Houzhu Insights | Burford releases financial results for FY25; Lawyer facing sanctions for sharing secret data; SPAC signs Non-Binding LOI with Cartiga, LLC

News and Conference Information

• Burford releases financial results for the first quarter of 2025. Key performance highlights include:

• New business was seasonally robust

• New definitive commitments of $158 million nearly tripled compared to $55 million in both 1Q24 and 1Q23.
• Deployments of $130 million nearly doubled compared to both 1Q24 and 1Q23. 

• Realization and cash generation momentum continues

• Realizations of $163 million up more than 150% compared to both 1Q24 and 1Q23.
• Realizations and cash receipts totaled $742 million and $819 million over the last four quarters, respectively.

• 1Q25 revenues up significantly year-over-year

• Capital provision income of $91 million up more than 5x compared to 1Q24.
• Asset management income of $14 million doubled from 1Q24.

• A U.S. federal judge recently indicated that patent attorney Bill Ramey and his law firm, Ramey LLP, may face sanctions in the form of fees for allegedly violating a protective order in litigation involving Netflix. The sanction stems from Ramey’s unauthorized disclosure of protected materials -- specifically Netflix’s source code and financial information -- to third-party litigation funding firm AiPi LLC. Netflix contends that the disclosed information constitutes core proprietary business assets and that AiPi could potentially use it to evaluate or initiate new lawsuits. Ramey argued that the attorneys at AiPi qualified as “affiliates” under the protective order, and therefore the disclosure was permissible and caused no actual harm. The judge expressed skepticism regarding this defense and is considering referring the matter to the state bar for further disciplinary review.
• Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1 (Nasdaq: ALCY) is a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) that recently signed a non-binding letter of intent for a potential business combination with Cartiga, a specialized alternative investment firm focused on litigation finance. Cartiga leverages advanced data analytics to integrate legal and financial data, enhance case outcome prediction, optimize asset allocation, and support law firms with funding solutions and operational improvements. Since its inception in 2000, Cartiga has originated and realized over $1.6 billion in litigation-related investments, backed by a proprietary claims database and robust risk management capabilities. If successfully listed through this SPAC merger, Cartiga aims to consolidate resources within the litigation finance sector, expand market share, increase operational efficiency, and reduce cost of capital -- positioning itself for sustained growth and industry leadership.
• At the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje conference, the opening high-level panel focused on a key challenge in international arbitration: the enforcement of arbitral awards and their monetization through third-party funding. Hosted by the event’s global sponsor, Ramco Litigation Funding, the session featured prominent speakers including Cristina Soler (CEO of Ramco), Emma Morales (Partner at Simmons & Simmons), and Lourdes Martínez (Deputy State Lawyer of Spain). Panelists highlighted the increasing complexity, high costs, and cross-border risks associated with enforcing arbitral awards. They emphasized that third-party funding can help companies alleviate financial pressure and optimize their enforcement strategies, making it an increasingly vital tool in the post-award phase. Several experts underscored the need for companies to engage in early strategic planning and to utilize both financial and legal instruments to maximize recovery outcomes.

Insights and Frontier Views

• The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) released its Guidelines on Third Party Funding in Arbitration (proposed for comment), providing a comprehensive framework for assessing the potential impact of third-party funding on arbitration stakeholders, including parties, arbitral tribunals, and institutions. A recent article published by the team at Stewarts (Ciarb launches guidelines on third party funding in arbitration) offered a preliminary commentary on the new Guidelines. The Guidelines were co-drafted by Julian Chamberlayne, a seasoned expert in litigation funding and risk, and are designed to enhance stakeholders’ understanding of key issues such as the funding process, contractual terms, funder influence, and disclosure obligations. The Guidelines underscore that third-party funding agreements are typically high-value, complex commercial contracts. While funders do not exercise direct control over proceedings, their financial stake often affords them significant influence. In light of growing concerns around conflicts of interest and the enforceability of awards, the Guidelines further highlight that limited and timely disclosure of funding arrangements is becoming a widely accepted norm within the arbitration community. The Guidelines are expected to serve as a valuable practical resource for practitioners operating in the international arbitration space. 

• The Process of Securing Funding and Key Considerations

• Selection of Funders and Legal Due Diligence. Before approaching a funder, parties should conduct thorough due diligence on the prospective funder’s capital structure, financial capacity, risk mitigation mechanisms, and track record. Robust legal due diligence strengthens mutual trust between the funder and the funded party and helps reduce the likelihood of future disputes. 
• Presenting a Realistic Financial Model. The Guidelines emphasize the importance of presenting a credible and realistic case budget and projected returns -- rather than overly optimistic forecasts -- to facilitate funding approval. Legal counsel experienced in litigation funding can assist parties in identifying potential contingencies and preparing a “funder-ready” proposal.
• Negotiating Key Terms of the Funding Agreement. Critical terms that require particular attention include the calculation of the funding return multiple, procedures for budget variations, waterfall or priority provisions for recovery distribution, termination events, and whether the funded party may seek alternative funders. These provisions should be clearly defined in the agreement to safeguard the interests of all stakeholders.

• Funder Influence and Boundaries of Control

• Consent Rights at Key Decision Points. Funders commonly seek to retain consent or consultation rights over certain critical decisions, such as discontinuing the claim, changing legal counsel, seeking additional funding, or disclosing funding terms. While such “soft control” does not equate to dominance over the proceedings, the scope and procedures for these rights must be clearly defined in the funding agreement.
• Safeguarding the Integrity of Arbitral Proceedings. The Guidelines caution that funded parties must ensure that funders do not become de facto decision-makers in the arbitration. Mechanisms should be established to address potential disagreements, especially regarding settlement offers or procedural changes, in order to preserve the independence of the claimant and the integrity of the arbitral process.
• Legal and Jurisdictional Compliance. Control arrangements must comply with the governing law of the funding agreement, the law of the arbitral seat, and the laws of any jurisdictions where enforcement may be sought. In some jurisdictions, statutory or case law places restrictions on funder control, and non-compliance may jeopardize the enforceability of an arbitral award.

• Disclosure Obligations and Scope of Funding Arrangements

• Disclosure Is Becoming the Norm. Although third-party funding agreements are often commercially sensitive, most leading arbitral institutions -- including ICSID, ICC, SCC, and SIAC -- now require disclosure of the existence of funding and the identity of the funder. Some institutional rules further empower tribunals to request additional details about the funding arrangement. 
• Conflict Prevention as the Underlying Rationale. The primary purpose of disclosure is to prevent potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the validity or enforceability of an arbitral award. Even where institutional rules do not mandate disclosure, such obligations may arise under the applicable law of the arbitral seat, requiring careful legal assessment.
• The Essential Role of Legal Counsel. The Guidelines underscore the importance of engaging legal counsel with expertise in both arbitration and third-party funding. Lawyers play a critical role in determining the appropriate scope and timing of disclosure, ensuring compliance with applicable laws while safeguarding the commercial and strategic interests of the funded party

[2]https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/patent-lawyer-facing-sanctions-for-sharing-secret-netflix-data