The Third Party Litigation Funding industry is in retreat after large bets that promised mind boggling returns have repeatedly failed. Despite this, funders have often thrown more money at desperate appeals or follow-on suits with little to show for it. Image Source: iStock

What is clear is that the firms left standing may have greater resources, broader expertise, and a stronger ability to keep dubious legal battles on life support.

The latest expansion came with Rocade Capital’s acquisition of Law Finance Group LLC. Rocade, already a significant litigation funder, said the deal expands its scale, sourcing capabilities, and range of legal finance products. The transaction further highlights the ongoing concentration of power within the sector.

The acquisition is notable for another reason. Law Finance Group reportedly specializes in post-judgment litigation, a niche that is becoming increasingly relevant as some heavily funded legal campaigns encounter setbacks. When major cases stumble, funders face pressure to recover their investments, whether through continued litigation, appeals, enforcement actions, or attempts to locate and seize assets.

Few cases illustrate that reality better than the long-running Sulu arbitration saga. The claimants initially achieved some success in Spain, but the situation changed dramatically after arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa was removed from his role. From there, the legal effort became a years-long struggle. The claimants and their lawyers sought to move the arbitration seat to Paris and later attempted to illegally enforce an award that Stampa issued after his annulment. Enforcement efforts in both the Netherlands and Luxembourg ultimately failed once the Spanish court’s ruling became a central factor.

The campaign did not stop there. The Sulu claimants also pursued action against the Spanish government, alleging interference that deprived them of the $15 billion award. Their demand reportedly reached an eye-popping $18 billion. Considering the initial throw-out of the arbitration by the Spanish court was in 2021, most of the Sulu legal campaign was focused on finding ways to appeal or evade that initial defeat. It wasn’t until December of 2025 that the whole debacle finally ended after years of legal expense.

“Most of the Sulu legal campaign was focused on finding ways to appeal or evade that initial defeat.”

The legal costs have continued to mount. The claimants, their lawyers, and litigation funder Therium, once on the legal offensive, are now defending against allegations of unlawful means conspiracy tied to efforts to bypass the Spanish court’s annulment ruling. Therium is reportedly fighting tooth and nail to prevent the disclosure of just what dubious actions it might have paid for since the arbitration was first launched.

Another major TPLF player, Burford, is also embroiled in high-stakes litigation connected to its pursuit of claims against YPF. The dispute has involved a series of appeals and courtroom battles surrounding a case valued at roughly $18 billion. After a New York appeals court rejected a key part of the effort, Burford’s stock price suffered a dramatic decline. The episode underscored just how much can ride on these enormous legal wagers and why litigation funders are prepared to throw good money after bad to delay defeat.

That backdrop makes Rocade’s move into deeper post-judgment expertise especially noteworthy. Critics of litigation funding have long argued that funders are incentivized to extend disputes, not necessarily to serve claimants or broader notions of justice, but to increase settlement pressure and maximize returns.

While courts have repeatedly frustrated some of the industry’s most ambitious legal campaigns, the concern among skeptics is that the response may not be reform but rather an even greater focus on sustaining litigation after initial setbacks.

The broader economic implications remain a major point of debate. Opponents of TPLF argue that litigation funding increases costs throughout the system, forcing businesses and insurers to prepare for more lawsuits and longer legal battles. Even claims that ultimately fail can consume years of court time and significant resources.

From that perspective, the growing emphasis on post-judgment and enforcement litigation raises a troubling question: if the industry’s answer to courtroom defeats is simply more litigation, the financial burden may ultimately fall far beyond the parties directly involved.

REFERENCES

Burford Capital. (2026, March 30). Burford Capital further statement on YPF appeal decision. https://investors.burfordcapital.com

Business Wire. (2026, June 3). Rocade Capital accelerates market leadership in legal finance with strategic acquisition of Law Finance Group. https://www.businesswire.com

Dickerson, C. (2026, January 21). Report: Third-party litigation funding affects affordability. Florida Justice Reform Institute. https://www.fljustice.org

Hyde, J. (2026, May 15). Litigation funder: Law firms should “be honest about claims.” Law Society Gazette. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk

KnowSulu. (2025, December 12). Jersey Court Greenlights Counterclaims Against Sulu Heirs and Funders. https://know-sulu.ph

KnowSulu. (2025, November 12). Sulu Claimants’ desperate $18 Billion Claim against Spain Thrown Out. https://know-sulu.ph

Recamara, J. (2026, May 13). Insurers warn legal system abuse is adding to US cost-of-living squeeze. Insurance Business America. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com

Therium. (n.d.). Therium Capital Advisors. Therium. https://www.therium.com

Therium. (2025, October 6). Therium Capital Advisors launched to provide litigation finance advisory services. Therium (News, Insights & Events).

https://www.therium.com

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. (2022, November). ILR Briefly: A new threat: The national security risk of third-party litigation funding. Retrieved from https://instituteforlegalreform.com