News and analysis dedicated to the commercial litigation funding sector including regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

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, 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 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.

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:

• Contingency fee practices in the US: Insights from top litigators
  A discussion among US trial lawyers on the evolving use of contingency fee arrangements. The roundtable explores the advantages and challenges of contingency models, the impact of AI and legal tech and how legal finance increasingly complements traditional contingency structures.
• The UPC in focus: Patent lawyers on the first year of data
  Leading patent lawyers dissect the first year of data from the UPC, analyzing the most impactful rulings to date, lessons learned and future expected trends.
• Enforcement in arbitrations against sovereigns: What the data tell us
  Sovereign arbitration awards often face unique enforcement challenges. This article examines empirical data on enforcement outcomes and the role legal finance plays in helping claimants enforce and monetize awards.
• Private equity and legal finance: A strategic partnership
  Portfolio companies may have significant value locked in disputes that could generate cash and enhance equity value when an exit strategy is sought. 
• Five years of WAMCA (Dutch Act on the Resolution of Mass Damages in Collective Action) claims: Trends and takeaways
  A look at the first five years of the Netherlands’ WAMCA regime, analyzing key trends in collective actions and the role of legal finance in supporting large-scale claims.

“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.

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.”

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.

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”

Nick Tsacoyeanes is a founding partner of Blue Sky Advisors and serves as a Managing Director & Counsel at the firm. Nick has spent his career working closely with pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds and other institutional investors as an attorney and investment consultant.  

Company Name and Description: Blue Sky Advisors is a consulting firm that works with institutional investors and others in the capital markets to address corporate misconduct and serious governance failures. 

The firm provides clients with research into corporate misconduct and a variety of related consulting services. The team includes former securities litigators, chief investment officers, governance experts, litigation consultants and top officials at large state pension funds. 

Blue Sky monitors global stock markets and court dockets daily to detect corporate misconduct that may impact capital markets—often before litigation is filed. This includes material securities devaluations linked to alleged misconduct, significant government and regulatory actions, and newly filed or developing securities fraud cases.

Blue Sky Advisors’ subscriber list includes pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, AmLaw 100 law firms, boutique litigation firms, accounting firms, insurance companies as well as a variety of other institutional investors. 

Please contact Nick Tsacoyeanes at ntsacoyeanes@blueskyadvise.com to learn more about Blue Sky’s research and consulting services.

Company Website: www.blueskyadvise.com

Year Founded: 2022

Headquarters: Boston, MA

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new research on patent monetization, a means for businesses with significant intellectual property to generate revenue from patent assets through licensing, direct enforcement and corporate divestitures. With high research and development costs, long development timelines and intense IP competition, CFOs and GCs are faced with the challenge of seeking greater value from their companies’ patent portfolios without diverting capital from core business operations. Moreover, converting underutilized intellectual property into liquid assets enables companies to fuel ongoing innovation and drive future growth.

Despite substantial investments in securing and maintaining patents, many companies fall short in leveraging their intellectual property—resulting in missed financial opportunities and ongoing costs that could otherwise be offset through monetization. This research shows companies shifting to a more proactive stance toward patent monetization as they face mounting economic pressures, rising costs of maintaining large patent portfolios and headline-generating enforcements and divestitures by major brands that increase acceptance. Nearly 70% of in-house lawyers say their organizations are more likely to monetize patents today than a decade ago, and 73% report that patent monetization revenue has grown over the last 10 years.

“Patent monetization remains a significantly underutilized asset for many businesses,” said Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital. “Companies frequently hold valuable patents that require substantial investment to enforce, incurring significant expense—risk we routinely finance for clients. In today’s climate of intensifying global competition and rapidly evolving IP enforcement landscapes, legal finance empowers companies to strengthen their patent monetization strategies and take a more proactive, value-driven approach to IP management.”

“Companies have a significant opportunity to unlock value from their intellectual property,” said Katharine Wolanyk, Managing Director at Burford Capital and head of its intellectual property and patent litigation finance division. “In conversations with CFOs and general counsel across industries, we frequently hear that patent portfolios are viewed as cost centers rather than assets, and this research substantiates that assertion. Legal finance offers a powerful solution by transforming underutilized IP assets into a source of liquidity that can fuel business priorities and allow companies to continue the essential cycle of innovation.”

Key findings from the study include:

• Companies are missing revenue opportunities: Even as patent monetization is increasing, 79% of in-house lawyers say that more than a quarter of their patent portfolio is underutilized. The costs of maintaining patents without monetization include lost revenue, delayed market entry and reduced market share.
• Revenue generated by patent monetization is growing: 73% of in-house lawyers report that revenue from patent monetization has increased over the last 10 years and 69% of in-house lawyers say their organizations have become more likely to monetize patents in the past decade.
• Divestiture is a fast-growing monetization strategy: 71% of in-house lawyers have already divested patents or are actively exploring divestiture options.
• Clients can de-risk direct enforcement with finance: 72% of law firm lawyers cite the high cost of litigation as a deterrent to clients pursuing meritorious patent claims.
• Legal finance plays a growing role in patent monetization: 59% of law firm lawyers say clients use legal finance for patent monetization; 51% of in-house lawyers say they are actively planning or exploring the use of legal finance to support patent enforcement and monetization going forward.
• Global patent monetization is active: The US remains the top market for patent monetization due to strong enforcement mechanisms. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is driving change in Europe, with 74% of in-house lawyers expecting increased enforcement in the region.

This research, commissioned by Burford and conducted by GLG, captures insights from 300 in-house IP counsel and law firm partners involved in patent litigation in North America, Europe and Asia.

The research report can be downloaded on Burford’s website.

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.

Court House Capital is pleased to announce the appointment of Matt Hourn as its new Chief Executive Officer, effective 14 April 2025. This strategic leadership transition marks an exciting new chapter for the company as Michelle Silvers, who has served as CEO since 2020, steps into the role of Chairman of the Board. 

Michelle Silvers has been instrumental in Court House Capital’s growth, innovation, and performance since its inception. Her move into the Chairman position reflects the company’s ongoing commitment to visionary leadership and long-term success. 

“Leading Court House Capital has been an incredible journey, and I am proud of what we’ve built. I look forward to continuing to support the company’s future in a strategic capacity as Chairman.” Michelle Silvers, Chairman, Court House Capital 

Incoming CEO Matt Hourn brings over 25 years of experience in commercial litigation and is cofounder of Court House Capital. His strong commercial insight and legal expertise, leadership capabilities, and innovative vision make him well-suited to drive the next phase of growth. 

“I am honoured to step into the role of CEO and build on the strong foundation Michelle has established,” Matt Hourn, Chief Executive Officer, Court House Capital. 

This transition underscores the firm’s commitment to continuity and strategic evolution, positioning Court House Capital for sustained success. 

ABOUT COURT HOUSE CAPITAL 

Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, the team is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration. courthousecapital.com.au 

Company Name and Description: Balqis Capital is a B2B company specialising in deal origination and providing bespoke, insured opportunities to their network for portfolio diversification. They originate off market, litigation and private credit opportunities to their network of portfolio managers and wealth management firms. They are working on a multi billion pound, insured portfolio currently which is a fantastic addition to portfolios..

Company Website: www.balqiscapital.com   

Year Founded:  2022

Headquarters:  Cyprus, UAE

Area of Focus: We are seeing huge demand in our opportunities, given our extensive network and experience we are able to secure the best in the industry. We are always looking to enhance our proposition for investors globally.

Member Quote: We are excited to see the development of the industry in the UAE in 2025 and beyond.