Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Cristina Soler, Co-Founder and CEO, Ramco Litigation Funding

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”

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.