Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event on The Evolution of Corporate Portfolio Funding

Last week, Litigation Finance Journal held a special digital event on the evolution of corporate portfolio funding. How has portfolio funding evolved over the years? Why have corporates been slow to adopt the practice? How is COVID impacting that adoption rate? And what can funders do to convince corporates that the benefits of portfolio funding outweigh any perceived drawbacks?

A panel discussion led by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, addressed these and other questions. The panel consisted of Neil Purslow, Co-Founder of Therium Capital Management, Greg McPolin, Managing Director of Burford Capital, Patrick Molony, CEO of Litigation Capital Management, and Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:

Ed: Patrick, can you provide a brief description of the corporate portfolio financing market?

Patrick: Sure. This is a part of the market where the litigation financier approaches a large sophisticated and potentially well-capitalized corporate entity, either directly or through another channel—and provides to that corporate a facility in relation to a number of disputes that corporate might have. The capital that’s applied to funding that portfolio of disputes is typically collaterally secured against the outcome of a number of disputes. And through that process, it’s provided to that corporate at a reduced price reflecting the reduced risk of capital.

And as you say, it is a part of the market that hasn’t seen a lot of attention from litigation finance, and is something I think the industry is starting to have a close look at now. It’s certainly one of the investment strategy that LCM—the company that I manage—is looking at and focusing on very closely.

Greg: The two things I’ll add are that Patrick was right in that the market for corporate portfolio financing is certainly a newer evolution of the Litigation Finance market. For Burford it’s really come into focus over the past 18 months or so. For fiscal year 2020, we noted that about 57% of the capital we committed across our portfolio went to corporations. Not that that all happened in the context of portfolios, but certainly corporates were the majority recipients of the capital that Burford committed in 2020.

That’s consistent with what I see in the market, certainly here in the US. That is an increased uptake by corporates of litigation finance, and corporate legal departments and finance professionals coming to realize, after people like Rebecca and Patrick and Neil and I have been out in the market explaining that litigation finance is just another form of corporate finance. Corporates should be looking at their legal assets, those affirmative arbitration and litigation claims as having value—as assets that can be monetized and financed.

Ed: Rebecca, through your advisory business you must come across corporations all the time who are looking for some perspective on the litigation finance market. Why do you think corporations haven’t adopted litigation finance sooner?

Rebecca: It’s a good question. I think it follows along what Greg said which is—first of all, this market in general, litigation finance, remains relatively new as compared to other types of corporate finance in the world. So I think everybody in this industry recognizes that it’s not a new industry, but still becoming more well-known. I think a large part of it is just education, right? I think a large part of it is that corporates are just beginning to recognize that this type of financing is available to them.

So there is a big hurdle in terms of education, but as Greg said, Burford for sure is funding a lot of corporates. I think and expect that that trend will probably continue as more and more corporates become more and more comfortable with the idea of Litigation Finance.

Ed: Greg, in terms of those corporates who are looking at litigation funding, what are some typical objections you might hear from corporates?

Greg: I think Rebecca made this point, which I think is massively important and that is—this is so much about education, and a mind-shift within corporate legal departments and the CFO suite to think about Litigation Finance as just another form of corporate finance. The number one objection is sort of an unseen one, just lack of awareness…status quo. Treating legal assets the way they were treated years and years ago without thinking about how to bring in Litigation Finance to begin to shift the legal department from a cost center to a profit center.

Once you get past that…you come up with the typical objections like…some companies believe, wrongly, that commercial litigation funders are behind many of the litigations that they have to defend. So they don’t feel about using capital from a litigation funder on the affirmative side.

Rebecca: I think Greg covered the bulk of what I’ve seen—the emphasis being on ‘we don’t like litigation funders because they fund the people who sue us.’ So I do think there’s a bit of a PR campaign that we as an industry should be working on. That this money is legitimate money that is compliant with all types of rules and regulations. We need to bolster the opinion of what Litigation Finance is, and the legitimacy of what it is. We in the industry know that it’s legitimate, and it’s very real and there are a lot of lawyers now who practice specifically in Litigation Finance law.

I also see one thing Greg may have alluded to, it’s hard still to learn about Litigation Funding unless you dig deep and listen to panels like this one. It’s not as mainstream as other types of financing are. So while of course we all know there’s a lot about Litigation Finance in the NYT or Wall Street Journal, it’s definitely not front page news consistently.

Ed: Neil, can you comment on the role that law firms play in the decision-making process for corporates. Are they absent or behind the scenes or front and center?

Neil: They’ll essentially play the same role litigators would in in originating single case fundings, that’s certainly true. But we’ve certainly seen law firms play a very substantial role in some of these deals. But they won’t necessary litigate because it may well be the corporate folks and the key is going to be people with senior contacts in companies that want to deliver a sort of commercial benefit to the company, and go beyond narrow legal advice. Certainly law firms do play roles, and they can play an important role in bridging the gap between the GC and CFO.

Ed: In terms of how corporates approach finding the right litigation funder, Rebecca what’s your experience—are they hiring advisors? Or relying on their law firms to run a process? Can you give us some perspective?

Rebecca: I will tell you that I think the way that I’ve heard from corporates historically have been through law firms or people reaching out to me because they are interested in taking on Litigation Finance. But just as a corporate wouldn’t make a big investment in something without having some expertise in house or going outside to find it. I find this is the same thing.

I’ve been talking to people who find me to learn how the industry works—‘who do I talk to,’ ‘how do I learn about this.’ On a less frequent basis I get calls from corporates that say ‘I’ve been approached by a funder, what do I do? Is this a good deal? What do these deals look like?’ Sometimes it’s a proactive thing, or they get approached.

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.