Trending Now
Commercial

LF Dealmakers Forum Brings Together Legal Funders, Lawyers, Academics and In-House Counsel

This past Wednesday and Thursday saw New York City play host to the 2nd annual LF Dealmakers Forum. Hosted by Wendy Chou, whose popular IP Dealmakers Forum served as a launchpad for a similar conference aimed at the litigation funding market, the sold out two-day event brought together industry experts and novices alike.

Keynote Address

The event kicked off with a keynote address from Stephen Susman, founding partner of Susman Godfrey, and one of most successful plaintiffs lawyers in US. Susman recounted his early days as essentially one of the first litigation funders, having formed his contingency-only plaintiff-side law firm in the late 70s, back when the notion of contingency-only raised more than a few eyebrows.

Susman saw himself filling a need in the marketplace, and indeed by the end of the decade had grown so popular that in 1981 he landed the cover of American Lawyer, which itself founded the legal journalism market. In the process of running his contingency-fee practice, Susman learned how to construct fee agreements that provide the right incentives, how to handle cases efficiently, how to compensate associates and partners properly, and how to teach younger lawyers to be effective at their trade.

These are all ideals that Susman continues to preach. The theme of Susman’s speech was how contingency leads to efficiency. The more skin in the game that attorneys have, the more likely they are to question the efficacy of their discovery motions, and reconsider or reevaluate their overall case strategy with an eye towards efficiency over simply a ‘more is better’ approach. “Lawyers who are paid by the hour have no incentive to be efficient,” Susman said. “Even if they give you a discount. It’s like buying a suit at Barney’s half price. It’s already been marked up four-times.”

To that end, Susman advocates funders adopt a 50/50 fee model with the law firms they partner with. He recommends funders insist that law firms also maintain skin in the game. Susman further encouraged the industry to play an active role in reducing the cost of litigation. He advocates for public jury trials, as opposed to private dispute resolution.

Susman ended his address by suggesting that funders have a role to play in terms of advising their clients on how best to negotiate with their law firms. While acknowledging that this advice goes against his own best interests, Susman stated unequivocally that litigation funders – with their legal expertise, and the fact that they are no longer lawyers and are therefore operating as advisors – can guide clients on how best to negotiate with law firms on fee arrangements. This is an area where funders can provide value to the client, outside of pure financing.

Panel Discussions

Panels ranged from a broad overview of the funding industry, to coverage of specific sector topics. In the first panel of the day, which provided a bird’s eye view on the state of the industry, panelists highlighted the industry’s monumental growth, both in single-case and portfolio funding, and within boutique and AmLaw 200 law firms alike.

Of course, as firms become more knowledgeable, they are becoming more sophisticated. Five years ago many law firms hadn’t even heard of litigation funding, whereas now they are experts; some even holding auction processes for funding, and others entertaining offers from funders as a source of leverage for settlement negotiations. In the latter example, a law firm will receive an offer from a funder with no intention of accepting. They simply approach the counterparty in the claim and ask for a higher settlement figure than what the funder is willing to invest. Clearly, the marketplace is growing more sophisticated.

What’s more, law firms are negotiating better fee splits on their behalf. Years ago, a funder would receive 100-150% of their investment recouped on first-money back. Today, law firms are negotiating a chunk of that first money, and even integrating success fees (usually in the 20% range) to secure their spot at the front of the line.

On a CIO-specific panel, the panelists discussed their preferences for types of cases to fund. Obviously, IP topped the list, given the lengthy time-to-settlements and high upfront costs. International arbitration was also mentioned, yet most funders broaden their scope to include any commercial litigation opportunities. To keynote speaker Susman’s point, panelists did point out that they prefer to get law firms on board with fee sharing, via 50/50 splits, yet they noted how some law firms simply aren’t comfortable with risk. Therefore, if a case is right, the funder will cover 100% of fees if necessary.

When asked about the biggest threats to funding, panelists agreed that all of the overly optimistic or naïve capital coming into the space could lead to some negative outcomes, like funder misbehavior which may incur negative headlines. These could then be seized upon by regulators in a bid to exert broad industry oversight. Allison Chock of Bentham IMF noted that the Chamber of Commerce is now approaching state legislatures, and none of them know what litigation finance is or how it works.  So they are ramming through legislation with people who don’t understand the industry. This is a cause for concern.

And to the point of ‘dumb money’ in the space, Chock illustrated an example of how an influx of capital into a growing sector can lead to extremely bad decision-making. She told of receiving an email from a claimant in a case they had looked at that another funder had heard that Bentham was interested, so they simply threw money at the claimant. Chock’s firm signed an NDA, but that didn’t mean they were interested. They simply wanted to diligence the claim. Chock noted how this was the third such instance she heard about, where another funder jumped into a claim simply because her firm had been looking at it.

“A fool and his money are soon parted,” warned Chock.

A Case Study

Perhaps the most interesting panel of the day centered around a case study of how litigation finance literally saved a business’ life. Business Logic (BL) had a trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract claim against a subsidiary of Morningstar. At the time, BL was a 20-person firm with annual revenue of $4MM. All of its margin and savings were tied up in the litigation.

The case had been in the works for a few years, and BL was so confident in their claim they committed much time and money to fighting it. Yet they reached a breaking point. The company was going to have to reduce its workforce to continue the claim, unless it found outside financing. They reached out to a trio of funders, and Lake Whillans responded. The funder provided fee coverage and even working capital to BL. Now, as the trial approached, law firm Yetter Coleman could find top experts and formulate a robust case.

Suddenly, Morningstar got nervous. No longer could they threaten the small Business Logic by bleeding them dry pre-trial. The trial was approaching, and BL had a strong case, and was well-capitalized. The damages claim was for $65MM, and Morningstar was so concerned about a multiple of that number being rewarded, they settled for nearly the full value of the claim – $61MM. It was the 9th largest trade secrets settlement at the time, and to this day remains the largest in the state of Illinois.

BL has since grown its business to 150 employees, and changed its name to NextCapital. The story illustrates the quintessential David v. Goliath dynamic that litigation funding facilitates, and highlights how funding can not only save a company from going under, but help it thrive well into the future.

Final Thoughts

Given the packed house, it’s safe to say there will likely be a third annual conference next year. The growing popularity of conferences like LF Dealmakers underscores the mainstream acceptance of litigation finance. I personally noticed the diversity of attendees at this conference compared to the initial installment. There were more lawyers, in-house counsel and academics this time around, and I expect that will continue into next year and beyond.

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.