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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent articles published on Bloomberg Law and Law360 have suggested that third-party litigation finance providers are “fleeing” the District of Delaware because of Chief Judge Connolly’s standing order regarding third-party litigation funding arrangements. Contrary to this perception, responsible funders have no reason to fear disclosure, and have no problem with their identities being disclosed if the claimant chooses to do so.
Readers of our previous issues understand that litigation finance is a tool for the legal department to control spending and help contribute to the company’s bottom line. Indeed, companies with litigation portfolios are more frequently using litigation funding to manage budgetary pressures and mitigate litigation risk.
Notwithstanding the growth in this market, the companies still exploring litigation finance have questions about how it works and whether it can advance their strategic interests. This two-part series will answer some of the most prevalent questions from corporate legal departments that are considering litigation funding for their affirmative claims.
The United States has long purported to be a champion of arbitration. This stance is embodied both in the “pro-arbitration” Federal Arbitration Act enacted by Congress nearly a century ago and in U.S. treaties providing for the recognition of international arbitration awards. The U.S. likewise boasts rich jurisprudence regarding personal jurisdiction, defining when parties can be hauled into court in this country. But what happens when these two principles collide, for example, when a foreign losing party to an international arbitration merges into another entity that has property in the U.S. that can be used to satisfy an adverse award?
Litigation finance’s presence in the bankruptcy industry is in its early stages. However, given the overall size of capital that litigation funders control and how this capital is deployed across case types, its presence in the marketplace will continue to expand -- particularly as the market becomes more familiar with the process, funders grow comfortable with investing in the distressed debt market, and the pace of corporate filings increase in the next economic downturn.
On Aug. 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion widely anticipated in the international arbitration and award enforcement communities, involving numerous disputes between the Kingdom of Spain and renewable energy investors from other European nations.
In its ruling in NextEra Energy Global Holdings BV v. Kingdom of Spain, the D.C. Circuit provided a glimmer of hope that award holders might succeed in U.S. courts — at least from a technical legal standpoint.
At the same time, the court lit a path for foreign sovereigns to render any such victories economically meaningless.
Stubborn judgment debtors routinely look for ways to delay or increase the cost of collection. Aided by a vibrant “asset protection” industry in certain U.S. jurisdictions, they frequently turn to LLCs in those jurisdictions to retain the benefit of their property while shielding it from creditors, hoping that enforcement courts will defer to those states’ LLC acts and prevent turnover of membership interests. But a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides some reason for optimism that, at least for debtors subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, these corporate shell games may not be entertained by courts in America’s financial hub.
Judgment and award creditors often fret that US courts are unfriendly and the tools to unravel complicated asset protection schemes are inadequate. In an encouraging ruling refuting this sentiment, the Southern District of New York recently reiterated its endorsement for reverse veil piercing as a remedy for unsatisfied judgment creditors seeking to hold corporate entities responsible for judgment liabilities of shareholders and directors.
The National Law Journal featured discussion from Jeff Newton on implementing judgment enforcement strategies at the outset of a litigation or arbitration and why plaintiffs should consider the endgame before the opening bell is rung.
