HubSpot Ventures have joined as investors, backing the company's mission to help law firms generate more and higher-value clients with AI rather than rely on traditional, manual marketing tactics. This strategic funding increases FirmPilot's total funding to $11.7M, following the company's Series A round in 2024 led by Blumberg Capital, an early investor in marketing tech leaders such as Braze (Nasdaq: BRZE) and DoubleVerify (NYSE: DV).

"We are delighted to partner with FirmPilot," said Tamara Steffens, Managing Director of Thomson Reuters Ventures. "They have built an AI product that empowers law firms to effectively communicate their value proposition and enhance their visibility to potential clients. The overwhelmingly positive customer feedback they have received speaks volumes, and we are excited to support this exceptional team."

FirmPilot uses AI to empower law firms to efficiently increase online visibility and grow inbound interest from prospective clients searching online for legal help. Every hour, more than 1,000 people in the U.S. search online for legal help, and 75% of people searching online don't scroll past the first page of results. Law firms, as well as other services-based SMBs such as dentists, plumbers, electricians, veterinarians, and chiropractors, rely on online search and other digital marketing channels as their primary source of customer acquisition, and FirmPilot's all-in-one solution has enabled these businesses to thrive with AI data-driven SEO, PPC, and social media that does not involve the manual guesswork of traditional marketing agencies.

For the 425K+ law firms in the U.S., legacy practices of retaining traditional marketing agencies or manually managing marketing channels are often costly, low ROI and not built for busy, non-marketing professionals.

In just the past year, nearly one hundred modern law firms across the U.S. adopted an AI-driven approach to marketing with FirmPilot to:

  • Generate 180%+ more leads using data-informed web content and ads
  • Improve client and case quality with intelligent targeting
  • Reduce cost and wasted time by eliminating the manual guesswork of traditional law firm marketing

"What excites us about FirmPilot is their focus on solving a critical pain point for small business owners end-to-end. FirmPilot has demonstrated the ability to deliver cost-effective leads to law firms with minimal involvement, and we're confident in their ability to bring this to new industries over time," said Adam Coccari, Managing Director of HubSpot Ventures. "We're looking forward to working with the FirmPilot team as they continue empowering SMBs to drive growth through AI-powered marketing."

FirmPilot's proprietary AI legal marketing engine takes an "X-ray" of a firm's competitive landscape, analyzing trends and patterns in the SEO, Ads, and other digital marketing activity of a client's competitors. FirmPilot's clients have outperformed and outranked other firms to increase lead volume and improve lead quality. The company's proprietary AI knowledge model learns from a comprehensive database of more than 3,000+ relevant legal cases and has analyzed more than 5,000,000 pieces of content used by law firms. With a growing and evolving set of data, the FirmPilot AI marketing engine continues to learn, train and improve its algorithms in high-demand consumer law areas such as personal injury, workers' compensation, family (divorce, custody), immigration and criminal defense. Partnering with Thomson Reuters and HubSpot Ventures provides a huge opportunity to expand FirmPilot's data strategy for its AI models.

"It's been incredible to witness the shift in the legal industry, where firm owners are no longer just focused on practicing law or building successful firms—they also aim to build great companies and lead not only as attorneys but also as CEOs," said Jake Soffer, founder and CEO of FirmPilot. "This evolution demands that they move faster and more strategically, and the suite of AI tools now available to the legal field is enabling firms to accomplish exponentially more in a fraction of the time it once took."

About FirmPilot

FirmPilot is the leader in AI Legal Marketing. FirmPilot's patent-pending AI Legal Marketing Execution Engine provides companies with a modern way to grow their firm with strategies built entirely on data and intelligence. The company is backed by leading investors such as Blumberg Capital, HubSpot Ventures, Thomson Reuters Ventures, Valor Ventures, SaaS Ventures, FJ Labs, and Connexa Capital. Learn more about FirmPilot: www.FirmPilot.com.

Alpha Modus Holdings Enters into Funding Agreement in Connection with Broadcom Patent Infringement Lawsuit

By Harry Moran |

Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMOD), a leader in AI-driven retail technology , today announced it has executed a patent monetization and funding agreement with Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC, the entity that recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Broadcom Inc on April 22, 2025.

Under the terms of the agreement, Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. (AMOD) will fund litigation efforts related to the enforcement by Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC (an entity controlled by the CEO of Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc., William Alessi) of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,108,591; 11,303,473; and 11,310,077, which cover breakthrough technologies for transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet—a technology the company believes is being broadly infringed by Broadcom and others.

"This transaction underscores our commitment to unlocking value through aggressive IP enforcement and strategic funding structures," said William Alessi, CEO of Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc. "We believe this case against Broadcom will be transformative in both financial and strategic terms."

Importantly, the parties have also executed an option agreement granting Alpha Modus Holdings, Inc., the right to acquire 100% of Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC. The acquisition, if completed, will further consolidate patent ownership under AMOD and strengthen its position in ongoing and future enforcement actions. The exercise of the option will be subject to shareholder approval and other conditions, and there is no guaranty that the option will be exercised.

"This marks yet another major milestone in our strategic roadmap," Alessi added. "Alpha Modus has demonstrated its ability to identify valuable intellectual property, launch enforcement campaigns, and translate litigation into shareholder value. This agreement should continue that momentum."

The litigation against Broadcom is now actively underway in the United States Western District Texas Court and represents one of several high-stakes actions brought or funded by Alpha Modus. The company anticipates additional suits and partnerships will follow as part of its broader strategy to assert and monetize its growing IP portfolio.

For more information and to access Alpha Modus’ press room, visit: https://alphamodus.com/press-room/

For more information about Alpha Modus and its portfolio of innovations, please visit alphamodus.com.

About Alpha Modus

Alpha Modus is a technology company specializing in artificial intelligence solutions for the retail industry. Alpha Modus develops and licenses data-driven technologies that enhance consumer engagement and optimize in-store experiences. Headquartered in Cornelius, North Carolina, Alpha Modus is committed to leading the evolution of retail through innovation and strategic partnerships.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Alpha Modus’s actual results may differ from their expectations, estimates, and projections, and, consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Words such as “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget,” “forecast,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “believes,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” and similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying these statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, Alpha Modus’s expectations with respect to future performance.

Alpha Modus cautions readers not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Alpha Modus does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Omni Bridgeway CEO Highlights Significance of Continuation Fund Transaction

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last month, the finalisation of a deal between Ares Management and Omni Bridgeway to establish a new fund has been hailed by both parties as a landmark and transformative transaction for the legal funding industry.

In an article on Secondaries Investor, Omni Bridgeway’s chief executive, Raymond van Hulst, discusses the significance of the recent closing of its continuation fund transaction with Ares Management. The completion of the Fund 9 transaction, which saw Ares take a 70% interest in the fund in return for a cash investment of A$320, is according to van Hulst, the first example of a continuation vehicle being utilised by a litigation funder.

The article also provides some insights into the unique opportunities that the Fund 9 transaction represented for Omni Bridgeway. Combatting the outside perception that the way litigation funders operate is the equivalent of “marking your own homework”, van Hulst stressed the importance of having a third-party like Ares assess the underlying portfolio of investments. He explained that having Ares “do deep diligence on a large pool of assets, validate the book, validate our methodology”, represented an important objective for the litigation funder as part of the transaction.

In terms of mitigating risk for Ares, van Hulst also noted that the portfolio was reasonably protected from localised regulatory changes through its geographical diversification. On the inherent issues associated with the prolonged duration of legal cases that affects funders’ investments, van Hulst also said that Ares “built in through the waterfall some protection for excessive duration”.

More insights can be found in the full interview with van Hulst on Secondaries Investor’s website.

Emmerson Submits Request for Arbitration in Dispute with Morocco

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported in March, an investor-state dispute over the Khemisset Potash Project in Morocco had continued to progress as the mining company bringing the claim began to draw down the first tranche of its litigation funding.

An announcement released by Emmerson Plc revealed that the company has now officially submitted its Request for Arbitration (RFA) to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Emmerson’s claim for compensation against the Government of the Kingdom of Morroco centre on the government’s alleged breaches of a bilateral investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Morrocco.

As previously covered by LFJ’s reporting, Emmerson’s claim is being supported by an unnamed litigation funder who are providing up to $11.2 million under a capital provision agreement. In this latest announcement, Emmerson once again emphasised that the funding agreement will cover all of the legal costs for the arbitration, as well as covering ‘a significant portion of G&A costs’. 

Following the submission of the RFA, Emmerson said that it is working with its legal team at Boies Schiller Flexner on the formation of the arbitration tribunal and preparing its formal Memorial submission. The company explained that the next phase of the arbitration process is expected to take around two years, which will include the constitution of the tribunal, the filing of written submissions and the evidentiary hearing.

Graham Clarke, Managing Director of Emmerson PLC offered the following comment on the submission: "The completion and lodgement of the RFA with ICSID is a significant step and marks the formal commencement of the litigation process. The Company is working closely with our lawyers at BSF and as a group we remain confident in the merits of this case. We look forward to providing further updates in due course".

Rockpoint Legal Funding Report Reveals How Long Civil Lawsuits Drag On–State by State

By Harry Moran |

Rockpoint Legal Funding today released The 2025 Lawsuit-Duration Index, a first-of-its-kind analysis that ranks U.S. states by the average time it takes a routine civil lawsuit to reach resolution. Drawing on thousands of line-items from trial-court dashboards, annual judiciary reports, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) case-flow datasets, the study shines a light on the calendar realities behind America's crowded dockets.

States Where Civil Cases Last the Longest

  1. New York — ≈ 30 months
    Why so long? Dense commercial caseloads, heavy discovery, and a "deferred note-of-issue" system that gives parties up to a year to certify readiness can stretch the calendar. Even though New York's Differentiated Case Management (DCM) rule sets a target of 15 months from filing to judgment, backlogs in the Supreme Court's civil terms routinely push cases to double that figure.
  2. California — ≈ 24 months
    Unlimited-jurisdiction civil matters must, by statewide standard, wrap up within two years, yet fiscal-year dashboards show that fewer than 80 percent of cases hit the 24-month mark, with the remainder spilling into a third year. Factors include large jury pools, complex consumer statutes, and pandemic-era continuances that have not fully cleared. 
  3. Florida — ≈ 20 months
    Circuit-court dashboards reveal that barely half of ordinary negligence and contract suits close inside 18 months. Although the Supreme Court adopted aggressive case-management rules in 2023, trial-level clearance rates are still catching up, and hurricane-related insurance litigation continues to clog calendars. 
  4. Illinois — ≈ 18 months
    Cook County alone processes more than 250 000 civil filings a year. Medical-malpractice caps were struck down a decade ago, and lengthy expert-witness phases keep many cases open well past the 1½-year horizon set by the state's Time-Standards order. Tort hotspots in Madison and St. Clair Counties skew the statewide mean upward. (Source: Illinois Courts Statistical Summary, 2024).
  5. Texas — ≈ 14 months
    A statewide "Age of Cases Disposed" audit for fiscal year 2023 shows that 58 percent of district-court civil cases are resolved inside a year; another 12 percent finish by 18 months; the remainder stretch longer, producing a weighted average of roughly 430 days. Urban districts with multicounty venues (Harris, Dallas, Bexar) post the slowest numbers

National context: Across 19 benchmark jurisdictions surveyed by the NCSC, the mean time to disposition for civil matters was 43 weeks—just under eleven months—highlighting how outlier states pull the national average upward.

Why Do Timelines Vary So Widely?

  • Caseload Mix – States dominated by high-stakes personal-injury, medical-malpractice, or complex commercial cases run longer discovery schedules than states whose dockets lean toward simpler contract or small-claims matters.
  • Procedural Rules – Broad discovery allowances (New York CPLR, California CCP) and generous continuance policies add months. Fast-track "rocket-docket" rules, used in parts of Texas and Virginia, compress schedules.
  • Judicial Resources – Trial-level judge-to-population ratios range from 3.9 per 100 000 residents in California to 2.6 in Texas; shortages translate directly into fuller calendars and later trial dates.
  • Backlog Hangover – Pandemic pauses left hundreds of thousands of jury-demand cases unresolved; courts that pivoted to virtual hearings (Florida, Texas) cleared inventory faster than states that waited for in-person sessions.
  • Local Legal Culture – In some venues, strategic delay is a negotiation tactic. High defense-side insurance penetration can encourage "wait it out" settlement strategies, particularly in auto-injury suits.

Economic and Human Costs

  • Direct Expense – The U.S. tort system cost $443 billion in 2022—about 2.1 percent of GDP—according to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. Longer case cycles increase those costs by boosting attorney hours, expert-witness fees, and carrying charges.
  • Business Impact – Protracted litigation discourages expansion in plaintiff-friendly states and inflates liability-insurance premiums, costs ultimately passed to consumers.
  • Personal Hardship – Plaintiffs waiting years for compensation often face medical bills, lost wages, or repair costs they cannot defer. Delays disproportionately harm low-income claimants who lack emergency savings.

How Legal Funding Fits In

"Justice delayed shouldn't be justice denied," said Maz Ghorban, President of Rockpoint Legal Funding. "Our non-recourse advances give injured people the breathing room to see their cases through rather than settling early for pennies on the dollar."

Because Rockpoint is only repaid if a case resolves favorably, the company's interests are aligned with plaintiffs pursuing full, fair value—even in jurisdictions where court calendars run two or three years past filing. Rockpoint underwrites claims nationwide but sees the highest funding volumes in the very states that top the duration list, confirming the link between long case cycles and financial strain.

Methodology

Rockpoint analysts aggregated more than 4.2 million disposition records from:

  • The National Center for State Courts case-flow dashboards (43-state sample, FY 2023).
  • Individual judiciary statistical reports (California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York).
  • County-level "age-of-case" spreadsheets for large urban districts.

Cases involving small-claims, probate, or family-law matters were excluded to isolate routine civil tort and contract litigation. Mean and median days were calculated, then rounded to the nearest month for readability.

Looking Ahead

State supreme courts in Florida and Texas have adopted stricter case-management orders requiring active judicial oversight at the 90- and 180-day marks; California lawmakers are weighing pilot "civil fast-track" programs modeled on federal Rule 26(f). If fully implemented, those reforms could shave six to nine months off average durations over the next three years.

For more information on how Rockpoint Legal Funding can help plaintiffs bridge the financial gap while their cases wind through the courts, visit rockpointlegalfunding.com.

Supio Announces $60M Series B to Accelerate Adoption of Legal AI in Plaintiff Law

By Harry Moran |

Supio, a legal AI platform trusted by personal injury and mass tort plaintiff law firms, today announced it has raised $60 million in Series B funding. The round was led by existing investor Sapphire Ventures, with participation from new investors Mayfield and Thomson Reuters Ventures. The new investment brings Supio's total funding to date to $91 million.

The company's unique approach to combining specialized AI with human expert verification has set a new standard for accuracy and reliability in legal AI, addressing the critical challenge of hallucinations that plague many automated solutions. This has been particularly valuable in litigation settings where precision and confidence in the data are paramount.

"Supio is transforming how personal injury and mass tort litigation is practiced through specialized AI," said Rajeev Dham, Partner at Sapphire Ventures and Supio Board Member. "We believe their exponential growth demonstrates that law firms are embracing AI tools that deliver measurable advantages in case preparation and outcomes. We aim to recognize a category-defining company when we see one, and we're proud to deepen our partnership with the team revolutionizing this practice area."

The Series B funding will support the company's ambitious growth plans, including expanding its engineering and AI research teams, accelerating product development and scaling go-to-market operations to reach more law firms nationwide. The company recently launched a new suite of document intelligence tools to meet the needs of current users as well as taking into account what AI capabilities work best for personal injury cases.

"This funding allows us to expand our AI platform that's already helping law firms win better settlements and litigation for their clients," said Jerry Zhou, co-founder and CEO of Supio. "Our combination of specialized legal AI and human verification provides attorneys with accurate insights and drafting they can confidently use in negotiations and court. We're building technology that doesn't just save time, but fundamentally improves case outcomes."

Strengthens Leadership Team to Meet Growing Market Demand

Supio also announced the appointment of several key executives to support its rapid growth, including Jay Deubler to lead Sales, Gwen Sheridan to lead Customer Success and Jim Sinai to head Marketing. Jay Deubler joins with proven experience scaling revenue at Avalara from early stages through IPO. Gwen Sheridan brings valuable expertise from Highspot where she led all post-sales functions. Jim Sinai, a vertical SaaS marketing specialist, previously launched Einstein AI at Salesforce and led Procore through its IPO.

“Our growth since Series A confirms what we’ve believed all along—that specialized AI built for personal injury and mass tort law can transform how these practices operate,” Zhou said. “By expanding our executive team, we’re positioning Supio to meet the tremendous market demand for our AI-first approach to legal document workflows, and to deliver concrete results: faster case resolution, stronger settlements, and ultimately better outcomes for the individuals seeking justice."

Accelerating Growth and Impact Since Series A

Since emerging from stealth in August 2024 with its $25 million Series A funding, Supio has experienced four times Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) growth and demonstrated the transformative impact of its AI platform. The company has significantly expanded its customer base, now serving many of the top personal injury and mass tort law firms across the United States including Huges & Coleman, Daniel Stark, Thomas Law Offices, and Whitley Law.

Supio's specialized AI platform has proven particularly valuable in helping firms win bigger. Firms such as Travis Legal Offices have reported getting at least 20-30% per case while Thomas Law reported increasing their annual case volume 62% since adopting Supio. In high-stakes litigation, Supio helped TorHoerman Law secure a landmark $495 million verdict against Abbott Labs. By combining AI-powered document analysis with rigorous human verification, Supio has established itself as the trusted solution for legal teams handling complex cases involving thousands of documents.

"Thomson Reuters Ventures invests in innovative companies that align with our strategic focus and the markets we serve. In the legal industry, personal injury and mass tort litigation demand specialized AI solutions designed specifically for these complex practice areas, and Supio addresses these unique challenges with both accuracy and depth," said Tamara Steffens, Managing Director, Thomson Reuters Ventures. "We're confident that Supio's platform, built from the ground up, will become essential for firms serious about maximizing case outcomes."

Photo and video assets available here.

About Supio

Supio is the leading AI platform transforming how personal injury and mass tort law firms build stronger cases and achieve superior outcomes. Supio’s Document Intelligence Platform converts complex case materials into actionable insights, combining specialized AI with human expert verification to ensure unmatched accuracy. Built with security and compliance at its foundation, Supio streamlines the entire case lifecycle—from pre-litigation analysis to courtroom strategy. Law firms using Supio report faster case resolution, higher settlement values, and deeper client trust through our precision-driven document analysis, advanced case economics, and intelligent drafting tools. Supio doesn't just save time—it fundamentally improves how legal teams work and win.

About Sapphire Ventures

Sapphire is a global software venture capital firm with $11.3+ billion in AUM and team members across Austin, London, Menlo Park and San Francisco. For over a decade, Sapphire has partnered with visionary management teams and venture funds to back companies of consequence. Since its founding, Sapphire has invested in more than 180 companies globally resulting in more than 30 Public Listings and 50 acquisitions. The firm's investment strategies — Sapphire Ventures, Sapphire Partners and Sapphire Sport — are focused on scaling companies and venture funds, elevating them to become category leaders. Sapphire's Portfolio Growth team of experienced operators delivers a strategic blend of value-add services, tools and resources designed to support portfolio company leaders as they scale.

Silver Bull Provides Update On Its Arbitration Case Against Mexico

By Harry Moran |

Silver Bull Resources, Inc. (OTCQB:SVBL)(TSX:SVB) ("Silver Bull" or the "Company") provides an update on the progress of its international arbitration claim against the United Mexican States ("Mexico").

Silver Bull announces that it has filed its Reply to Mexico's Counter-Memorial in the arbitration that Silver Bull initiated on 28 June 2023 under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement ("USMCA") and the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") before the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"). Under the current schedule, Mexico now has until August 26, 2025 to file its Rejoinder before the case proceeds to a hearing, which will commence on October 6, 2025.

A summary of the key points of Silver Bull's claim is provided below:

  • The arbitration arises from Mexico's refusal to take action with respect to the illegal blockade of Silver Bull's Sierra Mojada Project, which commenced in September 2019 and remains ongoing. Mexico's actions and omissions led to the complete loss of Silver Bull's investment, and breached Mexico's obligations under the NAFTA, including the prohibition on unlawful expropriation and the duties to provide full protection and security, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment and most-favored nation treatment.
  • Silver Bull commenced the arbitration by filing a Request for Arbitration with ICSID on 28 June 2023. A three-person arbitration panel (the "Tribunal") was appointed by ICSID and they will adjudicate the case. Silver Bull filed its Memorial on 17 June 2024, setting out its claim in full and presenting supporting evidence. Mexico filed its Counter-Memorial on 23 December 2024, setting out its defence and presenting its evidence in response to the claim.
  • In the Reply filed on April 25, 2025, Silver Bull responded to Mexico's Counter-Memorial and provided further evidence to support its claim. In its Reply, Silver Bull updated its damages claim to US$374.9M (including interest), supported by the opinion of its damages expert.
  • Mexico will file its Rejoinder, responding to Silver Bull's Reply, on 26 August 2025. The hearing in the arbitration will take place from 6-10 October 2025.
  • The Company hired Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP ("BSF") to act on its behalf as legal counsel for the claim. BSF is an international law firm with extensive experience in international investment arbitration concerning mining and other natural resources. The BSF team is led by Timothy L. Foden, a noted practitioner in the mining arbitration space.
  • Silver Bull is financially supported by Bench Walk Advisors LLC via a Litigation Funding Agreement for up to US$9.5 million to finance the case and the running of the Company.

Silver Bull's CEO, Mr. Tim Barry commented, "While Silver Bull had intended to continue developing the Sierra Mojada Project, an illegal blockade initiated in September 2019 by a small group of local miners - seeking to extort an unearned royalty payment from the Company has persisted to this day. Despite obtaining a favorable ruling from the Mexican courts dismissing the group's royalty claims, and despite repeated requests for the Mexican Government to enforce the law and remove the illegal blockade, the Government has continuously elected not to act. As a result, Silver Bull has been denied access to the site for more than five years, preventing the Company from conducting its lawful business activities in Mexico. This has led to the complete loss of Silver Bull's investment and the destruction of shareholder value at Sierra Mojada. The Mexican Government's actions and inactions directly drove investors away and effectively expropriated the Sierra Mojada Project.".

BACKGROUND TO THE CLAIM: The arbitration has been initiated under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States process, which falls under the auspices of the World Bank's ICSID, to which Mexico is a signatory.

Silver Bull officially notified Mexico on March 2, 2023 of its intention to initiate an arbitration owing to Mexico's breaches of NAFTA by unlawfully expropriating Silver Bull's investments without compensation, failing to provide Silver Bull and its investments with fair and equitable treatment or full protection and security, and not upholding NAFTA's national treatment standard.

Silver Bull held a meeting with Mexican government officials in Mexico City on May 30, 2023, in an attempt to explore amicable settlement options and avoid arbitration. However, the 90-day period for amicable settlement under NAFTA expired on June 2, 2023, without a resolution.

Despite repeated demands and requests for action by the Company, Mexico's governmental agencies have allowed the unlawful blockade to continue, thereby failing to protect Silver Bull's investments. Consequently, Silver Bull is seeking to recover an amount of US$374.9M (including interest) in damages that it has suffered due to Mexico's breach of its obligations under NAFTA.

THE SIERRA MOJADA DEPOSIT: Silver Bull's only asset is the Sierra Mojada deposit located in Coahuila, Mexico. Sierra Mojada is an open pittable oxide deposit with a NI 43-101 compliant Measured and Indicated "global" Mineral Resource of 70.4 million tonnes grading 3.4% zinc and 38.6 g/t silver for 5.35 billion pounds of contained zinc and 87.4 million ounces of contained silver. Included within the "global" Mineral Resource is a Measured and Indicated "high grade zinc zone" of 13.5 million tonnes with an average grade of 11.2% zinc at a 6% cutoff, for 3.336 billion pounds of contained zinc, and a Measured and Indicated "high grade silver zone" of 15.2 million tonnes with an average grade of 114.9 g/t silver at a 50 g/t cutoff for 56.3 million contained ounces of silver. Mineralization remains open in the east, west, and northerly directions.

Clover Risk Funding Appoints Lisa Brentnall as Chief Investment Office

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, the Australian litigation funder Clover Risk Funding announced the appointment of Lisa Brentnall as Chief Investment Officer. 

Brentnall joins Clover Risk Funding from CASL, where she served as Senior Litigation Manager since 2021, and brings a wealth of experience from her career across the legal sector. Following the start of her career at law firms Kemp Strang and Somerville & Co, Brentnall then spent 15 years at Litigation Lending Services where she rose to the position of Senior Litigation Manager.

Clover’s CEO, Stephen Humphreys, provided the following comment on the appointment: “I am delighted to welcome Lisa to Clover Risk Funding. Lisa’s appointment as Chief Investment Officer represents Clover’s first C-Suite appointment since launching in 2023 and has been made in recognition not only of Lisa’s extensive funding experience but also Clover’s rapid growth. As our portfolio of funded claims grows, Lisa’s near 20 years of litigation funding experience will be vital to both the claim selection and claim execution aspect of our business.”

Clover Risk Funding was founded in 2023 and provides financing for cases in the insolvency and commercial markets, with a focus on cases in the $1.5M to $15M value range for insolvency matters and cases valued between $5M and $25M in its commercial portfolio. The company has offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, with Brentnall joining the funder’s office in Brisbane.

More information about Clover Risk Funding can be found on its website.

Legal Finance in Practice: Expert Perspectives on Managing Legal Risk, Cost and Uncertainty

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases its latest Burford Quarterly, a journal of legal finance that explores the top trends at the nexus of law and finance. As legal finance continues to be used as a transformative resource for both corporations and law firms, this edition provides data, analysis and expert commentary on industry developments.

In this edition, leading law firm attorneys explain how legal finance is reshaping traditional contingency fee models, patent lawyers discuss the first year of data from the United Patent Court (UPC) and Burford experts present new data-driven findings on the enforcement of judgments, as well as a timely analysis of the synergies between private equity and legal finance.

Articles in the Burford Quarterly No.2 2025 include:

"With every edition, the Burford Quarterly aims to provide a lens into how legal finance is shaping the business of law," said David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital. "This issue combines robust data with real-world outcomes to illustrate how legal finance has become a sophisticated financial strategy for optimizing cash flow, managing legal risk and unlocking capital across geographies and sectors. By combining data with expert commentary and case-specific insights, we demonstrate the tangible impact legal finance has on today's most sophisticated legal and business decisions."

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery, and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and works with companies and law firms around the world from its global network of offices.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.

Consumer Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding: An Emerging Asset Class 

By Joel Magerman |

The following was contributed by Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park Capital, a leading investment bank specializing in litigation finance, with over 35 completed transactions totaling more than $2.4 billion in this sector alone.

Executive Summary: 

  • Third-party funding for consumer litigants has been a growing industry in the U.S. since the 1980s.  
  • The need for third-party litigation funding emerged because banks do not typically provide advances to litigants whose only collateral is potential proceeds from lawsuits. 
  • Today, there are over two hundred companies providing pre-settlement and medical lien litigation funding to individual claimants. 
  • Over the past 25 years, consumer litigation finance has matured into an investment grade asset, with over 25 separate securitizations representing over $2.7 billion of invested capital since 2018. 

Why the need for litigation funding? Insurance companies have found that a plaintiff’s need for a financial settlement is often a driving force in settling a case for a lower amount than if the case runs its course to a hearing. Litigation financing provides equal footing to a plaintiff to pursue claims due to an injury they have incurred due to another party’s actions or negligence.

A recipient of litigation funding benefits from certainty and speed of funding, and the fact that the funding is non-recourse. For the attorney representing the client, litigation funding allows the legal process to play out and maximize the plaintiff’s settlement while providing some financial relief until a settlement is finalized. At the same time, third-party litigation funders see the potential upside in underwriting pending lawsuits and earning a return on non-recourse advances. Generally, third-party litigation funders have no control over the litigation they fund, allowing the plaintiff and their legal counsel to decide their legal strategy. 

Medical lien funding, which is closely related to consumer pre-settlement funding, provides funding to providers of medical services (imaging, doctors visits, physical therapy, surgery, etc.) to these same plaintiffs who cannot pay the medical provider until a claim is adjudicated and paid. Funding these liens is effectuated by buying the lien or the LOP (Letter of Protection) from the medical provider, depending upon state statutes.  

General Industry Data (Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding) 

  • Funding amount as percentage of expected case value: ~10-15% 
  • Typical funding size: $1,000-$50,000 
  • Asset-level IRR for the funder: typically 25-35%  
  • Multiple on invested capital: 1.4-2.0x 
  • Weighted average life: 1-3 years 
  • Application time to funding: typically a couple of days 
  • Number of market funders: 200+ 
  • Non-recourse to the plaintiff  

An Emerging Asset Class 

In recent years, consumer litigation financing has become more attractive to investors due to rising inflation, increasing interest rates, and volatility of many other classes of investments. The consistent robust returns that are uncorrelated with the economy make litigation funding attractive. Alternative lenders and multi-strategy funds have invested in litigation finance, with U.S. funders categorized into dedicated funders (specialize in litigation finance), multi-strategy funders (entities that have established a dedicated litigation finance strategy), and ad hoc funders (occasional participants in litigation finance). These investors have increasingly diversified their investments, by allocating funds to multi-claim portfolios and making fewer single-case investments. 

 Institutional investors have continued to enter the litigation funding industry, both through directly funding litigation and through providing billions of dollars of financing to litigation funding companies. There have been approximately $2.7 billion of securitizations of consumer pre-settlement assets since 2018, plus billions of dollars of advances to market participants from credit opportunity and hedge funds, as well as private equity firms such as Blackstone, Parthenon, Further Global, Edmond De Rothschild, and UBS. We expect that the investor sentiment of diversifying into litigation finance will continue in coming years. 

Learn More 

To uncover additional industry and investment insights, download the full BPC Litigation Finance Industry Primer. 

Manolete Partners Announces Record New Case Investments, Referrals and Completions

By Harry Moran |

Whilst current levels of global economic instability are unlikely to be celebrated by many, for litigation funders focused on the insolvency market, such economic headwinds present opportunities for strong financial returns.

In a trading update for the year ending 31 March 2025, Manolete Partners announced that its insolvency litigation financing business had achieved record results for the latest financial year. The funder revealed that it had registered a record 282 new case investments, rising from 276 in FY24. These record figures excluded cases from what Manolete described as the “one-off effect of the Barclays Bounce Back Loan Pilot”, with only two of these BBBLP cases signed in FY25 compared to the 35 that were signed in FY24.

This achievement for new investments was matched by a record number of case completions, achieving 272 completed cases in FY25 compared to 251 the previous year. In terms of the return on investment for these cases, Manolete explained that the estimated Money Multiple on these cases was 2.1x, which represented a slight dip from 2.4x in FY24. However, the average Realised Revenue per completed case this financial year hit £108k, signifying a 12.5% increase on the average of £96k for FY24.

Manolete attributed this increase to a commensurate increase in the average size of the cases it invested in, due to the volume of medium to large company insolvencies increasing following the end of financial support provided by the government during the pandemic.

In another positive sign for Manolete’s market position and opportunities for future growth, the funder also received a record 896 new case referrals, building on a total of 731 referrals in FY24.

Steven Cooklin, CEO of Manolete, provided the following comment on these record results: "The past year has seen Manolete achieve record KPIs across all key metrics of the business and outperform market forecasts. Given the strong tailwinds presented by the challenging UK and global business environments, we expect to build upon those achievements in the forthcoming year." 

The full trading update which includes more details on income, revenue and debt can be read here.

California Assembly Committee Unanimously Approves Funder Registration Bill

By Harry Moran |

Following the signing of a bill by Georgia’s Governor earlier this month on regulating litigation funding, industry observers are eyeing which state will be the next to expand its oversight of third-party funding in the United States.

At a hearing in the California State Assembly, the Committee on Banking and Finance passed a new legislative proposal designed to impose additional rules on the use of litigation funding in the state. Assembly Bill 743, the California Financing Law: lawsuit financiers, creates a new requirement for any funder operating in California to obtain a license from the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). 

AB 743, which had been first heard and then amended by the committee on 24 March, was passed unanimously with nine aye votes. The bill was first introduced on 18 February by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez, who also sits on the Committee on Banking and Finance. 

The bill includes several measures to more tightly regulate commercial litigation funding in the state, including expanding the definition of “commercial loan” to include a litigation finance arrangement. The new DFPI license will also require the funder to maintain a surety bond in a minimum amount of $250,000, with the DPFI’s commissioner to increase the bond amount based on the sum of financing originated by the funder. Finally, the bill creates penalties for any funder found to be in violation of these rules, starting with a $100,000 for a first violation and rising to a maximum of $250,000 for each subsequent violation.

Following the unanimous approval by the Committee on Banking and Finance, AB 743 will now be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

The current draft text of AB 743 can be read here.

Avyana Litigation Funding Strengthens Strategic Model to Expand Access to Justice

By Harry Moran |

Legal disputes often involve not only complex legal considerations but also significant financial pressure. For many companies, asserting their rights requires substantial resources, with outcomes that are uncertain. In distressed scenarios—such as restructuring or insolvency—the burden becomes even more acute.

Avyana Litigation Funding addresses this challenge through a model that transforms legal claims into strategic assets. The company has recently been reinforced by the involvement of two experienced professionals: Dr. Tillmann Lauk (LL.M.), former global board member of Deutsche Bank, and Dr. Raphael Nagel (LL.M.), a long-standing private equity investor and entrepreneur.

A Strategic Approach to Litigation Finance

Rather than simply covering legal costs, Avyana’s model enables businesses to pursue valid claims without affecting operational liquidity. In successful cases, proceeds are shared; in unsuccessful ones, the company absorbs the loss. This shifts the litigation risk from claimant to funder, offering companies a way to enforce their rights without jeopardizing financial stability.

Beyond funding, Avyana also provides companies with the option to sell claims to a network of specialized partners. This approach can be particularly valuable in restructuring scenarios, enabling companies to unlock capital from unresolved legal positions.

“Many firms hold claims that are potentially valuable but lack the capacity or appetite to pursue them,” explains Dr. Tillmann Lauk. “Our structure allows that value to be realized more efficiently.”

Collaborative Model with Legal and Corporate Partners

A core element of Avyana’s approach is its close collaboration with law firms, corporate clients, and insolvency administrators. By aligning with experienced legal teams, the company ensures that funded claims are supported by sound legal strategies and operational execution.

Typical areas of focus include commercial disputes, contract enforcement, claims for damages and shareholder conflicts. In insolvency proceedings, litigation funding can enable administrators to pursue avoidance actions or liability claims, helping to recover value for creditors without depleting estate resources.

“Our analysis considers both legal merit and commercial logic,” says Dr. Raphael Nagel. “Each case is reviewed with the goal of turning legal exposure into financial opportunity.”

Global Scope and Investment Discipline

Avyana Litigation Funding operates internationally, with an emphasis on Europe, the Middle East, and select emerging markets. All cases undergo comprehensive due diligence, with investment decisions guided by principles applied by its leadership in corporate finance and legal risk assessment.

“We treat every claim as an investment opportunity,” adds Dr. Lauk. “This means evaluating enforceability, counterparty risk, and recovery potential before any commitment is made.”

An Evolving Role in Legal and Financial Strategy

Litigation finance and structured claim sales are increasingly integral to the legal and business environment. For companies, law firms, and administrators alike, these tools offer a way to act strategically, preserve capital, and navigate legal complexities more effectively.

“In today’s economy, access to justice should not depend on cash flow or balance sheet size,” concludes Dr. Nagel. “Avyana Litigation Funding provides a structured path forward.”

Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Collapses Owing Millions to Creditors

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered earlier this month, concerns have been raised that law firms in the housing disrepair claims sector are operating with unsustainable business models propped up by litigation funders. New reporting on the administration of one of these claims suggests that there is a high degree of volatility in the sector, with funders acting as unpaid creditors to these same law firms.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the story of Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Limited, a law firm that entered administration last month, with new filings suggesting that its creditors will be left without millions in unpaid debts. The Gazette’s review of Companies House records found that at the time of the law firm’s administration, it owed more than £6 million to creditors including litigation funder Fenchurch Legal.

The summary of liabilities showed that Nicholson Jones Sutton owed Fenchurch Legal more than £2.4 million, whilst the collapsed litigation funder VFS Legal was also left waiting for £196,000. According to Fenchurch Legal, the cases funded along with the security has been successfully transferred, and there has been no loss incurred by the business or its investors. As LFJ reported last month, VFS Legal has also experienced a positive outcome with its administrators able to repay millions to its own creditors. 

Unfortunately, the Gazette’s reporting suggests that the failed law firm will not be in a similar position, having reported only £159,000 of tangible assets at the time its administrators were appointed. The article explains that the liabilities summary prepared by administrators RSM and DMC Recovery revealed Nicholson Jones Sutton has ‘no assets available to unsecured creditors collectively owed more than £1.5m.’

The statement of affairs filed by the administrators can be found on Companies House here.

Seven Stars Legal Acquires Sandstone Legal’s Assets and Transfers Funded Cases

By Harry Moran |

An insolvent law firm’s administration proceedings in the Insolvency and Companies Court has concluded with the firm’s litigation funder acquiring its assets, whilst preserving funded cases by transferring them to other law firms.

In a post on LinkedIn, Seven Stars Legal Funding announced that it had completed the acquisition of Sandstone Legal’s non-legal assets following the end of the law firm’s administration proceedings in court. The funder also secured the transfer of the existing case load from Sandstone to four of Seven Stars’ client law firms: Brandsmiths, FDM Law, 56 Law and Justizia. Seven Stars explained that this transfer included the appointment of a solicitor manager “to preserve the continuity of legal services”.

Leon Clarance, chief strategy officer at Seven Stars, highlighted that it had taken “six months of dedicated work” to secure Sandstone Legal’s assets and that the funder’s “primary focus has been to ensure that client cases have found appropriate new homes.”

During the administration proceedings, Seven Stars was represented by Louis Doyle KC and a team from Brandsmiths including David Seligman, Ewen Sharpe, Myrto Sevdali, Courtney Bryan-Isaacs and Iona Barron. Ewen Sharpe, senior associate at Brandsmiths, commended the litigation funder on its approach to the administration proceedings in ensuring that Sandstone’s clients have been properly looked after and that their cases will be able to run to conclusion.”

In a follow-up posted on LinkedIn today, Seven Stars revealed additional details on the cases acquired from Sandstone. These include 35,500 Plevin claims which have been assigned to a single law firm, and 603 housing disrepair claims assigned to another law firm. The funder also revealed that in order to balance its lending portfolio, it has also ‘redistributed nearly 900 pension mis-selling and contentious probate claims, as well as 2,000 business energy claims’. Seven Stars stated that these claims have been redistributed across its existing borrowing law firms, with those firms now in charge of seeing these claims through to completion.

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Florida Funder Targeted by Class Action over Data Breach

By Harry Moran |

Whilst funders are often eager to support class actions on behalf of customers who have been harmed by cybersecurity attacks on other companies, a new complaint filed in Florida seeks to represent individuals who suffered losses because of a funder’s own data breach.

Reporting by Insurance Journal covers a class action that has been filed targeting litigation funder US Claims Capital over allegations that it failed to protect its clients’ personal data. The filing of the claim in the U.S. District Court in Miami follows a data breach in January of this year, with the plaintiff alleging that the funder had not implemented sufficient cybersecurity measures and therefore had not properly secured the personal data of the plaintiffs it had provided funding to.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a Kansas resident named as Timothy Vactor, with the complaint looking to represent other plaintiffs and clients of US Claims whose personal data was exposed as part of the cyberattack. The filing argued that due to the breach, the plaintiffs’ “private information is forever exposed and unsecure”, and that the “exposure of one’s private information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be un-rung”.

The funder had reportedly informed plaintiffs it had worked with of the data breach in a letter sent on April 11, over three months after the cyberattack on January 7. The letter informed US Claims’ clients that “certain information related to you may have been acquired by an unauthorized individual as part of the event”. The funder subsequently provided these individuals with an insurance policy in case they had suffered financial losses, as well as some assistance around identity theft protection and cyber monitoring.

At the time of reporting, US Claims has not filed a response to the complaint.

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

The following piece was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.

Governor Kemp Signs Litigation Funding Bill into Law

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the end of last month, the first quarter of 2025 had already demonstrated the momentum behind legislative initiatives at the state level aimed at regulating the legal funding industry.

An article in Bloomberg Law highlights the signing of legislation which introduces new restrictions and guidelines on the use of third-party litigation funding in Georgia. Governor Brian Kemp took the final step of signing Senate Bill 69 into law this week, which followed the Senate’s approval of final amendments to the bill’s text that had been made during the committee stage. Kemp celebrated the signing of the bill by saying that it represented a victory for Georgians “who for too long were suffering the impacts of an out-of-balance legal environment”.

SB 69 requires third-party funders register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, as well as prohibiting any foreign individuals or organisation from funding litigation in the state. The bill also sets out disclosure requirements for cases where a litigation funding agreement is present and puts in place restrictions on a funder’s ability to control the litigation process.

The amended bill also added provisions for the Department of Banking and Finance to deny funders’ registration applications, updated disclosure requirements to include any individual with a 10% or greater stake in a funder, and provided more specific language for defining foreign entities involved in litigation funding.

As one of the key organisations that opposed the bill, the International Legal Finance Association’s executive director, Paul Kong expressed disappointment “that the Georgia legislature was unable to find a solution to its concerns with legal funding that did not shut off critical access to the state’s courts systems.” Kong contrasted this legislation with the bill signed by Kansas’ governor earlier this month, which as LFJ reported, was viewed as an acceptable compromise between proponents and critics of third-party funding.

Dubai Overhauls Legal Framework of DIFC Courts

By John Freund |

Dubai has enacted Law No. (2) of 2025 which cements the role of the DIFC Courts as a forum for cross-border litigation and arbitration.

According to the Government of Dubai's Official Gazette, the statute formalizes the structure of the DIFC Courts, mandating that all proceedings be conducted in English, and that judges convene hearings in-person or virtually. The law also grants the Chief Justice sweeping oversight, including the authority to issue procedural rules, supervise court officers, and approve judicial appointments.

The DIFC Courts maintain exclusive jurisdiction over civil, commercial, labor, and inheritance matters, while permitting opt-in jurisdiction for external parties by written agreement. The legislation promotes the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, and grants the courts discretion to enforce non-Muslim rulings and appoint judicial custodians where appropriate.

With the repeal of DIFC Laws No. 10 and 12 of 2004, the new law takes immediate effect, positioning the DIFC Courts as a more robust and transparent judicial forum.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Cristina Soler, Co-Founder and CEO, Ramco Litigation Funding

Cristina Soler is CEO and co-founder of Ramco Litigation Funding, a pioneering litigation and arbitration funding firm in Spain with a solid track record. Ramco was founded in the UK in 2015 and in Spain in 2017.

Cristina is a Spanish lawyer with expertise in high-value international litigation and arbitration and has more than 20 years of professional experience in defending and advising on commercial disputes and complex litigation and arbitration matters.  She has worked in leading international law firms advising domestic and foreign clients from different industry sectors, including oil and gas, construction and infrastructure.

Cristina founded Ramco in Spain and has pioneered the introduction of litigation and arbitration finance in Spain since 2017 and has been involved in the financing of some of the most relevant litigation and arbitration cases followed in Spain and other jurisdictions.

Cristina was part of the Advisory Subcommittee for the drafting of the Code of Good Practice (2019) of the Spanish Arbitration Club (CEA). 

Cristina has coordinated the book published by Aranzadi la Ley in 2024 “La Financiación de Litigios en derecho español y comparado” launched by Ramco Litigation Funding  in collaboration with the ICADE University which is the first collective work about Third Party Funding in Spain. She has also authored a Chapter of the book about the Third Party Funding Market in Spain.

Cristina has also co-authored several articles on Third Party Funding, including the Spanish chapter of the 6th and 7th edition of the reference guide on Litigation Funding and Arbitration "In-Depth: Third Party Litigation Funding" (formerly "The Third-Party Litigation Funding Law Review").

Cristina has recently been recognised in the prestigious worldwide list "Lawdragon Guide" as one of the Global 100 Leaders in the world of litigation finance "Lawdragon Guide's 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance 2022, 2023 and 2024“, being the only Spanish firm to be recognised among the international firms included in the ranking for 3 consecutive years.

Company Description: Ramco is a specialist provider of litigation finance solutions with a strong track record, managed by Spanish litigator Cristina Soler and backed by institutional investors. 

Ramco focuses its activities on high value-added areas such as natural resources and energy, regulatory markets, banking and financial markets, renewable energy, capital projects and infrastructure, competition and antitrust and intellectual property. The team brings together many years of experience in the energy, litigation and finance sectors and has the knowledge and expertise to properly evaluate litigation and arbitration claims. 

Ramco helps leading companies and law firms to optimise their legal assets and provides litigation financing in all its forms, including single case and class action litigation, as well as the financing of arbitrations and the purchase of claims, judgments and awards. Founded in 2017, RAMCO has been involved in the funding of claims with a total value in excess of USD 5 billion, including some of the landmark cases pursued in Spain and other jurisdictions. 

Ramco has been a pioneer in Spain in tailoring the mechanism of litigation funding to the needs and characteristics of the Spanish market due to its knowledge of both the market and the Spanish legal system.

Company Website: www.ramcolf.com

Year Founded:  2017

Headquarters:  Barcelona

Area of Focus: Ramco focuses its activities on high value-added areas such as natural resources and energy, regulatory markets, banking and financial markets, renewable energy, capital projects and infrastructure, international arbitration, competition and antitrust and intellectual property.

Member Quotes:

“Third-party funding allows, apart from financing the costs of the claim, to have a highly qualified team of experts who provide added value to the company's position in the litigation.”

Cristina Soler, CEO de Ramco Litigation Funding
La Vanguardia, "Ramco or How to Litigate Without Money or Without Risk"

“Spain is an emerging market for litigation funding and litigation and arbitration proceedings arise in sectors of high interest to investors, such as renewables, competition law or banking, among others.”

Cristina Soler, CEO de Ramco Litigation Funding
Expansión, "Litigation Funds Become Strong in Spain"

“Litigation funding wasinitiallyconsolidated in sectors where litigation isparticularly costly,due to theneed forprofessional technical specialization andthe specialeconomic relevanceof the debate andclaimsat stake.”

Cristina Soler, Managing Partner of Ramco LitigationFunding
lberian Lawyer, "Fund Me if You Dare”