Trending Now
Commercial

Move Over Carnival: Litigation Funding in Brazil is Heating Up!

February 13, 2018

Move Over Carnival: Litigation Funding in Brazil is Heating Up!

Writing for Vannin’s Funding in Focus series, Carolina Ramirez, Managing Director in Vannin’s newly-formed New York office, describes the litigation funding climate in South America’s largest and most populous nation. Ramirez highlights both the perceptions and practical applications of litigation finance in Brazil, as well as the regulatory climate and challenges facing industry growth in the region.
Although third party funding arrived on the Brazilian scene only recently, the practice has been warmly embraced relative to other Latin American markets. That has to do with Brazil’s liquidity crisis following the Great Recession, in addition to fallout in the aftermath of Operation Car Wash, or Operação Lava Jato, and the subsequent reliance on arbitration as a result. According to Ramirez, Brazilians maintain a perception that litigation funding is utilized solely by impecunious claimants, or those facing liquidity constraints. Although perceptions are gradually changing, she points to one local practitioner who claims that “case law on the matter is scarce and major Brazilian arbitration chambers do not publish their precedents, so parties (be it funders, funded parties or adversaries to a funded party) still have to deal with a reasonable (and potentially damaging) degree of uncertainty.” Yet despite the uncertainty, the benefits of litigation funding are widely being recognized, with one practitioner going so far as to state that the practice “will evolve to [allow] major companies seeking reasonable financing that allows them to pursue their core business objectives while conducting high level litigation.” Such is the reality of litigation funding in other major jurisdictions, so why not Brazil? Major obstacles to the adoption of litigation funding have to do with costs and time constraints — the former containing too few, and the latter containing far too many. The cost of filing a claim (appeal included) in Brazil is extraordinarily low, which of course precludes firms from seeking external funding. Additionally, cases can go through many layers of appeal before reaching conclusion, which means that funders can’t accurately predict the timing of their expected recovery. Essentially, the barriers to justice that exist in Brazil work against litigation funders, whereas the barriers that exist in the United States, for example (those being high upfront costs and balance sheet exposure), directly play into a litigation funder’s hands. According to Ramirez, by and large, third party funding is unregulated in Brazil. “Only recently did the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce (“CAM/CCBC”) – one of the most renowned institutions in Brazil – issue a resolution specifically recommending that parties disclose the use of funding at the outset of an arbitration (Administrative Resolution 18/2016).” Practitioners on the ground believe in the likelihood that other arbitral institutions will at some point promulgate further regulations on third party funding in Brazil, though at present, the industry remains unregulated. So is Brazil on the precipice of future growth in the area of litigation funding? Ramirez seems to think so. “The resounding message,” she writes, “is that Brazil is ripe for third party funding and that the time to enter the market is now. It is also clear that practitioners are enthusiastic about the prospect of having foreign third party funders with significant experience enter the market and level the playing field which has thus far been dominated by a single local Brazilian third party funder.” To read Ramirez’s article in its entirety, please visit this link. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

State Legislatures Tighten the Screws on Third-Party Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

State legislatures continued their march toward tighter regulation of third-party litigation funding this week, with separate bills advancing in Michigan and Colorado that take very different routes to constrain outside capital in litigation.

In Michigan, the state House on May 12 passed House Bill 5281, the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Harris. The bill requires registration and disclosure by funders, prohibits funder control over case decisions, bars foreign adversaries from financing Michigan lawsuits, and caps funder returns from any award. The measure is backed by the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform, a coalition of consumer advocates, small-business groups, and chamber-aligned organizations. It now moves to the Michigan Senate.

In Colorado, the legislature sent House Bill 1421 to Governor Jared Polis, who has until June 12, 2026 to sign or veto. The bill prohibits Colorado law firms from entering financial arrangements with non-attorney-owned alternative business structures, including arrangements in which out-of-state entities cover marketing or operational costs in exchange for a percentage of settlements. It cleared the Colorado House 53–11 and the Senate 33–2, supported by a coalition that included the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

Together, the two bills illustrate the dual fronts on which the U.S. litigation finance industry is now defending itself: disclosure and conduct rules in Michigan, and outright structural prohibitions on outside capital flowing to law firms in Colorado. Both reflect a coordinated state-level push by chamber and insurance trade groups, at times aligned with elements of the plaintiffs' bar, to redraw the boundaries of permissible third-party funding in U.S. civil litigation.

Commercial

Burford Repositions Around Broader Portfolio After $2.4 Billion YPF Write-Down

By John Freund |

Burford Capital is shifting its public narrative from a single landmark case toward the breadth of its underlying portfolio after absorbing a $2.4 billion non-cash write-down tied to the YPF reversal. The firm posted a $1.6 billion first-quarter loss and saw nearly half of its market valuation wiped out in the immediate aftermath, but management has used recent disclosures to reframe the setback against the rest of the book.

As reported by Non-Billable, Burford continues to pursue legal avenues on YPF, though chief executive Chris Bogart has acknowledged that U.S. courts "rarely grant such requests," with international arbitration emerging as the more probable next step. The firm has also pointed to roughly $100 million of profit already realized from YPF through the sale of minority stakes to third-party investors.

Beyond YPF, Burford is leaning on the size and composition of its broader portfolio: more than 230 active assets that the company has previously identified as capable of generating in excess of $5 billion in future returns. Management is framing the residual book as concentrated in large-scale commercial claims handled by major law firms and specialist disputes practices, distinct from the public profile of the YPF dispute.

Burford has also signaled operational continuity, with Travis Lenkner advancing from chief development officer to chief operating officer. Taken together, the moves suggest a strategy of accepting the YPF setback as a discrete event while attempting to reanchor investor focus on the firm's underlying claim portfolio rather than headline-case asymmetry.

Commercial

Op-Ed: Nuclear Verdicts and Litigation Funding Driving Consumer Price Pressure

By John Freund |

A new op-ed by Ike Brannon of the Jack Kemp Foundation argues that the rapid rise of "nuclear" verdicts, fueled in part by third-party litigation funding, is now translating directly into higher prices for U.S. consumers. The piece adds to the chorus of tort-reform commentary linking the growth of outside capital in litigation to broader inflationary pressures.

As reported by RealClearMarkets, Brannon points to 49 "thermonuclear" judgments exceeding $100 million in 2024, nearly double the prior year, with overall tort litigation payments topping half a trillion dollars and projected to reach $800 billion annually by 2030. The op-ed cites antitrust allegations against fire truck manufacturers Oshkosh Corp., REV Group, and Rosenbauer America, and notes that "dozens of local and state governments are suing energy companies" over fossil fuel production.

On funding specifically, Brannon highlights data showing 42 funders held $16.1 billion in U.S. commercial litigation assets under management in 2024, up from $9.5 billion in 2019, an increase of nearly 70%. He argues that the growth "creates incentives" for expansive litigation strategies aimed at maximizing settlement leverage rather than clarifying the merits of underlying claims.

The piece urges Congress to advance the Litigation Funding Transparency Act, which would require disclosure of outside funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside broader tort reforms aimed at speculative class actions. The argument lands at a moment of intensifying state and federal scrutiny of litigation funding economics and disclosure obligations.