Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike

By John Freund |
June 18, 2025

Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike

The world’s largest litigation financier wasted no time responding to Capitol Hill’s surprise tax gambit. Hours after the Senate draft dropped, Burford Capital issued a statement warning that taxing funding profits at ordinary rates would “make it more expensive for businesses to secure litigation financing” and could stall innovation.

Burford Capital notes that the House version of the reconciliation bill omits any mention of litigation finance and stresses that reconciliation rules limit unrelated revenue raisers, foreshadowing a procedural challenge. The firm also highlights the draft’s retroactivity, arguing that investors priced cases under existing tax assumptions and could face punitive clawbacks if rules change midstream.

Market reaction was swift: Burford’s London-listed shares dipped 3 percent before recovering as analysts handicapped the bill’s prospects. Rival funders privately debate strategy—some push for a technical carve-out, others want the clause scrapped entirely. Defense counsel predict a burst of settlement offers aimed at closing cases before any rate hike can bite.

Burford’s rapid intervention shows the industry cannot afford silence while its business model is rewritten. Expect funders to beef up government-relations teams, demand wider tax indemnities from claimholders, and explore non-U.S. opportunities should Washington decide their profits look more like wages than capital gains.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Legal Innovation

AI Firm ddloop Clinches 2025 Legal Pitch Night Award

By John Freund |

Australian‑based technology startup ddloop has emerged as the winner of the 2025 Legal Pitch Night competition, securing recognition for its innovative artificial‑intelligence powered due‑diligence platform designed for legal workflows.

According to an article from Startup Daily, the startup impressed judges by automating key steps in legal review processes—delivering speed and accuracy in document‑intensive transactions.

The platform developed by ddloop harnesses AI‑driven analytics to sift through large volumes of contracts, disclosures and ancillary documentation, identifying risks, anomalies and salient terms far faster than manual review. By doing so, ddloop aims to reduce the time and cost burdens of due‑diligence work typically borne by legal teams and their corporate clients. The pitch competition win signals investor and industry recognition of the business model and its relevance to the evolving legal‑tech landscape.

For stakeholders in the legal‑funding and litigation‑support ecosystem, ddloop’s ascent highlights two compelling intersections: first, the rising role of tech‑enabled platforms in claim intake, case evaluation and documentation workflows; second, the increasing expectation that legal service providers (and potentially funders) adopt more data‑driven tools to manage risk, control cost and enhance predictability.

As funders and counsel assess funding opportunities, the availability of AI‑enabled due‑diligence platforms may shift how intake and underwriting processes are structured—particularly in high‑volume or document‑heavy matters.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Judiciary Panel Eyes Rules for Class Cert. & Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The Judicial Conference of the United States’s advisory body is taking aim at developing new rules that would govern class certification procedures and third‑party litigation funding disclosure in federal courts. Advisers signaled their interest in crafting far‑reaching reforms to tackle two of the most contentious issues in civil‑litigation governance.

An article in Law360 notes that the impetus for change stems from growing corporate and defense‑bar pressure to require plaintiffs and their funders to disclose funding arrangements in class and mass litigation. Proponents argue that greater transparency would enable courts and defendants to assess potential conflicts of interest and settlement dynamics.

At the same time, advisers are considering whether the rules for class certification themselves should be amended to take account of funding structures, the role of law‑firm portfolios and the influence of financiers on case strategy and settlement.

For the legal‑funding industry, this signals a possible regulatory shift in the U.S. Although there is not yet a formal rule change, funders, plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants should anticipate potential requirements to disclose the identity of funders, terms of funding agreements, and how such arrangements may impact class‑certification motions or settlement approvals.

Case Developments Commercial

Sony v Neill and CJC Report — Pivotal UK Litigation Funding Developments

By John Freund |

In its October 2025 Business Litigation Report, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP outlines major shifts impacting the litigation‑funding sector in the UK.

The report highlights the landmark decision in Sony Interactive v Neill and Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 841, where the Court of Appeal of England & Wales unanimously upheld the validity of litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that provide a return based on a multiple of the funder’s investment—so long as they are capped by the proceeds of litigation—and rejected the view that such arrangements automatically qualify as “damages‑based agreements” (DBAs) under Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

The report underscores that, had Sony v Neill gone the other way, a significant portion of UK LFAs could have been rendered unenforceable—a scenario that would have triggered major disruption across the funding industry.

Running in parallel, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published a wide‑ranging final report on litigation funding, containing 58 recommendations aimed at reforming the UK funding regime. Key among these are: (i) legislative reversal of the effects of the PACCAR Inc and others v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others decision [2023] UKSC 28, which had classified many LFAs as DBAs; (ii) introduction of a formal, “light‑touch” regulatory framework for funders (including capital adequacy, conflict disclosure, oversight of funder control, and mandatory transparency of funder identity and source of funds); and (iii) explicit carve‑out of arbitration funding from this regulatory regime.

For legal funders and claim‑funded parties, these developments yield both clarity and new compliance horizons. The Court of Appeal’s decision affirms that LFAs structured around multiples of investment remain enforceable, paving the way for continued market activity. Simultaneously, the CJC’s recommendations signal that legislative and regulatory reform is likely imminent—bringing a higher level of oversight and formalisation to the sector.