Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Burford Capital has moved to knock out Tyson Foods’ interference lawsuit, telling an Illinois federal judge that the meat-packing giant—not the world’s largest litigation financier—scuttled talks to resolve sprawling chicken price-fixing claims brought by food distributor Sysco. In a motion to dismiss filed this week, Burford branded Tyson’s allegations of settlement meddling as “threadbare” speculation aimed at diverting attention from the underlying antitrust accusations.

An article in Reuters details Tyson’s April complaint accusing Burford of trying to “co-opt the legal system” by blocking a deal Sysco had weighed. Tyson says the funder leveraged its $140 million financing stake to push for a richer payout, impeding Sysco’s autonomy in the long-running poultry cartel litigation.

Burford’s filing counters that its 2019 funding agreement explicitly allows the financier to participate in settlement talks and notes Tyson rejected Sysco’s last offer back in 2021. After Burford thwarted what it viewed as sub-par settlements, Sysco transferred its claims to Burford affiliate Carina Ventures, removing the food-service giant from the case while preserving its potential recovery.

The skirmish comes as congressional Republicans revive proposals to tax litigation-finance proceeds at nearly 41%, underscoring a season of heightened scrutiny over how much influence funders wield in antitrust and class actions. Burford, which has repeatedly defended its model as bolstering access to justice, says Tyson’s suit would chill capital-backed claims by re-writing freely negotiated contracts after the fact.

For funders, the outcome may clarify how far investment contracts can reach into settlement strategy—especially when the underlying defendant wants a bargain exit. If Burford prevails, expect financiers to lean harder on contractual rights; if Tyson scores traction, future deals could feature stricter carve-outs to avoid similar challenges.

Regulatory upheaval is back on the agenda in London. Litigation Capital Management (LCM) has published a punch-by-punch analysis of the Civil Justice Council’s long-awaited Final Report on Litigation Funding, released earlier this month. The Working Party’s 58 recommendations include reversing PACCAR via legislation, imposing case-specific capital-adequacy tests, mandating early disclosure of funder identity and ultimate capital source, and introducing a “comprehensive but light-touch” statutory regime to replace today’s voluntary code.

In an article in Lexology, Sarah Webster of LCM notes that some proposals—such as exempting arbitration from the new rules and declining to cap funder returns—will please investors. Others, LCM argues, risk spawning “significant satellite litigation” and dampening appetite: an unenforceability penalty for regulatory breaches could hand defendants leverage to unravel funding deals mid-stream, while forcing disclosure of every ultimate investor may chill fundraising.

Additional layers for consumer and opt-out class actions would require independent KC advice and court sign-off on funder returns, potentially elongating timelines and increasing costs. Nonetheless, LCM welcomes recommendations to make funding costs recoverable in “exceptional circumstances” and to establish a standing data-collection committee that could inject empirical rigour into future policy debates.

Taken together, the Report sketches the most sweeping overhaul of third-party funding anywhere in the common-law world. Whether Westminster enacts the package—and how swiftly—now becomes the trillion-pound question.

NorthWall Capital has rocketed past €2.9 billion in assets under management after pulling in an additional €1.6 billion of institutional capital in 2025 alone. The London-based alternative credit manager says the surge reflects allocators’ intensifying hunt for scaled, multi-strategy platforms as Europe’s banks retrench and borrowers seek bespoke sources of credit.

A press release from NorthWall Capital details first-close totals across four distinct strategies. The flagship Credit Opportunities fund secured €731 million—already eclipsing its prior vintage—while the newly launched Senior Lending vehicle raised $503 million, translating to roughly $750 million of deployable firepower once leverage is applied. Asset-Backed Opportunities collected €252 million for collateral-rich loans in sectors underserved by traditional lenders, and the specialist Legal Assets platform locked down $169 million to extend the firm’s law-firm lending programme.

Founder and CIO Fabian Chrobog said the fundraising validates “the consistency of our approach” and NorthWall’s ability to craft solutions that resonate with investors and counterparties alike. With headcount slated to hit 40 by year-end, the firm plans to lean further into complex, situational credit born of bank deleveraging, regulatory shifts and sponsors’ need for certainty of execution.

Sen. Thom Tillis’s Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, now folded into the Senate Finance Committee’s draft reconciliation package, would graft a stand-alone Chapter 50B onto the Internal Revenue Code and impose a punishing 40.8 percent flat levy on “qualified litigation proceeds.” The Schulte Roth & Zabel (SRZ) alert warns that the proposal overrides flow-through taxation, sweeps in virtually any entity—from partnerships and S-corps to sovereign wealth funds—and could chill ordinary-course lending by labeling collateralized credit facilities as “litigation financing agreements.”

A LinkedIn post from SRZ partner Boris Ziser underscores the breadth of the draft: the tax would hit domestic and foreign investors alike, deny offsetting losses, and trigger a 20.4 percent withholding obligation on plaintiffs and law firms that disburse any proceeds. Exemptions are narrow—fundings under $10,000 or debt-like arrangements capped at the greater of 7 percent or twice the 30-year Treasury yield—while long-standing preferences such as the portfolio-interest exemption and sovereign immunity would be swept aside. SRZ calculates that investors routing recoveries through a corporation could face an effective federal rate approaching 65 percent after dividend taxation, and even partnership structures would see double taxation because partners’ basis would not increase for proceeds taxed at the entity level.

Beyond funders, the bill’s catch-all definition of “litigation financing agreement” risks ensnaring securitizations, DIP financings, subrogation purchases, and other credit instruments whenever a borrower is a named litigant. By applying to taxable years beginning January 1, 2026—without grandfathering—it could retroactively erode returns on capital already deployed.

What it means for the market: If this language survives reconciliation, funders may rethink U.S. deployment models, while credit investors could demand covenants shielding them from inadvertent 40.8 percent exposure. The proposal also revives the broader policy debate: will Washington’s next move be bespoke tax regimes for other “disfavored” financial niches, or a push toward clearer, industry-wide regulation?

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has sparked a fierce backlash from MAGA influencers online, who are taking issue with Sen. Tillis' newly introduced legislation that aims to slap a 41% tax on third-party litigation finance agreements. Critics warn the measure would effectively choke off capital that plaintiffs rely on to challenge deep-pocketed corporations, tilting the playing field back toward defendants.

An article in the Daily Caller argues the proposal “hogties” a tool that ordinary Americans use to combat what author Will Hild brands “woke capitalism.” By raising the cost of capital, the bill could dissuade funders from backing suits against headline-making defendants—Bank of America, Uber and Nationwide are cited as companies that stand to gain if litigation funding dries up.

The Daily Caller's article was quickly snapped up by a cadre of right-wing influencers who have begun sounding off on the alleged harms this bill would cause for ordinary Americans.

Robby Starbuck, the influential 'anti-woke' crusader, posted on X: "How does a little guy stand any chance if they go up against a woke megacorp? Nearly the only way is litigation financing where a wealthy 3rd party funds the suit. As written now @SenThomTillis’ bill is a mega corporations dream."

Jenna Ellis took things a step further, accusing Sen. Tillis of deception: "Tillis has deceptively marketed his bill as taxing “foreign” litigation funding — when in reality it subjects all litigation funders to a 41% levy — intended to drive away investors. The effect would be that Americans fighting woke corporations will lose one of the few tools needed to fight back."

Kurt Schlichter added: "Every American has a right to bring a lawsuit. It’s nobody’s business how they fund it. And lawsuits are hugely expensive. This is a way to keep people from suing - it doesn’t start bad lawsuit. It stops good ones."

It seems we have a mini-Republican civil war brewing over the issue of legal funding. Sen. Tillis is a Republican, but that hasn't stopped the MAGA faithful from backing legal funding in a bit to help them take down 'woke corporations.'

LFJ will continue to follow this story as it develops.