Content for the Public

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, announced that it has added its 30th member company to the association –Certum Group. 

Certum Group specializes in comprehensive alternative litigation strategies, such as litigation buyout insurance, judgment preservation insurance, litigation funding, class action settlement insurance, adverse judgment insurance, and claim monetization. The Texas-based Certum Group team includes litigation and insurance professionals along with risk mitigation specialists. 

“We are delighted to join ILFA and help it engage with policymakers interested in litigation finance,” said William Marra, a Director at Certum Group who leads the company’s litigation finance efforts. “Funding helps people and companies with strong legal claims get better access to the courts. We are excited to work with IFLA and ensure policymakers continue to encourage rather than restrict companies’ access to commercial legal finance.” 

“We’re delighted that Certum is joining ILFA’s growing membership”, said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement. “Certum already provides a lot of thought leadership on litigation funding and other matters, and they will make a great addition to ILFA’s work to support the sector in the US and globally.” 

About the International Legal Finance Association   

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

The following was contributed by Richard Culberson, the CEO North America of Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts, specializing in call answering and live chat solutions.

Teams have the power to deliver sharper results, better service, and greater resilience. But how can we turn collaboration into a powerhouse — and keep it going?

As someone who leads a fast-paced customer conversations business, I know firsthand how critical strong teamwork is to delivering excellence, building trust, and staying competitive. While I don’t lead a law firm, I work closely with legal professionals across North America every day — and I’ve seen that the principles behind high-performing teams apply just as much in the legal sector as they do in tech.

At Moneypenny, we support thousands of law firms by providing virtual receptionists, client communication tools, and 24/7 support — so we understand the pressures legal teams face: high stakes, fast turnarounds, and a growing expectation for more responsive, more efficient service.

So, here’s the big question: how do you transform teamwork from something that gets things done to something that drives sustained excellence? 

Defining a Powerhouse Legal Team

We’ve all heard the phrase, “teamwork makes the dream work.” But in reality, that only holds true when the team is built and supported in the right way.  What really makes the difference is a powerhouse team – one that doesn’t just meet expectations but shapes them.

A legal team, like any tech or ops team is made up of specialists – attorneys, paralegals, and support staff. It’s a collaborative unit aligned toward shared client outcomes — whether that’s winning a case, closing a deal, or shaping legal strategy. A powerhouse legal team, however, takes this a step further. It consistently delivers excellence, anticipates client needs, and influences firm-wide success.

This could be the litigation team that wins precedent-setting cases. The M&A group that closes complex deals under pressure. Or the in-house counsel team that protects and propels business strategy. Whatever the mission, a powerhouse team lead sthrough several key building blocks, and in my experience, they’re universal to all industries.

The Seven Pillars of a Powerhouse Team (Legal or Otherwise)

So, how do you build that level of excellence? It starts with people — the right people. In legal services, your people are your greatest asset. But it’s not just about legal acumen. They must align with your firm’s culture, values, and long-term vision.

Then, you build on these seven pillars:

1. Strong Legal Leadership

Every successful team needs a leader who can inspire and set a strategic course. Whether it’s a senior partner, practice head, or general counsel, their job is to elevate the team’s performance, foster a culture of accountability, and ensure alignment with both client goals and firm direction. Great leaders don’t micromanage — they empower.

2. Shared Goals and Legal Vision

Powerhouse teams are unified by clear, shared goals. Everyone knows what success looks like and what’s expected of them — whether that’s billable hours, client feedback, or innovation in legal service delivery. When the entire team rallies around a common vision, alignment and momentum follow.

3. Diverse and Complementary Legal Expertise

No team succeeds when everyone brings the same strengths. The best-performing teams I’ve built include a mix of strategists, problem-solvers, doers and deep thinkers. The same principle applies in legal settings. Legal excellence requires more than technical brilliance in one area. It demands a combination of skills across disciplines. A litigation team thrives when trial lawyers, legal researchers, and case managers work seamlessly. In a corporate team, dealmakers, compliance professionals, and contract experts must collaborate. And just as important as functional skills is diversity of thought — bringing varied perspectives to legal problems leads to smarter, more creative outcomes.

4. Open and Effective Communication

In our world, communication is everything but that is true in all busines. Whether it’s delegating work, discussing a case strategy, or updating clients, effective communication prevents errors, builds trust, and enhances efficiency. I’ve found that when communication flows freely everything else works better. Egos stay in check, ideas get better and results speak for themselves.

5. Trust and Collaboration

A true team operates with mutual trust. Everyone understands their role, respects others’ and works to a shared goal. When legal professionals trust one another’s judgment, competence, and intentions, the team thrives. This trust allows lawyers to focus on their areas of expertise while relying on others to do the same. Collaboration becomes second nature, not forced. Roles are respected, workloads are balanced, and credit is shared. That kind of trust turns a good team into a powerhouse.

6. Adaptability and Resilience

Across the business landscape, we’re in a time when things change fast and the legal world is no different — new legislation, client demands, economic pressures. A powerhouse team responds with agility. They learn quickly, adjust strategies, and support each other during challenging cases or high-pressure deadlines. They don’t just survive stress — they strengthen through it.

7. Continuous Learning and Improvement

The best teams never stay still. Whether it’s staying ahead of regulatory changes, mastering new tech tools, or refining client service skills, powerhouse teams prioritize development. Mentoring, ongoing training, and regular performance feedback cultivate teams that evolve — not stagnate.

A commitment to continuous improvement sends a clear message: you believe in your team, and you’re investing in their growth. That, in turn, builds loyalty, engagement, and retention.

Final Thoughts

Whether you’re building a tech team, a client success function, or a legal department, the fundamentals of a high-performing team remain the same. Great teams don’t just happen. They’re built with intent — with the right people, supported by the right culture, and driven by the right leadership.

When you get this right, the payoff is exponential. From more efficient operations to higher client satisfaction and better outcomes — powerhouse teamwork becomes a competitive advantage.

In any sector — and certainly in law — that’s a result worth striving for.

Angeion Group, a leading provider of legal notice and settlement administration services, today announced the addition of three independent members to its Board of Directors. This milestone underscores Angeion’s strategic growth trajectory and commitment to strong governance, innovation, and operational excellence. 

The newly appointed board members are three highly accomplished executives whose leadership has shaped the modern legal and professional services industries: 

• Rich Antoneck, Chief Executive Officer of Veritext Legal Solutions, leads the largest deposition and alternative dispute resolution firm in North America. Antoneck brings more than 20 years of private equity-backed executive leadership, including prior roles as CFO of Accuity Solutions and SourceMedia. 
• David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital, is a recognized innovator in legal services. Formerly President of Bloomberg Law and co-founder of Pangea3 (acquired by Thomson Reuters), Perla oversees policy, marketing, and industry engagement at Burford. 
• Lou Andreozzi, former Chairman of Bloomberg Law and CEO of LexisNexis North American Legal Markets, is a legal tech pioneer. He has driven growth and product innovation at Martindale-Hubbell and continues to serve as a trusted advisor and board member across private equity and legal-tech ventures. 

“This board brings together an exceptional combination of legal acumen, business strategy, and operational expertise,” said Lee Minkoff, Managing Director at Renovus Capital Partners, the private equity sponsor of Angeion Group. “Angeion is operating at the forefront of legal administration, and this step reinforces our confidence in the company’s leadership, vision, and continued trajectory of operational excellence and growth.” 

Our growth has always been fueled by bold thinking and relentless execution, and the addition of Rich, David, and Lou takes that to the next level,” said Steven Weisbrot, President and CEO of Angeion Group. “Each has fundamentally shaped the way legal services are delivered – from litigation finance to legal tech and professional services at scale. Their insights will help us sharpen our strategy, deepen client impact, and push the boundaries of legal administration. 

About Angeion Group 

Angeion Group is an industry leader in legal notice and settlement administration, known for its use of technology, analytics, and hands-on client support to execute efficient, compliant, and effective legal administration services. With a proven track record in class action, mass tort, and bankruptcy administration, Angeion continues to redefine industry standards through precision, transparency, and innovation.

Legal-Bay Pre-settlement Lawsuit Funding, a longtime leader in presettlement and legal funding, has unveiled a new financing program designed to help attorneys cover the high costs of building and preparing cases for trial without relying on bank loans or credit lines.

Case costs can include everything from medical records to expert witnesses to life care plans to court fees. Legal-Bay’s funding lessens the upfront financial strain by providing capital that’s only repaid if the lawsuit is successful, and gives legal professionals fast, flexible access to extra money when they need it most. The program allows attorneys to secure resources for experts, depositions, court filings, and other necessary expenses without tying up firm assets or tapping into their own expense accounts.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, “Legal-Bay’s attorney or law firm case cost funding program is tailored to help small and medium firms get the ball across the goal line to win big cases. We are a resource for lawyers nationwide to utilize case cost funding when cash flow is tight, without long underwriting processes, credit checks or monthly payments.  Best of all, our non-recourse funding means you only pay if you win the case.”

If you’re a lawyer or law firm in need of extra case cost funding in advance of your case’s anticipated settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

With nearly 20 years of experience in legal finance, Legal-Bay has earned the trust of thousands of attorneys and law firms across the country. The company’s commitment to fast approvals, transparent terms, and case-first evaluations has made it a go-to resource for professionals seeking a smarter way to manage litigation costs.

Legal-Bay is one of the best legal funding companies in the industry, known for their helpful staff and quick turnaround. They fund almost every type of lawsuit including personal injury, slips and falls, sexual discrimination, assault, or abuse, motor vehicle accidents, wrongful incarceration, and more. While sometimes legal funding is referred to as loans on lawsuit or lawsuit loans, there are no credit checks or collateral required. The money is an immediate cash advance against a plaintiff’s anticipated settlement award, not a conventional loan. The non-recourse lawsuit funding is risk-free, as the money doesn’t need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.

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

Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 (“Alchemy”( (Nasdaq: ALCY), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Cartiga, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Cartiga” and together with Alchemy, the “Parties”), in connection with a potential business combination (“Business Combination”).

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm using advanced data analytics to drive investments in litigation finance. By integrating legal and financial data, Cartiga leverages proprietary information and deep domain expertise to predict litigation outcomes, optimize asset allocation and investment performance, and deliver case and business management insights to law firms.

Its analytics-driven strategy enables claim valuation, tech-enabled case monitoring, and dynamic risk adjustment. Cartiga streamlines the origination and investment process in a manner designed to mitigate risk and maximize returns. By investing in legal claims and legal services businesses, Cartiga continually improves its data advantage and value proposition to customers while delivering attractive non-correlated risk-adjusted returns⁽ⁱ⁾. Cartiga believes that it is optimally positioned to drive growth by leveraging direct distribution and machine learning tools to both accelerate originations and deploy business optimization tools for law firms.

As a public company, the pro forma business plans to opportunistically consolidate the fragmented litigation finance market through the intended acquisition and integration of complementary companies and assets. This strategy is designed to enhance scale, operational efficiency and market presence, driving long-term growth for shareholders. 

Investment Highlights of Cartiga

• Proven Track Record: More than $1.6 billion in lifetime originations and $1.6 billion in cash realizations since inception in 2000, demonstrating strong performance and profitability across market cycles.
• Comprehensive Platform: A multi-product alternative asset management and direct origination platform investing in the U.S. litigation and legal services market.
• Data-Driven Success: Advanced data analytics and bespoke technology enhance underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management.
• Large Addressable Market: Large $300 billion+ addressable market representing approximately 1.4% of US GDP with a limited number of scaled competitors and meaningfully underpenetrated by traditional capital providers.⁽ⁱⁱ⁾
• Strategic Relationships: Longstanding partnerships with lawyers supported by 20-person in-house sales and business development team.
• Robust Data Moat: Proprietary claims and outcomes database provides durable competitive differentiator.
• Experienced Leadership: Led by seasoned, long-tenured professionals with domain expertise in the legal, finance and asset management industries.
• Financial Strength: Profitable, well-capitalized, scalable business with diversified portfolio of non-correlated assets generating predictable shorter duration cash flows.
• Institutional Backing: Supported by over $250 million in committed equity capital from blue chip investor base.

Other Key Metrics

• Proprietary Database: Contains over 250,000 individual litigation-linked asset fundings diversified across 8,000+ unique lawyers and law firms
• Investment Track Record: 20+ year track-record originating assets exhibiting non-correlated risk⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ and outsized risk-adjusted returns versus traditional private credit^(iv)
• IT and Product Development Investment: Over $20 million invested since 2020
• Team Size: Approximately 95 employees
• Structured Finance Expertise: Four rated securitization transactions completed – three have been fully realized.

Leadership Commentary

“We view Cartiga’s platform as an attractive alternative investment, offering a return profile that is uncorrelated with other asset classes. This sector is massive and rapidly expanding,” said Mr. Vittorio Savoia, Co-CEO of Alchemy.

Mr. Mattia Tomba, Co-CEO of Alchemy, added, “We believe Cartiga and Alchemy make a compelling partnership. As funding, disclosure, and regulatory standards evolve, we expect the interest for publicly traded litigation finance asset management companies to grow. We believe a Nasdaq listing will put Cartiga in a leadership position in the industry by enhancing transparency, reducing the cost of capital, and expanding access to flexible funding. “

Cartiga’s CEO, Mr. Sam Wathen, remarked, “Combining with Alchemy aligns perfectly with our goals. Leveraging a Nasdaq listing would enable Cartiga to establish new industry guidelines with full transparency and utilize its public currency to drive growth and acquire complementary businesses. Enhanced transparency would ultimately lower funding costs, benefiting companies like ours.”

About Cartiga, LLC

Cartiga is a specialized alternative investment firm that leverages advanced data analytics to drive decision-making in the litigation finance sector. Cartiga combines capital with proprietary technology to help law firms and their clients achieve better litigation outcomes. The company applies a data-driven approach to underwriting, risk assessment and portfolio management, utilizing proprietary data, structured and unstructured legal and financial information, and continuously updated datasets from ongoing capital deployment. This iterative process enhances Cartiga’s predictive capabilities and strengthens its competitive edge.

Advisor to Cartiga, LLC

B. Riley Securities is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Cartiga, LLC. 

About Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Alchemy is a “special purpose acquisition company” or “SPAC,” commonly known as a blank-check company, incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands as an exempted company for the purpose of completing a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses, with a focus on companies acquiring, processing, analyzing, and utilizing data acquired from a variety of systems and sources.

Advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1

Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, A Stifel Company, is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1. 

Important Information and Where To Find It

This press release is provided for information purposes only and contains information with respect to a potential Business Combination described herein. If the Parties enter into definitive documentation regarding a Business Combination, a newly formed holding company intends to file relevant materials with the SEC, including a Registration Statement on Form S-4, that includes a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, and when available, a definitive proxy statement and final prospectus. Promptly after filing any definitive proxy statement with the SEC, Alchemy will mail the definitive proxy statement and a proxy card to each shareholder entitled to vote at the Extraordinary Meeting relating to the transaction. INVESTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF ALCHEMY ARE URGED TO READ THESE MATERIALS (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION THAT ALCHEMY FILES WITH THE SEC IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT ALCHEMY, CARTIGA AND THE BUSINESS COMBINATION. Any definitive proxy statement, preliminary proxy statement and other relevant materials in connection with the transaction (if and when they become available), and any other documents filed by Alchemy with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).

Participants in the Solicitation

Alchemy and its directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from Alchemy’s shareholders with respect to the Business Combination. A list of the names of those directors and executive officers and a description of their interests in Alchemy will be included in any proxy statement for the Business Combination and be available at www.sec.gov. Information about Alchemy’s directors and executive officers and their ownership of ordinary shares is set forth in Alchemy’s final prospectus, dated as of May 4, 2023, and filed with the SEC (File No. 333-68659) on May 5, 2023, as modified or supplemented by any Form 3 or Form 4 filed with the SEC since the date of such filing (the “Prospectus”). Additional information regarding the interests of the participants in the proxy solicitation will be included in the proxy statement pertaining to the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. These documents can be obtained free of charge at the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).

Cartiga and its managers and executive officers may also be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Alchemy in connection with the proposed Business Combination. A list of the names of such managers and executive officers and information regarding their interests in the proposed Business Combination will be included in any proxy statement for the proposed Business Combination when it becomes available. 

Sources

ⁱ Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

ⁱⁱ Source: GDP Figure based on the legal services market size as per the Beaureau of Economic Analysis. Underprenetration as measured based on the ratio of GDP contribution to US banking sector assets; US banking sector data as per the US Federal Reserve. 

ⁱⁱⁱ Source: As measured vs. US GDP published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, S&P 500 and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index performance 

^iv Based on asset performance measured versus the Cliffwater Direct Lending Index (CDLI) for 12/31/2019 through 12/31/2024

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

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

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

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

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

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burford’s Chief Executive Officer Christopher Bogart commented:

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

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

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

About Burford Capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About FirmPilot

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

In this episode, Dr. Rachael Kent shares her journey leading the collective action against Apple in the UK. She shares her experience bringing the action forward, and the impact it is having on claimants and consumers in the UK and beyond.

Visit Rachael’s website.

Order Rachael’s book on Amazon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Alpha Modus

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

Forward-Looking Statements

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

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

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.

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

Executive Summary: 

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

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

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

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

General Industry Data (Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding) 

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

An Emerging Asset Class 

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

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

Learn More 

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

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.

Manchester-based litigation finance firm IQuote Limited has bolstered its senior leadership team with the appointment of a new Director of Campaigns, reinforcing its commitment to expansion and innovation in the sector.

Stepping into the role is Katie Doherty, an experienced litigation finance specialist with a track record of driving growth and operational success. 

She has held senior positions at various law firms prior and has worked alongside IQuote CEO Craig Cornick for over 15 years across multiple roles.

Katie said she was both delighted and grateful for the opportunity and expressed a keen desire to get started as soon as possible. 

“It’s an incredibly exciting time for IQuote as we continue expanding our legal tech partnerships and investing in new opportunities,” Katie said.  “This is a fast-moving industry, and I’m looking forward to leading campaigns that will drive the firm’s next stage of growth.

“I can’t wait to get stuck in. IQuote has evolved massively in respect of its business offerings, the firms we are investing in, and the different campaigns we are now exploring. You have to be constantly thinking on your feet; there’s never a dull moment.”

Originally aspiring to become a solicitor, Doherty began her career in legal administration before transitioning into finance and business strategy.  She first collaborated with Craig in 2010, playing a key role in business operations, asset management, and claims handling. 

Katie thanked her team at IQuote for all their help and support.

“They have all been fantastic, and I have so much admiration for Craig,” she said.

“For him nothing is impossible; if you say, ‘it can’t be done,’ he will immediately tell you that it can and how you can make it happen.”

Craig Cornick, CEO of IQuote Limited, said: “Katie has been instrumental in the success of multiple businesses I’ve led, and her ability to think strategically while keeping operations running smoothly is unmatched.

“She knows how to build and execute campaigns that deliver real results, and that’s exactly what we need as we continue to scale. Her expertise in litigation finance, combined with her hands-on leadership style, makes her a perfect fit for this role.

“She’s got an incredible work ethic also. From the very start, Katie has always been willing to roll up her sleeves and do whatever it takes to get the job done. 

“Whether it was managing complex operations or jumping in to solve unexpected challenges, she’s always been a problem-solver. That kind of determination is what sets her apart and why I’m confident she’ll drive real impact in this position.”

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Litigation finance leader, Nera Capital, has reinforced its executive team with the appointment of legal heavyweight James Benson as General Counsel, marking a significant milestone in the firm’s expansion.

Benson, an Oxford-educated solicitor with a formidable track record in banking and financial law, brings decades of expertise to the role. 

His career includes key positions at Gately PLC and most recently, Handelsbanken, where he served as Head of Legal, shaping complex financial strategies and high-stakes legal frameworks.

James said: “Joining Nera Capital is an incredible opportunity, and I look forward to leveraging my experience to drive innovation and deliver impactful solutions for our clients.

“In my profession, I’ve seen firsthand how strategic legal funding can unlock access to justice. At Nera Capital, I’m excited to play a key role in making that happen on a larger scale.

“Litigation finance is more than numbers – it’s about people, access to justice, and creating opportunities where they’re needed most. I am excited to bring my expertise to Nera Capital and work alongside a team that shares this vision.”

He continued: “Nera Capital stands at the forefront of the sector, and I’m honoured to be part of such a dynamic team. Together, we will continue to set new standards in the industry.”

During his career, James has become an expert in navigating financial services, developing tailored specialisms including loan arrangements, deal structuring, fixed and floating security and intercreditor agreements.

The new hire is the latest in a series of milestones for Nera, who last month surpassed $100 million in investor returns within 28 months, thereby firmly establishing itself as a leading light in the legal finance sector. 

The company has numerous other legal and financial successes under its belt, including funding a plethora of highly successful cases across the globe.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne highlighted that she was pleased and honoured to welcome James to the management team.

“James’ depth of experience in both legal and financial services makes him an invaluable addition to our leadership team as we continue to drive innovation in litigation finance,” she said.

A newly released study from Express Legal Funding, conducted with the help of SurveyMonkey, reveals that while 34% of Americans say they trust ChatGPT more than human experts, the majority still draw a hard line when it comes to using generative AI for serious matters like legal or medical advice. The findings highlight a growing national tension between fascination with artificial intelligence and fear of misusing it for high-stakes decisions.

Key Findings from the ChatGPT Trust Survey:

• 60% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to seek advice or information—signaling widespread awareness and early adoption.
• Of those who used it, 70% said the advice was helpful, suggesting that users generally find value in the chatbot’s responses.
• The most trusted use cases for ChatGPT are:
  • Career advice
  • Educational support
  • Product recommendations
• The least trusted use cases are:
  • Legal advice
  • Medical advice
• 34% of respondents say they trust ChatGPT more than a human expert in at least one area.
• Despite its growing popularity, only 11.1% believe ChatGPT will improve their personal financial situation.
• Younger adults (ages 18–29) and Android and iPhone users report significantly higher trust in ChatGPT compared to older generations and Desktop (Mac/Windows) users.
• Older adults and high-income earners remain the most skeptical about ChatGPT’s reliability and societal role.
• When asked about the broader implications of AI, only 14.1% of respondents strongly agree that ChatGPT will benefit humanity.

Expert Insight:

“This study highlights how many Americans are navigating the fast-growing influence of generative AI and natural language processing agents in their daily lives and that ChatGPT is far from being just a fringe use tool,” said Aaron Winston, PhD, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding and lead author of the report. “Most people are open to using ChatGPT for advice—and over a third even say they trust it more than a human expert. But when it comes to high-stakes decisions involving legal, financial, or medical matters, most still prefer real-world professionals. It’s a sign that while AI is gaining ground quickly, trust is still tied to context.”

Why It Matters:

As AI tools like ChatGPT become more integrated into everyday life, understanding where people draw the line between curiosity and trust is critical. This distinction helps reveal not only how Americans are using AI today but also where they’re still relying on human expertise for reassurance and accuracy.

About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a leading pre-settlement funding company headquartered in Plano, Texas, serving plaintiffs nationwide. Recognized for its commitment to ethical funding practices and consumer advocacy, the firm provides non-recourse financial support to individuals involved in personal injury and civil lawsuits—helping clients cover essential living expenses while their legal claims move forward. Beyond funding, Express Legal Funding is a trusted voice in the legal tech and finance space, publishing original research and data-driven insights that inform public discourse and guide industry best practices.

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

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs’ best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney’s obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor’s reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender’s claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define “commercial information.” 

The interpretation of “commercial information” has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined “commercial information” as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that “commercial information” need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity’s competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

Garrett is a seasoned attorney and head of Scale LLP’s Litigation Finance Team. With extensive experience across both commercial and consumer litigation finance sectors, Garrett brings a uniquely comprehensive perspective to the field. He has developed specialized expertise in sourcing, evaluating, structuring, and managing diverse funding arrangements, from single-case investments to complex law firm portfolio facilities. Throughout his career, Garrett has successfully navigated intricate and often contentious workouts involving various stakeholders, including claimholders, attorneys, funders, and medical providers.

Beyond traditional litigation finance, Garrett has emerged as a thought leader in legal innovation. He advises on sophisticated structuring and ethics issues for startups in litigation finance, LegalTech, JusticeTech, and advises on a broad range of ethics issues including emerging issues relating to the use of artificial intelligence to deliver legal services to both consumers and businesses. His expertise extends to alternative business structures and two-company models that enable innovative legal service delivery while maintaining ethical compliance. Garrett is licensed to practice in New York, Illinois, and Arizona.

Garrett began his career as a litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, engaging in significant litigation and white collar matters. He then transitioned to one of the pioneering commercial litigation funders, Lake Whillans Litigation Finance, as a managing director. At Lake Whillans, Garrett participated in tens of millions in litigation finance deals including asset purchases, law firm lending portfolios, and claimholder funding. His articles on litigation finance topics have been widely published, and he was recognized as one of Lawdragon’s Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance.

Garrett then joined Mighty Group, Inc., as its General Counsel following the company’s Series B raise. He handled all legal aspects of Mighty’s significant consumer litigation finance portfolio, which included investments in medical receivables, pre-settlement advances, and law firm lending. Garrett also played a pivotal role in helping Mighty create an innovative tech-forward competitor to existing personal injury law firms.

Since joining Scale, Garrett has focused his practice on helping innovative companies in the legal and litigation finance spaces. As head of the Litigation Finance Team, Garrett has helped litigation finance companies with fund structures, commercial and consumer transactions, and ethics and regulatory advice. Garrett has also advised a wide variety of LegalTech and JusticeTech companies on structuring their businesses in order to achieve their goals in an ethical and compliant manner, including doing so through the use of AI.

Prior to practicing, Garrett graduated from the University of Chicago Law School where he was Editor-in-Chief of the University of Chicago Law Review, and clerked on the Northern District of Illinois and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Garrett maintains an active pro bono practice and recently secured the vacatur of his client’s manslaughter conviction. Prior to law school, Garrett worked as a newspaper reporter and investigative journalist.

Company Name and Description: Scale LLP, a full-service, national law firm that rethinks the traditional law firm model. Scale provides a tech-forward, distributed platform that reduces overhead and increases efficiency to offer the best legal talent at a competitive price-point.

Company Website: scalefirm.com

Year Founded: 2017

Headquarters: San Francisco, CA

Area of Focus: Scale LLP’s Litigation Finance Team delivers comprehensive solutions across the entire litigation funding ecosystem. We provide specialized counsel to litigation finance companies, claimholders, law firms, and investors, drawing on our team’s firsthand experience having worked on all sides of litigation finance transactions. Our services encompass fund formation, deal structuring, portfolio construction, regulatory compliance, and workout solutions and litigation related to distressed assets.

Our practice uniquely bridges both commercial and consumer litigation finance sectors, allowing us to develop innovative hybrid approaches that maximize return while managing risk appropriately. We combine deep litigation experience with sophisticated financial structuring capabilities to deliver practical advice on complex transactions ranging from single-case investments to multi-jurisdictional portfolio facilities.

Beyond traditional litigation finance, we lead the field in advising LegalTech and JusticeTech companies on cutting-edge business models that navigate regulatory complexity while promoting greater access to justice. We provide guidance on artificial intelligence implementation in legal services, addressing both the transformative potential and ethical challenges presented by these technologies. Our attorneys have pioneered compliant structures for alternative business arrangements in both traditional and emerging jurisdictions, helping clients develop sustainable competitive advantages through regulatory innovation.

Member Quote: “I work at the intersection of law, finance, and technology because I believe these convergent forces can transform our legal system. By leveraging litigation finance, legal innovation, and AI tools thoughtfully, we can build a more equitable legal landscape where outcomes are determined by merits rather than resources. Every day, I work with visionaries who are dismantling outdated structures and creating something more efficient, accessible, and just. This evolution not only enhances access to justice but also creates compelling investment opportunities in a market ripe for transformation.”

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: “Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice.”