Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Rocco Pirozzolo, Managing Director and Director of Underwriting, Harbour Underwriting Limited

By John Freund |
September 18, 2024

Community Spotlight:  Rocco Pirozzolo, Managing Director and Director of Underwriting, Harbour Underwriting Limited

Rocco has been the underwriting director of Harbour Underwriting Limited since its incorporation and is also its managing director. He is a solicitor who has spent over two decades developing and providing insurance for a wide variety of legal disputes brought around the world. Apart from being a seasoned underwriter, he has also been a director in the investment team of Harbour Litigation Funding and so has vast experience of complex litigation risks.

Rocco is one of the leading figures in the dispute resolution community. Since 2003, he has served on numerous forums and Working Parties of the Civil Justice Council, a statutory body responsible for overseeing and modernising the civil justice system. He has also been the Chair of The Association of British Insurers’ Legal Expenses Committee.

Rocco is named in Band 1 as a Leading Individual in the Litigation Insurance Underwriters UK section ofChambers and Partners Litigation Support guide 2024 and also included in Lawdragon’s 2024 list of the 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance.

He is the general editor ofThe Law Society’s Litigation Funding Handbook and the author of several of its chapters, including that on dispute insurance. He is also the co-author of the chapter on legal expenses insurance in the practitioners’ textbookFriston on Costs.

Cases insured by Rocco include:

  • various class actions (including securities claims) brought around the world, including in the UK, Australia and Canada
  • professional negligence claims, including against lawyers, auditors and surveyors, such as in Levicom International Holdings BV v Linklaters (a firm) [2010] EWCA Civ 494
  • intellectual property claims, such as Bentley 1962 Limited & Brandlogic Limited v Bentley Motors Limited [2019] EWHC 2925
  • group actions, including environmental claims such as Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312.

Rocco has been instructed over the years as an expert on dispute insurance, including by The Law Society in its intervention in a landmark case heard before the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2015] UKSC50.

Company Name and Description:    Harbour Underwriting Ltd

Company Website: https://harbourunderwriting.com

Year Founded:  2016

Headquarters:  4th Floor, 8 Waterloo Place, London England, SW1Y 4BE

Area of Focus:  Commercial dispute insurance

Member Quote: “Litigation funders are sophisticated users of commercial dispute insurance. Even though they may well be confident of the prospects of the case they are funding succeeding, they know only too well how disputes can unexpectedly and inexplicably ‘take a turn’ for the worst and so they value having commercial dispute insurance in place from the outset.”

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial

Burford’s Q2 Profits Surge on New Capital

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has delivered its strongest quarterly performance in two years, buoyed by a swelling pipeline of high-value disputes and a fresh infusion of investor cash.

A press release in PR Newswire reveals that the New York- and London-listed funder more than doubled revenue and profitability in the three months to 30 June 2025. CEO Christopher Bogart credited “very substantial levels of new business” for the uptick, noting that demand for non-recourse financing remains “as strong as we’ve ever seen.”

The stellar quarter follows a lightning-quick, two-day debt offering in July that raised $500 million—capital Burford says will be deployed across a growing roster of commercial litigations, international arbitrations, and asset-recovery campaigns. Management also highlighted significant progress in portfolio rotations, underscoring the firm’s ability to monetise older positions while writing new ones at scale. Investors will get a deeper dive when Burford hosts its earnings call today at 9 a.m. EDT.

Burford’s results arrive amid heightened regulatory chatter in Washington and Westminster, yet the numbers suggest the industry’s largest player is unfazed—for now—by talk of disclosure mandates and tax levies. The firm emphasised that its legal-finance, risk-management and asset-recovery businesses remain uncorrelated to broader markets, a pitch that continues to resonate with pension funds and endowments hunting for alternative yield.

For litigation-finance insiders, Burford’s capital-raising prowess and improving margins could have ripple effects: rival funders may face stiffer competition for marquee cases, while law-firm partners might leverage the firm’s deeper pockets to negotiate richer portfolio deals.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Ruling Strengthens Class-Action Funders

By John Freund |

Australia’s litigation-funding industry just received the judicial certainty it has craved.

Clayton Utz reports that the High Court, in Kain v R&B Investments [2025] HCA 26, unanimously held that the Federal Court may impose common-fund orders (CFOs) or funding-equalisation orders at settlement or judgment—ensuring all class members, not just those who signed funding agreements, contribute to a funder’s commission.

The Court reaffirmed Brewster’s bar on early-stage CFOs but found late-stage CFOs fall within the “just” powers of ss 33V(2) and 33Z(1)(g) of the Federal Court Act. Crucially, the bench rejected “solicitor common-fund orders,” ruling that any CFO benefiting plaintiff firms would contravene the national ban on contingency fees outside Victoria.

For funders, the decision cements the enforceability of commissions in nationwide class actions and removes a major pricing risk that had lingered since Brewster. For plaintiff firms, however, the ruling slams the door on a hoped-for new revenue channel.

The Court’s reasoning—tying funding commissions to equitable cost-sharing rather than contingency returns—will likely embolden funders to back larger opt-out claims, knowing a CFO safety-net is available at settlement. Meanwhile, plaintiff firms may redouble lobbying efforts for contingency-fee reform, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, to reclaim ground lost in today’s judgment. Whether lawmakers move on that front will shape Australia’s funding market in the years ahead.

Case Developments Commercial

Locke Capital Backs Sarama in US $120 Million ICSID Claim Against Burkina Faso

By John Freund |

A junior gold explorer is turning to third-party capital to fight what it calls the expropriation of a multi-million-ounce deposit.

According to a press release on ACCESS Newswire, ASX- and TSX-listed Sarama Resources has drawn down a four-year, US $4.4 million non-recourse facility from specialist funder Locke Capital II LLC. The proceeds will pay Boies Schiller Flexner’s fees and expert costs in Sarama’s arbitration against Burkina Faso at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Sarama alleges the government retroactively revoked its Tankoro 2 exploration permit in 2023, halting development of the flagship Sanutura project. An arbitral tribunal chaired by Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg held its first procedural hearing on 25 July; Sarama’s memorial is due 31 October, and the company is seeking no less than US $120 million in damages.

Under the Litigation Funding Agreement, Locke’s recourse is limited to arbitration proceeds and the ownership chain of Sanutura; Sarama’s other assets remain ring-fenced. Repayment occurs only on a successful award or settlement, with Locke’s return calculated on a multiple-of-invested-capital basis and adjusted for timing.

The deal underscores the continued appetite of specialist funders for investor-state claims, particularly in the mining sector where treaty protections offer a clear legal framework and potential nine-figure payouts.