Trending Now
Commercial Fundraising

Litigation Capital Management Limited Positive Update on Fund I Investment

By Harry Moran |
October 8, 2024

Litigation Capital Management Limited Positive Update on Fund I Investment

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces a positive development on an investment within its Fund I portfolio.

LCM has funded a claim advanced in respect of an international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules. The Tribunal has unanimously held in favour of the funded party that the Republic of Poland breached its obligations under the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty and the Energy Charter Treaty.  

The quantum of the award entered in favour of LCM’s funded party totals A$490 million plus interest.

LCM’s funded party has therefore been successful in the claim. If the award is not subject to challenge and is not satisfied the dispute will move to an enforcement stage. We will assess any further funding requirements once the enforcement strategy has been finalised.

The total investment into the case to date is A$16.6 million (US$11.3 million). This investment comprises A$4.2 million (US$2.8 million) from LCM’s own balance sheet and A$12.4 million (US$8.5 million) of third party capital from Fund I. In line with our usual practice LCM’s returns are calculated as a rising multiple of invested capital over time.  

This investment is no longer attended with liability and quantum risk as that has been decided. Final performance will be announced to the market after conclusion of the investment. However, if the award is satisfied within a reasonable period without the need for enforcement, then based upon the contractual terms with the funded party as at the date of this announcement, LCM would be entitled to a multiple of 6 times its own invested capital plus significant performance fees on third party capital invested. 

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “This announcement represents a very significant milestone in this investment. Subject to any challenge to the very favourable and unanimous award we now move to an enforcement stage. This investment is part of Fund I and therefore stands to benefit from significant performance fees giving it the potential to be the most successful investment in LCM’s history.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM’s permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its income from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management.

LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

www.lcmfinance.com

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Esquire Financial’s Litigation-Related Loans Climb to $1.22 Billion

Esquire Financial Holdings continues to build its bank around the legal industry, with commercial litigation-related lending now the clear centerpiece of its loan book rather than a sideline. The firm's strategy leans into a niche most banks avoid: financing law firms and litigation-related credit at scale.

According to Esquire Financial Holdings, the company's commercial litigation-related loans increased $386.9 million, or 46.3%, to $1.22 billion as of March 31, 2026. That single segment now accounts for roughly two-thirds of Esquire's $1.82 billion total loan portfolio.

The litigation book grew a net $44 million during the quarter — about 15% on an annualized basis — at a yield of approximately 9%, well above conventional commercial lending. Total assets rose 23.9% to $2.42 billion, and the bank's net interest margin reached 6.04%, reflecting how the litigation-related concentration lifts overall returns.

The figures underscore a deliberate design rather than opportunistic growth: a specialized commercial bank concentrating on law-firm and litigation-related credit, funded in large part by legal-industry deposits. Net income for the quarter was $12.2 million, or $1.40 per diluted share. As litigation finance draws regulatory scrutiny elsewhere, Esquire's model shows how a chartered bank is embedding itself in the sector's plumbing.

Commercial

Ohio Advances Litigation Funding Registration and Foreign-Funding Ban

Ohio is moving to join the growing roster of states regulating third-party litigation funding, advancing a bill that pairs registration and disclosure requirements with an outright prohibition on foreign funders.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, House Bill 105 — passed by the Senate and sent to Governor Mike DeWine — would require both commercial and consumer funders to register with the state and disclose their funding agreements to the attorney general after cases resolve. Sponsors have described the sector as an "opaque," billion-dollar industry operating largely out of view.

The measure would bar funders from influencing how lawsuits are handled or settled, and would prohibit funding agreements with individuals or entities domiciled outside the United States. It draws on the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' "Transparency in Third Party Litigation Financing Model Act," creating a uniform registration and oversight framework under the attorney general.

Unlike North Carolina's first-in-the-nation outright ban enacted last month, Ohio's approach centers on transparency and foreign-influence guardrails rather than blanket prohibition — a model other states weighing regulation are likely to study closely. For the defense bar, mandatory disclosure of funding agreements would offer a clearer view of the financial interests behind a claim, potentially informing settlement posture and trial strategy.

Commercial

Op-Ed Warns Congress’s Litigation Finance Bills Threaten Privacy and Free Speech

A new commentary argues that pending federal legislation to regulate third-party litigation funding could do more constitutional harm than substantive reform, raising First Amendment and privacy concerns for funded parties and their backers.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, legal scholar John Shu points to two efforts on Capitol Hill: a bill from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would impose a 41% tax on litigation finance recoveries, and a separate disclosure bill from Representative Darrell Issa that would require funders and financiers to be publicly identified.

Shu contends that mandatory disclosure would expose confidential backers to "doxxing, harassment, retaliation, or worse," and that the tax-enforcement mechanism would force plaintiffs' lawyers to identify private funders to the IRS. He points to the agency's history of controversy over the "targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups" as reason for caution about compelled disclosure to federal authorities.

He grounds the constitutional argument in Supreme Court precedent — including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021) — decisions that shielded confidential donor and membership lists from compelled disclosure. The piece lands as a notable counterweight to the transparency push gaining momentum in statehouses and Congress, reframing the debate around civil liberties rather than courtroom economics.