Capitol Hill is again zeroing in on litigation finance. During a House Judiciary Sub-committee hearing on “foreign abuse of U.S. courts,” Chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) revived his Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, which would mandate public disclosure of any outside funding in federal civil suits, along with the identity of the backer and the terms of the agreement.

An article in Bloomberg Law notes that Issa framed disclosure as a fairness measure—defendants already turn over insurance information—while hinting that opaque funding may enable “legal warfare” by foreign adversaries. The hearing featured witnesses from the insurance lobby and national-security analysts who linked anonymous capital flows to social-inflation pressures and geopolitical risk.

Although prior attempts at federal transparency rules have stalled, Issa’s bill dovetails with a parallel Senate push and a patchwork of state-level disclosure mandates. Funders argue that blanket reporting would chill investment and expose proprietary strategy; critics counter that sunlight would deter foreign influence and forum shopping. Sub-committee members floated amendments ranging from confidential in-camera filings to a PACER-style public registry.

For litigation financiers, the renewed spotlight could herald a regulatory inflection point: a narrowly tailored disclosure regime might boost legitimacy, but broad public filings could drive capital offshore or into other investment types altogether. Either way, today’s hearing signals that Washington’s debate over balancing access-to-justice benefits with transparency and national-security concerns is far from settled.

A new report catalogues how marquee investments in the £58 million Post Office settlement and the still-pending $15 billion Sabah arbitration have delivered thinner-than-advertised returns for Therium Capital. Add in 2023’s PACCAR ruling, which re-classified many funding contracts as damages-based agreements and capped recoveries, and the firm’s prospects look increasingly fragile.

An article in Boracay Island News recounts how Therium has scaled back new underwriting, shifted several legacy portfolios to Fortress Investment Group, and is now fighting to salvage returns in Therium v Bugsby—a test case on whether “DBA-style” clauses can simply be severed from legacy deals.

The piece underscores three structural stresses: concentration risk when outsized single matters dominate a fund; regulatory uncertainty post-PACCAR; and the reputational hit when claimant recoveries prove modest once funder multiples and lawyer fees are paid. Industry observers worry that if “grand-slam” cases continue to disappoint, limited-partner appetite for blind-pool capital could tighten, forcing funders to rely more heavily on secondary markets or bespoke co-invests.

For the wider legal-funding ecosystem the story is a sobering reminder: transparency, portfolio diversification, and realistic pricing will be increasingly important in a world of tougher judicial scrutiny and return caps.

Third-party funders are once again in the cross-hairs—and one of the sector’s elder statesmen is firing back. In a forthright essay published today, Calunius Capital chairman Leslie Perrin argues that Britain’s collective redress regime “cannot survive” if fresh assaults on funder fees succeed.

In an article in Solicitors Journal, Perrin points to two flashpoints: the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR ruling, which invalidated percentage-based funding agreements, and a new bid in Neill v Sony to outlaw multiples-based returns as well. At the same time, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is facing a judicial-review challenge from funder Innsworth over its decision to slash the funder’s recovery in the landmark £200 million Merricks v Mastercard settlement—an intervention Perrin calls “dangerously simplistic.”

Perrin’s broader thesis is that without well-capitalised funders prepared to shoulder adverse-costs risk, consumers will be left “stranded” against well-resourced corporate defendants and the CAT’s promise of affordable group litigation will wither. Perrin also takes aim at lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he says seeks to “promote opposition to litigation funding” under the guise of economic prudence. In place of curbs, he backs the Civil Justice Council’s recommendation for legislation reversing PACCAR retrospectively and prospectively.

If Westminster heeds those warnings, UK funders could regain certainty and renew their commitment to competition-class actions. But if further fee-caps or invalidations emerge, capital will flee to jurisdictions with clearer rules—leaving an access-to-justice gap just as collective-action appetite is peaking. Whether Innsworth’s challenge succeeds may therefore set the tone for the next chapter of UK litigation finance.

Alarm bells over the economic cost of UK class actions are “simply wrong,” says Anthony Maton, global co-chair of claimant firm Hausfeld, who dismantles a think-tank report suggesting mass litigation could sap £18 billion from the economy.

In The Global Legal Post, Maton traces the deliberate parliamentary design behind the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CAT’s rigorous gatekeeping of collective proceedings. He argues that funders—often caricatured as “ambulance chasers”—perform an essential market-correction role, underwriting meritorious competition claims that regulators or individual consumers lack resources to pursue. The piece notes that voluntary redress schemes built into the Act “have been used precisely zero times,” reinforcing the need for well-financed private enforcement.

Maton also rebuts suggestions that funders extract disproportionate value, pointing to oversight mechanisms and adverse-costs exposure that align investor and claimant interests. He invites sceptics to consider whether ill-gotten profits are better left with infringing corporates or redistributed to harmed consumers and access-to-justice charities.

The commentary offers a timely counter-narrative as Westminster considers PACCAR-related reforms. By reframing funders as pillars of a competitive economy rather than rent-seekers, it may bolster lobbying for statutory clarity on LFAs and head off calls for US-style disclosure mandates. Expect industry groups to amplify this message—and for critics to sharpen economic-impact modeling—in the run-up to any government consultation.

A critical procedural milestone has been set in the high-profile dispute over the $15 billion arbitral award claimed by the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate against Malaysia. A Paris court has scheduled a hearing for December 9, where it will decide whether to annul the partial award issued by a Spanish arbitrator—a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for the legitimacy of third-party funded arbitration in sovereign disputes.

As reported by The Malaysian Reserve, the case stems from a 2022 ruling which found Malaysia liable for ceasing annual payments related to a 19th-century lease of territory now part of Sabah. The award has been described as one of the largest in arbitration history and is backed by Therium, a UK-based litigation funder. Malaysia has consistently challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, resulting in conflicting decisions in courts across Spain, France, and Luxembourg.

The upcoming Paris ruling will not address the full $15 billion award but rather the validity of the partial award that formed the foundation for the final judgment. Malaysia’s legal representatives argue that the arbitration itself is void, citing breaches in due process and the arbitrator's alleged overreach.

The Sulu case has become a lightning rod in debates over state immunity, the enforceability of investor-state arbitration, and the role of third-party funders in politically sensitive disputes. As funders continue to back complex claims against sovereign states, the Paris court’s decision may set a significant precedent for the enforceability—and reversibility—of arbitral awards financed by external capital.

Omni Bridgeway is pushing the boundaries of legal finance with a newly detailed strategy to monetise complex non-performing loan (NPL) portfolios—particularly those stuck in regulatory limbo under IFRS 9. The funder’s latest blog outlines a first-of-its-kind securitisation in Morocco where Omni both bought a bank’s Stage-3 loans and assumed recovery management, creating what it calls a “regulatory-compliant exit” for lenders weighed down by lifetime expected-credit-loss charges.

An article on Omni Bridgeway's website explains that the initiative forms part of the firm’s Distressed Asset Recovery Program, led by Marijn Flinterman. Key features include contingent pricing so banks keep upside, co-investment structures, and cross-border enforcement to chase obligors’ assets. The piece highlights how the model can dovetail with EU prudential back-stops, the UAE’s five-year default rules, and nascent African secondary-debt markets, positioning Omni as both capital provider and workout specialist.

For legal funders, the pivot shows a maturing asset class moving beyond one-off claims into portfolio-level credit solutions that compete with private-equity special-situations desks. If successful, other funders may replicate the strategy, blurring lines between litigation finance, debt-trading and structured credit.

The four-year fight over New Zealand banks’ historic credit-law breaches has taken another twist, with plaintiffs proposing a NZ $306-309 million (US $184m) settlement that ANZ and ASB immediately branded a “stunt.” The offer comes as Wellington lawmakers fast-track amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act that could retroactively blunt liability for disclosure failures dating back to 2015.

An article in 1News notes that the 150,000-member class is jointly funded by Australia-based CASL and home-grown LPF Group, both entitled to a slice of any recovery. The banks fired back before Parliament’s Finance & Expenditure Committee, warning that the “windfall-driven” funders are exploiting regulatory loopholes while overstating consumer harm. Funders argue the legislative patch would hand banks a “free pass”—and jeopardise redress for borrowers already overcharged NZ $43 million in interest and fees. Officials estimate that failure to close the loophole could expose the industry to NZ $13 billion in follow-on claims.

Whether the proposed deal survives, the episode underscores two global trends: funders stepping into consumer-finance class actions once considered uneconomical, and defendants leveraging political capital to contain funded litigation. For the industry, Wellington is a bell-weather: if lawmakers either eviscerate or enshrine funded collective actions, other small markets may follow.

An opt-out competition settlement in the UK has hit an unusual snag: what to do with almost £10M in unclaimed passenger damages?

An article in Legal Futures recounts that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has invited submissions from claimant firm Charles Lyndon, litigation funder Woodsford, ATE insurers and the Access to Justice Foundation after fewer than one percent of eligible rail travellers filed claims against Stagecoach South West Trains. The 2024 deal ring-fenced £4.75M for costs up-front and allowed the class representative, consumer campaigner Justin Gutmann, to ask the Tribunal to re-allocate any leftover pot.

With the September entitlement hearing looming, Charles Lyndon is urging a £5–6M donation to the justice charity, while Woodsford argues its non-recourse investment entitles it to more of the residue. The CAT signaled it will weigh whether the outcome “predominantly” benefits stakeholders rather than class members—a pointed reminder that third-party funding returns remain subject to public-interest scrutiny even post-settlement.

Although smaller in dollar terms than the mammoth interchange-fee litigation, the dispute underscores funders’ growing role in allocation fights once the merits are resolved. How the CAT balances cost recovery and funder profit could set an influential template for other UK collective actions—especially as new rules and the PACCAR fallout push funders toward multiple-based fee structures with capped upside.

Litigation financiers have narrowly sidestepped what many saw as an existential threat: a 40 percent federal tax on funding profits that had been quietly tucked into the Senate’s sprawling reconciliation bill. While the proposal’s defeat means the industry will remain in tact, the close call has exposed deep fissures in an industry still fighting for political legitimacy.

An article in Bloomberg recounts how the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) scrambled a last-minute “war room,” tapping GOP fixer Pete Kirkham and leaning on senators Ron Wyden and Mike Lee to invoke the Byrd Rule and strip the revenue provision before a floor vote. The measure, authored by Sen. Thom Tillis, would have taxed funders at the top individual rate (37%) plus an additional 3.8%, barred loss-netting and lifted shields for tax-exempt investors—changes projected to raise $3.5 billion over a decade.

ILFA’s rapid mobilization underscored the piecemeal nature of the sector’s advocacy. Omni Bridgeway portfolio manager Gian Kull lamented that funders “are not one unified entity, like private equity,” while Parker Poe partner Michael Kelley called the bill “a rifle shot right to the heart.” Yet not every member chipped in for the fight, reviving free-rider complaints in an a highly fragmented industry. Meanwhile, opponents led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—and vocal corporates Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil and Liberty Mutual—signaled they will pivot to state legislatures and renewed transparency drives.

Writing on LinkedIn, Peter Petyt, founder of 4 Rivers Legal underscored the urgency of the current moment: "This moment calls for more than celebration — it demands leadership. The industry must come together to educate, advocate, and engage with lawmakers and the public in a constructive way."

For funders, the episode is a stark reminder that large corporations are gunning for this industry's very existence. Expect beefed-up lobbying budgets, accelerated ILFA recruitment and louder messaging on consumer access to justice as the industry braces for the next volley in what is fast becoming a multi-front policy war on third-party capital.

A Manhattan federal judge has handed Argentina a three-day reprieve in the long-running Petersen / Eton Park saga, pausing enforcement of a $16.1 billion judgment that would force the hand-over of the country’s 51 percent stake in YPF.

Reuters notes that Judge Loretta Preska pushed the turnover deadline to July 17 so Buenos Aires can seek emergency relief from the Second Circuit, while chastising the sovereign for what she called “continued delay and circumvention.” The minority shareholders—represented by Burford Capital—stand to capture as much as 73 percent of the proceeds if Argentina ultimately pays, a prospect the Milei administration says could destabilize an economy already battling 200 percent inflation and dwindling reserves.

Preska’s order reinforces New York courts’ willingness to deploy drastic remedies against recalcitrant sovereigns, signalling that litigation financiers can indeed convert paper judgments into hard assets—even politically sensitive ones like a controlling stake in a national oil champion.

For the wider industry, the decision spotlights the enforcement stage as a fertile (and risky) arena for capital deployment. Success here could spur more sovereign-related funding, but also sharpen calls for transparency around funder returns when public assets are at stake.

Fieldfisher has recruited litigation-funding specialist Verity Jackson-Grant to the newly created post of Head of Commercial Pricing, underscoring the firm’s intent to capitalize on sophisticated fee and finance structures in the wake of last year’s PACCAR fallout. Jackson-Grant, best known for translating third-party capital into user-friendly products for corporate clients, will sit within the firm’s European finance team and manage a multi-office pricing unit.

An update on LinkedIn confirms her appointment, noting that she will “drive and shape” Fieldfisher’s pricing strategy across the continent. The role’s blueprint calls for rolling out “creative pricing models” that enhance client profitability and embed alternative fee arrangements into disputes workflows.

Jackson-Grant brings a rare blend of funding fluency and law-firm know-how. A former director at TheJudge, she brokered litigation-finance and ATE insurance packages before moving in-house to develop alternative pricing frameworks for major UK and US practices.

The insurance industry’s long-simmering feud with third-party litigation finance boiled over on Monday.

In an article originally posted in the Wall Street Journal and covered in Insurance Business America, Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg and Marsh McLennan counterpart John Doyle deliver a joint broadside against what they dub the “litigation investment industry.” The duo argue that multi-billion-dollar capital inflows from hedge funds and foreign investors are fueling a 52% year-on-year jump in “nuclear verdicts,” pushing the average blockbuster award to US $51 million.

The duo's ire is heightened by Congress’ failure to preserve a 40.8% surtax on funder income that was stripped from President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” during reconciliation. Without tax parity, they warn, funders can pay 0 % capital-gains rates while plaintiffs shoulder income-tax burdens of up to 37%.

The executives cite data showing 135 verdicts above US $10 million in 2024 and estimate tort costs at US $529 billion—figures they link directly to opaque funding arrangements. Chubb, they reveal, is reviewing counterparties to sever any ties with litigation financiers, while Marsh has already refused to place insurance that facilitates funding.

Funders are already responding to the pair's remarks. William Marra, Director at Certum Group, wrote on LinkedIn: "Funders and their allies need to prepare for the policy debates ahead, because misguided proposals to kill funding may continue." Marra then highlighted proactive education, rapid response, success stories and coalition building as four strategies that funders should consider moving forward.

Burford Capital has once again reminded the debt markets that litigation finance is anything but niche.

An article in PR Newswire reports that the New York- and London-listed funder upsized its private offering of senior notes from an initial $400 million to $500 million after books closed multiple times oversubscribed. The eight-year paper priced at 7.5 %, Burford’s tightest spread over Treasuries to date, and will refinance $180 million in 6.125 % notes maturing this August while extending the weighted-average life of the balance sheet to 2033.

According to Burford CEO Christopher Bogart: "We're very pleased with the results of this latest debt offering, which added a half-billion dollars in capital, building on our momentum and strengthening our position to achieve our growth targets."

For investors, the transaction offers two signals: first, that the firm’s cash-realisation cycle—driven by landmark wins such as Petersen—continues to convert headline judgments into distributable cash; and second, that fixed-income desks are increasingly comfortable underwriting the risk profile of litigation finance even in a high-rate environment.

Omni Bridgeway has stepped in to bankroll a newly-filed Federal Court class action alleging that certain 2010-14 Toyota Corolla models suffer from a manufacturing defect that causes factory “040 white” paint to flake under UV exposure. Lead plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Fabian seeks compensation for diminished vehicle value and associated distress.

An article in Lawyerly says William Roberts Lawyers lodged the claim late Wednesday in Sydney, with Omni providing “no-win-no-pay” financing and an adverse-costs indemnity. The suit covers consumers who bought affected sedans or hatchbacks after 1 January 2011.

Plaintiffs allege Toyota breached Australia’s Consumer Law guarantee of acceptable quality, citing a 2022 Toyota bulletin that acknowledged adhesive degradation between primer and base metal. Class members face no out-of-pocket exposure; Omni recoups costs and takes a court-approved commission only from any recovery. Registration is open nationwide, and Omni’s portal details eligibility tests based on VIN build plates and paint codes.

The case exemplifies funders’ deepening appetite for high-volume consumer-product claims. Success here could spur similar “cosmetic defect” suits—particularly in Australia’s active class-action market—further diversifying funders’ portfolios beyond financial-services and securities disputes.

Argentina’s legal team has fired its latest salvo in the long-running, Burford-backed YPF litigation, lodging two emergency briefs with U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that seek to halt her 30 June order compelling the country to transfer its 51 percent stake in the oil major to a BNY Mellon escrow within 14 days.

An article in Infobae reports that the Treasury Solicitor’s Office argues immediate compliance would violate Argentina’s hydrocarbon-sovereignty statute, trigger cross-default clauses, and irreversibly strip state control of a company central to the Vaca Muerta shale programme. The briefs also insist the $16.1 billion judgment—won by Petersen Energía and Eton Park after Burford Capital financed their claims—presents “novel questions” on sovereign immunity and extraterritorial asset execution, meriting a stay pending Second Circuit review.

Burford’s creditors countered earlier this week, citing Governor Axel Kicillof’s public remarks as proof of obstruction. Argentina retorted that Kicillof holds no federal brief, seeking to neutralise that leverage while underscoring the U.S. Justice Department’s past reservations about enforcing foreign-sovereign turnovers. Judge Preska is expected to rule on the stay motion within days; absent relief, the share transfer clock runs out on 15 July.

A stay would underscore enforcement risk, even after a blockbuster merits win. Funders will watch Preska's decision, and capital-providers hunting sovereign-risk cases may calibrate pricing accordingly.

Specialty managing general underwriter Palisade Insurance Partners has taken a significant step to scale its fast-growing contingent-legal-risk book, striking a delegated-authority agreement with Accredited Specialty Insurance Company. Including the Accredited capacity, Palisade has up to $35 million in coverage for legal risk insurance products. The New York-headquartered MGU can now offer larger wraps for judgment preservation, adverse-appeal and similar exposures—coverages that corporates, private-equity sponsors and law firms increasingly use to de-risk litigation and unlock financing.

An article in Business Insurance reports that the deal provides Palisade's clients with the comfort of carrier balance-sheet strength while allowing the insurer to expand its program portfolio. The capacity tops up Palisade’s existing relationships and arrives at a time when several traditional markets have retrenched from contingent legal risk after absorbing a spate of outsized verdicts, leaving many complex disputes under-served.

Palisade leadership said demand for robust limits has “never been stronger,” driven by M&A transactions that hinge on successful appeals, fund-level financings that need portfolio hedges, and secondary trading of mature judgments. Writing on LinkedIn, Palisade President John McNally stated: "Accredited's partnership expands Palisade's ability to transfer litigation exposures and help facilitate transactional and financing outcomes for its corporate, law firm, investment manager and M&A clients."

The new facility aligns the MGU’s maximum line with those of higher-profile peers and could see Palisade participate in single-event placements that have historically defaulted to the London market. For Accredited, the move diversifies its program roster and positions the insurer to capture premium in a niche with attractive economics—provided underwriting discipline holds.

China’s ballooning stock of non-performing loans (NPLs) has long frustrated mainland banks and asset-management companies eager to claw back value from defaulted borrowers scattered across multiple jurisdictions. In its newly released 2025 Report on International Asset Recovery for PRC Financial Creditors, Omni Bridgeway distills the lessons of a growing body of cross-border enforcement actions and sets out a playbook for creditors determined to follow the money.

A paper published by Omni Bridgeway explains that the three-chapter study surveys today’s enforcement landscape, highlights “funded recovery” strategies for domestic institutions, and walks readers through case studies in which Chinese lenders have traced assets into offshore havens and employed Mareva-style injunctions, arbitral award assignments, and insolvency proceedings to compel payment.

The paper highlights how litigation finance can transform the economics of pursuing stubborn debtors. By underwriting investigative costs, securing local counsel, and bridging timing gaps between enforcement wins and cash realisation, funders such as Omni Bridgeway can turn an otherwise write-off-prone claim into a profitable workout.

The report also charts structural shifts reshaping the market: Beijing’s pressure on state banks to clean balance sheets, private-equity appetite for “special situations” paper, and widening acceptance of third-party funding in arbitration hubs from Hong Kong to Singapore. A series of recent matters—ranging from a Guangzhou lender’s successful freeze of UK real estate to a provincial AMC’s recovery of Latin-American mining assets—illustrate the potency of coordinated tracing, injunctive relief, and securitised claims sales.

For the legal-funding bar, the study underscores a powerful, still-underexploited pipeline: hundreds of billions of renminbi in distressed credit looking for capital-efficient enforcement solutions. Whether PRC banks will embrace external funders at scale—and how regulators will view foreign-backed recovery campaigns—remain pivotal questions for 2025 and beyond.

Omni Bridgeway has sidestepped a potentially painful tax after President Trump signed the FY-25 Budget Bill without the much-debated levy on legal-finance proceeds. The Australian-listed funder, which bankrolls commercial claims on six continents, had warned that the original 40.8 percent surcharge floated in the Senate Finance Committee would depress case economics and chill cross-border capital flows. Instead, the final bill landed on 4 July with zero mention of legal-finance taxation, handing the industry a regulatory reprieve just as U.S. portfolio commitments hit record highs.

Sharecafe notes that Omni Bridgeway credits a rare coalition of plaintiff-side bar groups, access-to-justice NGOs, and chambers-of-commerce allies for persuading lawmakers to drop the proposal. The company says it will elaborate in its 4Q25 report later this month, but stresses that bipartisan recognition of funding’s public-interest role now mirrors supportive reviews in Australia, the EU and the UK.

For funders, the episode underscores two diverging trends: rising U.S. political scrutiny and an equally vocal defense of the asset class from sophisticated investors. Expect lobbying budgets to climb as Congress circles disclosure and tax issues again in 2026, but also expect money to keep flowing—Omni’s stance suggests confidence that regulatory headwinds can be managed without derailing growth.

Britain’s Civil Justice Council has recommended sweeping but flexible regulation to stabilise a litigation-funding market rattled by last year’s PACCAR ruling. In a 58-point report, the CJC calls for legislation clarifying that third-party funding deals are not damages-based agreements, erasing the decision’s retroactive cloud over billions in commitments. It favours statutory oversight—potentially by the FCA after a five-year review—covering capital adequacy, anti-money-laundering checks and early disclosure of funding sources, while rejecting hard caps on funder returns.

Cleary Gottlieb highlights the CJC’s view that funding is “an essential means to secure effective access to justice,” particularly for group claims, but concedes defendants need better cost-recovery tools. Notably, the report proposes court discretion to shift funders’ fees onto losing defendants in “exceptional circumstances,” a nod to fairness without endorsing U.S.-style cost-shifting.

If adopted, the blueprint could make London the first G-7 jurisdiction with bespoke statutory rules for funders—offering clarity that may attract capital flight from the EU post-PACCARR—but it also sets a precedent others may copy. Watch for Westminster to kick off consultations after Parliament’s summer recess; timing will be critical as cross-border class actions surge.

Burford Capital returned to the bond market Monday with a private placement of 144A/Reg S senior notes due 2033, targeting US $400 million in proceeds.

PR Newswire notes that the funds will retire Burford’s 6.125 % 2025 bonds and, if capacity remains, its 5 % 2026 notes. The ten-year paper will be issued through subsidiary Burford Capital Global Finance LLC and guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by key operating entities. Management framed the deal as a proactive refinancing to extend weighted-average maturity and preserve liquidity for portfolio deployments and enforcement campaigns, including the high-stakes YPF arbitral award.

The launch follows Congress’s decision to drop a proposed 31.8% excise tax on litigation-finance profits—a policy overhang that had muted high-yield issuance earlier this year. Investors will watch pricing closely: spreads tighter than Burford’s existing 2028s would signal renewed confidence in the credit and, by extension, the asset class. If successful, the offering could reopen capital-markets access for midsize funders that paused issuance after 2023’s rate spike. Longer-dated capital supports the industry’s trend toward portfolio and enforcement finance, where returns resemble annuities and appeal to fixed-income allocators seeking diversification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world’s largest legal-finance player is breathing a sigh of relief after the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that a proposed 31.8% tax on litigation funding profits must be removed from the Republican tax bill.

PR Newswire carries Burford Capital’s 1 July update confirming that the US Senate stripped a 40.8 percent excise tax on litigation-finance gains from its budget reconciliation bill after the Parliamentarian ruled the provision out of order. While the ruling blocks the tax under current reconciliation rules, lawmakers could still revise and reintroduce it. The reprieve removes a looming earnings drag that had spooked investors across the sector and buys funders time to lobby against similar proposals circulating in the House.

Burford used the same release to trumpet a separate courtroom victory: a New York federal judge ordered Argentina to transfer its 51 percent stake in YPF to court-appointed custodians within 14 days, advancing enforcement of the record-setting $16.1 billion Petersen/Eton Park judgment that Burford bankrolls. Management cautions that appeals will follow but called the turnover order “a positive milestone” in the multi-year campaign to monetize the award.

The dual developments highlight how legislative risk and sovereign-collection risk can swing a funder’s valuation overnight. With the tax threat shelved for now, attention will pivot to whether Argentina complies—and how quickly Burford can convert paper judgment into cash. Expect renewed debates on pricing sovereign-enforcement risk and on whether larger funds with cross-border expertise enjoy an unassailable moat in this niche of the asset class.

Even as a U.S. court ordered the hand-over of YPF shares, Argentina raced to London’s High Court to stall UK recognition of the same multi-billion award.

An article in Reuters recounts how government counsel told the court that enforcing the U.S. judgment before appellate review would cause no prejudice because “there are no assets here” to seize. The Burford-funded plaintiffs countered that Argentina’s bid is a delay tactic and asked for a £2.0 billion security if any pause is granted, noting interest is compounding at US $2.5 million per day.

The duelling venues highlight Burford’s trans-Atlantic enforcement campaign and the growing strategic sophistication of funders in sovereign disputes. London has become the favoured battleground for enforcing U.S. commercial awards against states, thanks to Section 101 of the 2006 Arbitration Act and the city’s deep asset pool.

For funders, the hearing underscores the need to pursue parallel forums to pressure recalcitrant states—especially when holdings (like YPF shares) sit outside the U.S. A reserved security order could significantly raise Argentina’s cost of delay and signal to other sovereign debtors that London courts will not rubber-stamp tactical pauses. The outcome will be closely watched by hedge funds and litigation financiers eyeing distressed-sovereign opportunities.

A federal magistrate in Chicago has handed Burford Capital a fresh victory in its effort to monetise Sysco-assigned antitrust claims against the U.S. turkey industry.

An article in Reuters reports that Judge Sunil Harjani rejected arguments from Tyson Foods, Perdue, Hormel and Butterball that Burford’s affiliate, Carina Ventures, lacked standing or offended public policy by pursuing the case despite never purchasing a single drumstick. Harjani’s opinion emphasised that Congress—not the courts—must decide whether third-party funding is permissible and found no evidence Carina or Burford had distorted the litigation. He also brushed aside a Sysco-centric fairness attack, noting that sophisticated businesses are free to structure their claims as they see fit.

The order is the latest twist in Burford’s multiyear protein-price saga. After investing US $140 million to bankroll Sysco’s chicken, pork and turkey cartel suits, the funder clashed with its client over settlement strategy, ultimately receiving the claims by assignment. With chicken and pork fights largely resolved, the turkey docket is now a bell-wether for whether funders can step directly into plaintiffs’ shoes when contracts allow.

For litigation financiers, Harjani’s ruling reinforces that properly drafted assignments can survive policy challenges, even in food-price cases that attract political scrutiny. The decision also undercuts insurer-driven narratives that funding itself inflates “social inflation.”