The secondary market for funded cases.

A funder can sell its rights in a case before the case concludes, in whole or in part, where it is permitted to do so. In its annual report filed on 26 February 2026, Burford Capital writes that it has done so in a small number of matters Source [1]. On 15 April 2025, Omni Bridgeway completed the sale of 70% of a fund that took over its share of more than 150 investments Source [6]. Both listed companies nonetheless describe a narrow market, and explain why.

What is sold before a case concludes.

A funder pays some or all of the costs of a lawsuit. In return, it will receive a share of any sums recovered, and it generally loses its stake if the claim produces nothing Source [1]. The secondary market is the resale of that right before the matter ends. In its 2026 annual report, Omni Bridgeway defines it as the sale “(in whole or part of) an existing litigation investment to another litigation investor”, before the investment completes Source [8].

A transaction may cover a fraction of the rights in a single case, or a funder’s share of a whole portfolio. In the deal Omni Bridgeway announced in December 2024, the buyer took over both the future distributions and the capital calls those matters would still require Source [5]. The lawsuit itself carries on: only the holder of part of its outcome changes.

Sellers seek, among other things, to shorten the wait Source [8]. Omni Bridgeway’s 2026 annual report lists the use of the secondary market among its responses to duration risk Source [8]. It also cites diversification and pricing structures that protect against extended proceedings Source [8]. Burford, for its part, counts the sale of an interest in a case among the ways of raising capital, should calls on its commitments ever exceed its available cash Source [1].

The transactions published by listed funders.

Burford Capital is listed in New York and on London’s AIM market, and Omni Bridgeway has been listed on the Australian Securities Exchange since 2001 Source [1] Source [6]. Their annual reports and financial announcements set out these sales.

Sale prices published by the funders themselves, in their original currency. They say nothing about the final outcome of the cases.

Before Fund 9, each of Omni Bridgeway’s sales had been worth between A$7.5m and A$60.4m. The group presented Fund 9 as its fifth such transaction and its “first transaction of scale” Source [5]. The table only covers the transactions described in the documents cited.

The Petersen claim, partly sold before judgment.

Burford finances the claims that Petersen and Eton Park, minority shareholders in the oil company YPF, brought against the Argentine Republic and against YPF Source [1] Source [3]. In June 2019, it sold part of the Petersen claim to a number of institutional investors: $100m within a $148m placement Source [1]. Other holders sold the balance Source [1]. A company, Colorado Investments Limited, was set up for the resale of part of Burford’s entitlement in the matter Source [1].

Burford took the 2019 price into account when valuing these assets, given the size of the sale and the number of investors who took part Source [1]. It left aside the “episodic subsequent trading” in portions of the claim Source [1].

On 15 September 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment against the Argentine Republic for $16.1bn Source [1] Source [3]. On 27 March 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court Source [3]. Burford recorded a substantial write‑down of these assets in its accounts as at 31 March 2026 Source [2]. It writes that further proceedings continue in the US courts, and that the plaintiffs are likely to pursue relief through international arbitration Source [2]. On 30 September 2026, they asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case Source [4].

The 2019 investors acquired a fraction of that claim, whose outcome will also decide the value of their share. A sale passes the uncertainty of the lawsuit to the buyer: Omni Bridgeway dates the transfer of risk on its own portfolio to 18 December 2024 Source [5].

Omni Bridgeway’s continuation fund.

Omni Bridgeway manages vehicles that fund litigation, and invests alongside them Source [8]. On 18 December 2024, the group announced the creation of a continuation fund, Fund 9 Source [5]. Fund 9 took over Omni Bridgeway’s share of more than 150 investments, held in its older vehicles and, for one of them, on its balance sheet Source [5]. Funds managed by Ares Management, a company listed in New York, acquired 70% of it, and Omni Bridgeway kept the rest Source [6] Source [7].

Ares paid A$275m on 25 February 2025, then A$45m when the transaction completed on 15 April 2025 Source [7]. The total came to A$320m equivalent Source [7]. Omni Bridgeway advises Fund 9 and still manages its cases Source [7]. Its press release calls the transaction the first continuation fund in the industry Source [6].

Before buying, Ares and its legal and financial advisers carried out “extensive due diligence” Source [6] Source [7]. It covered Omni Bridgeway’s platform, its fair value methodology and the resulting value of a significant part of its assets Source [7].

Omni Bridgeway’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 2026 records no proceeds from secondary sales over those twelve months Source [8]. The group describes the Fund 9 transaction there as “a one‑off extraordinary item” Source [8].

Monetising a judgment or an award.

Monetisation advances money to a litigant against what their claim, judgment or award is expected to bring in. Burford defines it as “The acceleration of a portion of the expected value of a litigation or arbitration matter prior to resolution of such matter” Source [1]. The client thus turns a claim or an award into cash, on a non‑recourse basis Source [1].

Burford provides capital at every stage of a matter, “from before filing to after a final judgment has been entered” Source [1]. In 2025, its monetisations exceeded $130m, across six different assets Source [1]. It also offers clients advance payment of sums owed after a settlement, “where little or no litigation risk remains” Source [1].

Omni Bridgeway buys claims, judgments and arbitration awards, or advances money against them Source [9]. Its solutions target orders to pay a sum of money, against a debtor clearly able to pay whose assets have real enforcement value Source [9]. In France, compelling payment of an unpaid judgment is called enforcement of the decision.

Why this market remains narrow.

Burford and Omni Bridgeway themselves explain what limits these transactions.

• The right to sell. Burford has resold rights only in matters where it was permitted to do so Source [1]. Several jurisdictions prohibit or restrict the assignment of a legal claim: the State of New York forbids it in certain circumstances (Judiciary Law § 489) Source [1]. Our article on the US market sets out the laws passed by state legislatures on this funding.
• A buyer with limited information. According to Burford, third parties “cannot perform full legal due diligence on an underlying matter” because of legal privileges Source [1]. Their ability to value these assets is limited as a result Source [1]. Once disclosed, privileged information can lose its protection and become accessible to the opponent Source [1]. Burford does not publish the value of its ongoing matters either Source [1].
• A price that is hard to set. According to Burford, “a ready market does not exist” for these assets, which makes them harder to value Source [1]. Finding a buyer at a price that reflects their value may be “difficult or impossible” Source [1]. A forced sale could fetch significantly less than the amount recorded in the accounts Source [1].
• Transaction costs. Omni Bridgeway put its transaction costs on Fund 9 at 3% to 4% of the cash price Source [7]. It described them as “in line with transactions of similar size and complexity” Source [7].
• An uncertain outcome. Burford notes that losing a case “may result in the total loss of our capital” Source [1]. In the Petersen matter, where part of the claim had been sold in 2019, the judgment was reversed on appeal in 2026 Source [2] Source [3]. The outcome depends on the evidence, the law and the opponent’s solvency, as our page on uncorrelated assets explains.

The published transactions involve large disputes and whole portfolios. Burford rarely commits less than $5m to a matter Source [1]. Hello Justice, the first French company dedicated to mid‑market litigation funding, works on disputes from €100,000 at stake. The figures of Burford and Omni Bridgeway describe their own business only, as our reading of their accounts explains.

Hello Justice Capital 1 units.

Burford’s and Omni Bridgeway’s sales concern rights that these funders hold in cases. A fund’s units follow other rules. For Hello Justice Capital 1, the risks page puts it this way: “Redemptions are locked for ten years. Distributions are paid as cases conclude. There is no secondary market for the units, and a transfer must be approved under the articles of association.”

Frequently asked questions.

Can a funded case be sold before it concludes?

Yes, where the funder is permitted to do so. Burford Capital has done so in a small number of matters, and Omni Bridgeway published five such sales between May 2022 and December 2024 Source [1] Source [5]. These sales are negotiated privately, between funders and institutional investors, because no ready market exists for these assets Source [1].

What is the monetisation of an arbitral award?

A funder advances the holder of an award part of what it is expected to bring in, or buys it outright Source [1] Source [9]. The holder is thus paid without waiting for enforcement, and owes nothing if the matter fails Source [1] Source [9]. Omni Bridgeway targets orders to pay a sum of money, against a debtor clearly able to pay Source [9].

Can Hello Justice Capital 1 units be sold?

The fund’s risks page answers: “Redemptions are locked for ten years. Distributions are paid as cases conclude. There is no secondary market for the units, and a transfer must be approved under the articles of association.”

Does the price of a secondary sale show what a case is worth?

It gives a reference point, dated on the day of the sale. Burford takes a secondary sale into account when valuing an asset if it considers the sale relevant, and it left aside the episodic trading in the Petersen claim Source [1]. The judgment in Petersen’s favour was reversed on appeal on 27 March 2026, nearly seven years after the June 2019 sale Source [1] Source [3].