Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Q4 2020 Commercial Litigation Funding Roundup

Litigation Finance News

On Thursday December 17th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special 1-hour panel discussion on the major events impacting the commercial litigation funding industry. Panelists included Omni Bridgeway CEO Andrew Saker (AS), Therium Co-Founder and CIO Neil Purslow (NP), and LCM CEO Patrick Moloney (PM). The panel was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), founder of Slingshot Capital. Below are some highlights from the discussion.

ET: Why did each of you decide to pursue a global growth strategy as opposed to solely focusing on domestic markets?

PM: We looked at things from a very practical perspective at LCM, we looked at where the most economic activity was happening. Where there’s more economic activity there’s more disputes. Therefore, we looked around the globe toward the larger economies than where we started back here in Australia. We were cautious and disciplined about moving into new jurisdictions. So very much driven economically and by opportunity.

NP: When we started Therium about 12 years ago, we recognized the potential then that the industry would become a global industry. And from an early stage, we were seeing funding opportunities coming from other jurisdictions as well as the UK. Our global footprint reflects a view of the market that there are benefits to being bigger in funding. From a case point of view, it’s better to have more depth of financial resources. From an investor point of view, greater diversification is better. From an underwriting point of view, being able to draw on expertise across jurisdictions and to have the benefits of a global perspective is also helpful. 

ET: What were some of the business challenges you faced when you entered new markets?

AS: Most of our expansion was done through organic growth. It was where we perceived first-mover advantage. That required us to address a number of key risks, market awareness of the industry was perhaps first and foremost. There were some jurisdictionally specific issues in Canada where we needed to seek some insurance regulatory approvals. But otherwise, it was all about establishing boots on the ground, finding the right people which is more than half the problem. And ensuring that you’ve got access to the local contacts and networks that you need for establishing a successful business.

ET: Other than lack of sleep, what are some of the other negative aspects of going global?

AS: Lack of sleep is perhaps the biggest issue, but the benefits far outweigh any of the costs. Having such a global team, a global approach, different cultures that are being fully integrated, compensate for any of those downsides. But it’s an interesting dynamic market that’s continuing to grow.

PM: I think that’s right. I think…there’s a necessity to become global. In the respect of at least publicly listed and traded.

NP: The thing that’s interesting is, relatively speaking, how easy it is to operate across jurisdictions in this industry, and I think it’s because–to a very large extent–the skillset that you need is so transferrable. So it’s actually been very positive.

ET: What’s the implication given COVID? Are you thinking differently about your organizations going forward in terms of travel and face-to-face meetings and that type of thing?

AS: I think it’s an evolving thought process. Initially, at the front end of this crisis, we all saw the benefits of staying at home and working remotely and using technology to compensate. There was a great deal of enthusiasm and everyone bought in. As this has dragged on, there’s been different views about the merits of that and the efficacy of it all. To some extent, it does vary depending on your location. We’ve been very fortunate here in Australia to have a slightly different experience from our colleagues in Europe and the US. 

ET: The next major topic I want to tackle was this concept of corporate social responsibility and litigation finance in environmental social governance, or ESG. CSR is becoming a pretty powerful trend in global investing, so I wanted to explore the implications for the litigation finance asset class.

What are you hearing from your shareholder base about CSR and ESG in terms of their importance, and what pressures are those shareholders putting on public companies these days?

PM: From LCM’s perspective, I suppose we have had two experiences. One, the public markets through the securities exchange here in Australia, and then more recently the London stock exchange, are probably two quite different experiences. So I think investors out of the UK and Europe have been far more focused and have an expectation far more than I recollect that we’ve had here in Australia, and that’s not to say that these issues are not present in Australia. It’s probably more of a timing thing, but we’re very conscious of it. What we need to wrestle with is, as a relatively small listed entity, is what capacity we have to wade into this. So we’re very conscious of it and we do have principles associated with that.

AS: Definitely, it’s an increasingly important area of relevance to all our shareholders. What we have found as we’ve shifted from the ASX300 to ASX200 is that there are more ESG-specific type funds that are interested in a stock that’s compliant with ESG obligations, and as a consequence of that, we initiated our own process to have a formal ESG policy. It’s a work in progress and something that we’re developing with internal stakeholders and well as external stakeholders. It’s a value that resonates throughout the whole company.

NP: ESG and CSR considerations are becoming increasingly important for privately funded investors as well. And we get quite a lot of questions from them about how we’re thinking about this. On the CSR side, the way we’re approaching it—we tend to think of litigation finance as ultimately about investing to facilitate access to justice. And for the most part, obviously, we’re doing that as an investment in the expectation of a return. But there is a wider need in society for access to justice and legal advice where those situations can’t be funded on a commercial basis. And we have felt that it’s important as an investor in the legal world that we play our part in that area too. It’s for that reason that we set up Therium Access 18 months ago.

ET: Let’s move on to the third topic, industry growth, and implications for innovation. At a macro level, the industry arguably is growing in three main ways: growth in the number of jurisdictions allowing litigation finance, increasing penetration within existing markets, and then growth through product innovation. So let’s take a closer look at product innovation as a growth factor. Perhaps each of you can comment on what your business has done to innovate in the litigation finance market within the last 2-3 years.  

PM: At LCM, we’ve tried to look at business development in a very different way to how the industry might have looked at this previously, so we look at the available market in two ways. One is those who use litigation finance for necessity, and those through choice, so I think the larger part of the market which remains sort of un-penetrated and unaddressed by our industry globally is providing it to large sophisticated well-capitalized corporates. And I think that’s a very interesting part of the market for us, I think it’s an interesting part of the market for the industry as a whole. I think that’s where a lot of our focus has been in the last 2-3 years.

ET: Neil, how about you in terms of innovation at Therium?

NP: Certainly we’ve seen a lot of innovation in the development of product. Or perhaps to put in another way, in deployment techniques. Our core business is built around an ability to assess and to price litigation risk. But the way in which that investment has been delivered and the way it’s been structured has become a lot more varied in recent years.

We put a great deal of resources into developing those techniques, whether it’s portfolio funding of different types, corporate portfolios, law firm funding, or claim monetization. These aren’t new areas, we’ve been at this for a long time. But certainly, our level of sophistication in how we do them has increased dramatically in the last few years. I think also in terms of sophistication, we’re working with an AI firm called Solomonic, to bring a more data-driven approach to our investment process as well. I think that’s another theme.

The last point on this: I think the market is in an interesting point now where funders are starting to drive certain parts of the litigation landscape. So instead of being passive recipients of cases from law firms, funders are now playing an important role in shaping litigation trends and what case types do and don’t develop. 

AS: From a non-product perspective, I think the evolution of the fund management model is growing, it’s something that has had roots in the last five years, but is now being more warmly embraced by the litigation funders as well as PE investors. 

Looking forward, as Neil mentioned, a more active role for litigation funders in the investments is something that I think will grow. We are looking to try to shift our focus from being an agent to being a principal and actually owning claims, judgments, and awards. There are various other strategies we’re looking at, including downside risk management, cracking the holy grail we all talk about of defense-side funding. And then potentially even moving into law firm ownership, to take advantage of this shift that seems to be evolving around the world.

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

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.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.