A recent UK Supreme Court Decision marks an incremental, but important step in strengthening the enforceability of ICSID awards by narrowing one of the former procedural routes used to resist enforcement.

California’s proposed A.B. 2305, aimed at insulating litigation from third-party influence, addresses a fundamental principle of our legal system: litigation must be directed by clients and their counsel. But is it necessary, or do reputable, professional funders already follow this standard?

As collective proceedings continue to gain traction in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the approach to adverse costs—and how actively parties manage that risk—is coming into sharper focus. A recent costs judgment offers a timely reminder that costs exposure in these claims is not just about headline numbers, but about conduct, strategy, and procedural engagement throughout the life of a case.

For some time, a working assumption has emerged in UK securities litigation: that trials—particularly under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act—can be sensibly split, with key claimant issues like reliance and loss deferred to a later stage. However, a recent decision in California State Teachers’ Retirement System v Boohoo Group plc challenges that assumption.

The latest “Insider” report from Westfleet Advisors offers a timely snapshot of the US litigation funding market—but its implications reach far beyond a single jurisdiction. The trends identified will feel familiar to lawyers and claimants alike: a more cautious funding environment, increased scrutiny, and shifting dynamics between funders and their investors.

Erso were proud to sponsor and take part in the 4th Annual ITA Conference on International Arbitration in the Mining Sector.

The European Commission has paused EU-wide regulation of third-party litigation funding, leaving a fragmented, Member State–led regulatory landscape in place while reserving the option to revisit the issue in future.

Another attempt to introduce federal regulation of litigation funding in the U.S. stalled in Congress this week, underscoring how difficult it remains to reach consensus on transparency and oversight.

Erso Investment Counsel Bob Knock gives some honest advice for those preparing case summaries when applying for funding.

The government has renewed its commitment to reverse the 2023 PACCAR ruling, bringing much-needed clarity to litigation funding in England and Wales. For funders and claimants alike, this promises to restore confidence, flexibility, and access to justice in cases where funding is critical.

In this article, Sarah Breckenridge, investment manager at Erso Capital, discusses the ramifications of the Civil Justice Council's final report on litigation funding for the funding market, and sets out practical takeaways for funders and practitioners alike.

In a recent decision that may influence how courts approach discovery requests involving litigation funding, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents related to Haptic Inc.’s litigation funding arrangements.

A selection of investment examples from Erso Capital’s live portfolio, showcasing the diversity of our investments

The CJC has expressly carved out arbitration proceedings from its recommendations in the Final Report on its Review of Litigation Funding — what will it mean for the future of litigation and arbitration funding?

Erso Capital Launches Second Global Litigation Fund Across Key Sectors 

Erso Capital, an active player in the global litigation finance market, is proud to announce the launch of its second global litigation fund, building on the success of its inaugural 2021 fund.  The new fund will continue to build on the diverse global portfolio of high-value commercial litigation and arbitration disputes, with increased investment in key areas of patent litigation, ESG and mass claims. 

Litigation funding in England and Wales is undergoing a period of accelerated change, shaped largely by developments in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). While class action cases in the CAT—especially opt-out claims—may seem a niche concern, the legal and commercial issues arising from them are setting precedents with much broader implications for funded litigation across the jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal’s ruled unanimously today in Gutmann v Apple Inc & ors , that litigation funders can take their fee before any damages are distributed to class members.

We are pleased to share that Sarah Breckenridge recently spoke at the TL4 Competition Next Gen Summit, contributing to a panel discussion on "Securing Litigation Funding and Examining the Standards for Funding Structures/Returns Across Jurisdictions."