This article provides a litigator’s perspective on when to engage litigation funders, arguing that funding should be seen as a strategic tool rather than a last resort. It highlights five key moments, from budgeting and unpaid invoices to shifting client priorities, ownership changes, and prolonged timelines.
The article argues that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Amaplat wrongly lets sovereign immunity turn on technical form, treating an arbitral award and a foreign judgment confirming that same award as meaningfully different. It maintains that this formalism creates a circuit split, invites sovereign debtors to game enforcement timelines, and risks hollowing out the FSIA’s implied‑waiver doctrine, undermining the effective enforcement of arbitration awards against foreign states.
The article argues that insurers’ claims about the dangers of litigation finance are inconsistent with their own record‑breaking profitability, revealing a narrative driven more by control than economic reality. It maintains that litigation funding simply levels the playing field by enabling valid claims to proceed, undermining insurers’ attempts to frame it as a threat rather than a check on corporate power.
This article provides a funder's view and critique of the January 2026 CALA Report, arguing that its claim that third‑party litigation funding costs U.S. households $600 per year is unsupported, biased, and based on flawed assumptions. Concluding, that litigation funding enhances access to justice and does not contribute to social inflation, contrary to the narrative promoted by industry detractors.
Malaysia has taken a major step forward in modernising its arbitration landscape with the entry into force of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act) and the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026 (Code). From 1 January 2026, Malaysian parties and international investors can benefit from a clear, robust, and progressive statutory regime for third party funding (TPF) in arbitration. This reform brings Malaysia into alignment with leading arbitral jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong, and signals a strong commitment to access to justice and investor confidence.
This article argues that insurers’ new policy condition requiring “mutual disclosure” of third‑party litigation funding is unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, and largely unenforceable. It contends the condition lacks true mutuality, improperly interferes with contractual relationships, and would not apply in most liability or coverage disputes—especially where coverage has been denied.
This article examines why the US Bankruptcy Court’s decision in Despins v. ACA Capital Group Limited et al. is a welcome development for the asset recovery community seeking to subject offshore shell companies to jurisdiction in U.S. courts.
Legal disputes involving portfolio companies may be common in the lifecycle of a private equity transaction, yet they’re rarely treated as opportunities. Too often, they are kept separate from the value-creation plan, or avoided entirely, because of their perceived negative impact on valuations. But with the right tools, they can be used to create value at various stages of an investment.
In today’s regulatory and financial environment, resolving complex non-performing loans (NPLs) is no longer optional - it’s strategic. Around the world, banks are being compelled to move from passive provisioning to active resolution, particularly when it comes to long-defaulted or legally entangled exposures classified as Stage 3 under IFRS 9.
Enter Omni Bridgeway, the global leader in legal finance and risk management with a reputation for tackling precisely these challenges - through bespoke legal enforcement solutions, creative structuring, and highly attractive pricing.
A three-chapter market analysis exploring international asset recovery routes for PRC financial creditors, including recent enforcement trends and the role of litigation funders.
Following the dramatic increase of limited liability companies in the U.S., the Corporate Transparency Act's enactment and the Trump administration's subsequent narrowing of that law, it's worth revisiting the underlying legal principles that govern shell companies in order to remedy the problems that initially motivated the CTA.
This article highlights two important junctures where corporate counsel can position disputes for maximum advantage; pre-dispute, by carefully considering contracts rights, and once a dispute emerges, through informed negotiation as to whether a claim should proceed as an arbitration or litigation.
As a litigation funder, we routinely work with clients and counsel to understand the likely costs of pursuing a claim. Based on our experience working with a wide range of counsel in various jurisdictions, this post discusses five things that we recommend all counsel keep in mind when a client asks for a litigation budget.
In this article, Gabe Bluestone discusses the the impact of what appears to be the the Second Circuit’s first substantive ruling on reverse veil piercing in more than a decade.
The decision affirms a Southern District of New York decision finding two LLCs liable for the personal judgment of an equitable owner under a reverse veil piercing theory relating to an unsatisfied $40 million judgment held by Citibank.
Naomi Loewith was featured in the “Beyond Big Law” podcast for the Harvard Law School and discussed the evolution of her career from private practice to an in-house counsel role at Omni Bridgeway.
Construction disputes are often complicated, costly and slow to resolve. For long-suffering claimants, the expectation is that the short-term financial pain will be “worth it” when they finally win an award. But what happens when the respondent doesn’t pay?
In this article, Paul Rand discusses how choosing the right financing approach for a legal dispute can shape litigation strategy and drive business growth impacting a company’s cashflow, risk profile, and business operations.
In this article, Paul Rand shares four over-arching themes that are constants in successful claims: the calibre of the legal team, clarity on goals and strategy, alignment of stakeholders and communication.
This article sets out the latest development in the global attempts to enforce the arbitral award in Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A.
A significant recent judgment in Quebec regarding the validity of state-related asset seizures offers a fresh perspective from the province's highest court on the application of international arbitration principles within Canada's legal framework, further solidifying the country’s reputation as an enforcement-friendly jurisdiction.
