Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Findings from Westfleet’s 2024 Litigation Finance Market Report

March 26, 2025

Key Findings from Westfleet’s 2024 Litigation Finance Market Report

The U.S. litigation finance market continued to cool in 2024, according to the latest Westfleet Insider report. New capital commitments dropped 16% YoY, marking the second straight year of decline. According to the report, this reduction is being driven mostly by tight capital markets rather than any deep issues with litigation finance itself.

That said, the report doesn’t just show a market in retreat—it highlights how the space is adjusting and evolving. For one, deal sizes are getting bigger. Single-matter deals averaged $6.6 million (up from $4.8 million in 2023), while portfolio deals jumped to $16.5 million. Portfolio structures continued to dominate overall, making up about two-thirds of all new capital committed—roughly the same ratio we’ve seen since 2019.

One of the most interesting trends is the continued rise of claim monetization—essentially, turning a legal claim into upfront capital. This strategy made up 26% of new commitments in 2024, up from just 8% three years ago. Corporate claimants, in particular, seem to be driving this trend as they look for cash flow in a tougher funding environment.

Patent litigation is still the biggest slice of the pie, accounting for 32% of all new capital. Notably, most of that funding went into patent portfolios rather than one-off cases—suggesting funders are leaning into more diversified, lower-risk plays in the IP space.

Another first this year: Westfleet started tracking contingent risk insurance, and the data shows 19% of new capital commitments were insured in some way. That’s a big signal that funders are getting more creative about managing risk.

Big Law’s share of the pie grew a bit too, up to 37% of total capital commitments—though the actual dollars going to the top 200 firms fell to $850 million (down from $960 million the year before), simply because the total pool shrank.

Bottom line: while the market’s clearly under pressure, the players that are still active are getting smarter about how they deploy capital. With signs that capital flows could loosen up in 2025, funders focused on monetization, patent portfolios, and insured deals may be best positioned to ride the next wave of growth.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

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.