Backlit Capital Solutions has announced the launch of its full-service legal finance consultancy. The firm aims to provide comprehensive funding solutions for legal claims, offering services that include litigation finance, arbitration funding, and judgment enforcement strategies.

An article in PR Newswire states that Backlit Capital Solutions is positioning itself as a comprehensive provider in the legal finance sector, aiming to serve a diverse clientele that includes claimants, law firms, lenders, and investors. The firm's service offerings encompass litigation finance, arbitration funding, and judgment enforcement strategies, indicating a broad approach to legal funding solutions.

The launch of Backlit Capital Solutions reflects a growing trend in the legal finance industry, where firms are expanding their services to address the multifaceted needs of legal claimants and their representatives. By offering a suite of services under one roof, Backlit Capital Solutions aims to streamline the funding process and provide tailored solutions to its clients.

As the legal finance landscape continues to evolve, the entry of firms like Backlit Capital Solutions underscores the increasing demand for specialized financial services in the legal sector. Their comprehensive approach may set a new standard for how legal finance consultancies operate, potentially influencing the strategies of existing and emerging players in the market.

In a significant decision reinforcing the enforceability of international arbitration awards, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a $500 million award in a dispute between two Indian companies.

An article in Bloomberg Law states that the case, CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., involved Antrix Corporation, a company owned by the Indian government, and CC/Devas, a Mauritius-based entity. The dispute centered on a failed satellite agreement, leading to an arbitration award in favor of CC/Devas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had previously vacated the award, asserting that additional connections to the U.S. were necessary to establish jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected this view, stating that once the FSIA's explicit requirements—subject matter jurisdiction and proper service—are met, personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign is automatic. The unanimous ruling emphasized that the FSIA was designed to clarify governing standards, not to introduce hidden requirements.

This decision has significant implications for the legal funding industry, particularly in the context of international arbitration. By affirming the enforceability of foreign arbitration awards under the FSIA, the ruling provides greater certainty for funders investing in cross-border disputes involving sovereign entities. It underscores the U.S. commitment to upholding international arbitration agreements, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of the U.S. as a venue for enforcing such awards.

The Court did not address potential constitutional questions related to due process, leaving that issue open for future litigation. Nonetheless, the ruling is a clear affirmation of the FSIA's provisions and their role in facilitating the enforcement of international arbitration awards in U.S. courts.

In a landmark resolution, Spain has agreed to pay €32 million ($37 million) to U.S.-based Blasket Renewable Investments, marking its first compliance with an international arbitration award stemming from the country's 2013 renewable energy subsidy cuts.

An article in Reuters reports that the original €23.5 million award was granted in 2021 by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to Japan’s JGC Holdings Corporation. Blasket later acquired the rights to this award. The payment, which includes interest, was facilitated through funds seized in Belgium from Eurocontrol payments owed to Spain, following a Belgian court's approval.

This case is distinct as it involves a non-EU investor, thereby sidestepping the European Commission's stance that intra-EU arbitration awards violate EU state aid rules. Spain has faced 51 arbitration claims over its energy reforms, with 27 resulting in awards totaling approximately €1.5 billion. However, the government has managed to reduce the payable amount by about 85% through legal avenues.

The Blasket settlement could set a precedent for resolving similar disputes with non-EU investors, while Spain continues to contest awards involving EU-based claimants, citing EU legal constraints. 

In a closely watched decision, a federal judge has denied Apple’s attempt to compel Haptic Inc. to turn over litigation funding records in an ongoing patent infringement case.

According to Bloomberg Law, the dispute centers on Haptic’s claims that Apple’s iPhone “Back Tap” feature infringes on its patented technology. As part of its defense, Apple sought disclosure of communications between Haptic and its third-party funders, arguing the materials could reveal improper influence or strategic coordination.

The court, however, ruled in favor of Haptic, holding that the requested documents are protected under the work-product doctrine. This legal principle shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure, unless the opposing party demonstrates a substantial need. The judge emphasized that Apple had not met that burden, noting that the funder’s role did not compromise the independence of Haptic’s legal counsel or litigation strategy.

This decision is the latest in a series of rulings that underscore courts’ growing acceptance of litigation funding as a legitimate component of the civil litigation system. It also highlights the increasing legal clarity around funder-client relationships, especially regarding privilege and disclosure.

A new report from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) is drawing attention to the growing intersection between third-party litigation funding, mass tort advertising, and rising insurance costs. The report argues that these trends are correlated and may also be fueling a cycle of litigation abuse that places upward pressure on insurance premiums across the country.

According to Insurance Journal, the Triple-I report signals growing concern among insurers about the litigation finance industry’s systemic impact on claim costs and rate-setting. The report claims that attorney advertising—often funded or indirectly supported by litigation financiers—has surged in recent years, particularly in areas like product liability, pharmaceuticals, and toxic exposure. The influx of cases, many involving large aggregations of claims, has increased both the frequency and severity of insurance payouts. Triple-I warns that this dynamic contributes to a “social inflation” effect, where legal costs outpace economic fundamentals.

The report calls for regulatory action and transparency, suggesting that clearer disclosure rules around third-party funding and advertising could help insurers, courts, and the public better assess the risks and incentives involved.

While the litigation finance industry has long argued that its capital helps level the playing field for under-resourced claimants, critics say the unchecked expansion of funding models and advertising tactics may tilt the balance toward profit over merit.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Steward Health Care System’s request to obtain a $127 million loan to fund litigation against its former executives and insiders. The embattled hospital operator, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, is targeting up to $2 billion in potential recoveries through legal action.

The financing arrangement—approved despite objections from several creditors—marks a critical step in Steward’s restructuring strategy, enabling the hospital network to pursue claims of mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and possible fraudulent conveyances by former leadership. The proposed defendants in the litigation include members of Steward’s former executive team and affiliated entities involved in its rapid expansion and subsequent financial unraveling.

The loan is being provided by a group of new money lenders who will receive top-tier repayment priority from any litigation proceeds, a provision that stirred concern among some creditor groups during court proceedings. Critics argued the structure could reduce recovery prospects for unsecured creditors. However, the judge determined that the funding was both necessary and appropriately structured to pursue high-value claims that could ultimately benefit the estate.

Legal analysts note that this type of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing for litigation expenses is becoming more common in large corporate bankruptcies, especially when internal mismanagement or fraud is suspected. For litigation funders and investors in legal finance, the Steward case underscores the growing intersection of bankruptcy proceedings and asset recovery litigation.

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.

On Thursday, April 17th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key stakeholders in the legal funding for patents and trade secrets markets. The panel featured Anup Misra (AM), Managing Director of IP at Curiam, Robin Davis (RD), Director at Fortress Investment Group, Erick Robinson (ER), Partner and Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice Group at Brown Rudnick, and Scott Davis (SD), Partner at Klarquist Sparkman. The panel was moderated by Salumeh Loesch (SL), Founder at Loesch Patents, LLC.

Below are key takeaways from the panel discussion:

Do you feel like in the litigation world generally, that there is a greater interest in trade secret enforcement and litigation just because of the difficulties with patent enforcement? Do you feel like there's a growing interest from the funder's perspective to fund trade secret cases?

AM: I think every funder is going to be a little bit different on how interested they are in trade secrets litigation. Just to be perfectly candid, for example, Curium has not typically been as interested in this because collectively in our practices and in funding, we haven't had the best experiences with trade secret cases. Other funders, though, probably love trade secret cases.

Now, that's not to say we won't do them. And we certainly see more of them. And we're certainly seeing a lot more sort of combo trade secret / patent litigation, which I think is extremely interesting for funders. And if you can manage that, it really puts your case on the upper shelf of what funders are going to consider.

I want to get a sense of how we should consider the multijurisdictional approach in the patent context and how this applies when you're seeking funding?

RD: Obviously, if you have patents in multiple jurisdictions, the US, Europe, beyond, that is a real asset and obviously something you should be bringing to the attention of a litigation funder if you're seeking investment in your case. The key is going to be to make sure that whatever international strategy you're considering is one that takes advantage of the various strengths and differences between different forums around the world.

For instance, many people have always enjoyed filing in the US because there's the potential for large damages awards. However, US district court litigation, especially with the advent of stays for IPRs, can be slow depending on where you're litigating. There are faster forums in other parts of the world; Germany has long been considered a favorite in that regard. And with the advent of the UPC, the Unified Patent Court, which is now in many of the EU member states, this gives you both a faster timeline to a resolution and a much bigger market now that you've got multiple EU member states that are all able to be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that [PTAB rule changes], in terms of the changes to the types of cases that may potentially arise in both patent litigation and patent litigation funding.

SD: Discretionary denials are increasing. Just in our own practice, we've seen a dramatic change very quickly on that. And I think that's going to continue as a trend for some time, at least until folks filing petitions figure it out as far as what the rules are and as far as what the standards are and what factors are weighed most heavily in the analysis in order to basically present the best argument they can to keep their petition on track.

Certainly in the short term, discretionary denial is a real thing and it's surging. So there's an opportunity to take advantage of that while the rules shake out and both litigants and the board are trying to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Do you have any tips for how companies can protect their trade secrets but still obtain litigation funding?

ER: My first advice to companies is to have a trade secret management system. That can be as complicated as having an entire software suite. That can be as simple as having a spreadsheet that has trade secret, date, who came up with it, and additional details.

That actually feeds into the real answer, which is you need to know what the trade secret is. Once you know what the trade secret is, things get easier. And that's easier said than done. I've been in cases where nobody really knew what the trade secret was until throttle, which is what makes it crazy. The good news is that damages are a lot more flexible, for instance, in the patent world; you can get actual losses, you can get unjust enrichment, you can get reasonable royalty, you can get punitive damages. There's just a much broader system of damages.

To view the entire discussion, please click here.