BLUF — What You'll Learn
- Exactly how to access litigation finance at every wallet size—from $10 to $5M
- Why liquidity determines your return potential more than asset selection
- The pros/cons of public stocks, crowdfunding, interval funds, and private funds
- Case studies of platforms (YieldStreet, LexShares, AxiaFunder) with realistic risks
- A full comparison table of minimums, lockups, return targets, and investor requirements
Key Takeaways
- The Access Ladder spans five rungs: Public equities ($10-50 share prices), crowdfunding platforms ($10k-25k minimums), private funds ($1M-5M commitments), interval funds (quarterly liquidity), and securitizations (institutional QIB-only). Each rung trades liquidity for potential returns.
- Burford Capital dominates public access: NYSE-listed with multi-billion market cap, providing daily liquidity but market correlation (beta ~0.99). As of late 2025, shares trade in low-to-mid teens with analysts rating 'Strong Buy'—but stock prices don't track pure litigation outcomes.
- Crowdfunding democratized mid-tier access: YieldStreet packages legal finance at $10k minimums with insurance backing. LexShares offers single-case exposure at $5k minimums targeting historical IRRs of 40%+ on resolved cases. Both provide zero liquidity until settlement—expect 2-5 year holds, sometimes longer.
- Private funds deliver institutional performance: Targeting 20-30% net IRR with '2 and 20' fees, 7-9 year lockups, and portfolio diversification across 20-50 cases. This is where true uncorrelated returns live—at cost of complete capital lockup and $1M+ minimums.
- Platform risk sits on top of case risk: YieldStreet's August 2025 CNBC exposé revealed significant losses from 2021-2022 deals and transparency failures. Due diligence must evaluate platform operational integrity, regulatory compliance, and sponsor stability—not just underlying litigation quality.
The Litigation Finance Access Revolution
A decade ago, investing in litigation finance required connections to Fortress Capital, $10 million minimum checks, and accredited investor status backed by substantial net worth documentation. The asset class operated as an exclusive club where institutional allocators and ultra-high-net-worth family offices quietly harvested 20-30% annual returns funding commercial disputes while retail investors remained completely shut out.
That exclusivity barrier has crumbled. The $19 billion global litigation funding market now offers access points spanning from $13 stock purchases on NYSE to $5 million institutional commitments, creating a complete "Access Ladder" matching every investor profile, wallet size, and liquidity preference. Understanding which rung fits your situation requires moving beyond theoretical discussions of how litigation finance works to practical specifics: ticker symbols, fund names, minimum investments, and exact structures sophisticated investors actually use.
This guide maps the five distinct access routes, revealing how investors from Robinhood users to family office allocators access uncorrelated returns from legal claims. The democratization happened not through tokenized lawsuits and blockchain promises, but through traditional structures that actually work: NYSE listings, SEC-registered offerings, and proven GP/LP fund formats.
If You Only Remember Three Things:
- Under $25k → you're basically in public stocks (Burford, Omni Bridgeway) and maybe one crowdfunding position. Daily liquidity comes with market correlation—stock prices don't reflect pure litigation outcomes.
- Serious illiquidity (7–9 years) is where uncorrelated returns live. Private funds targeting 20-30% IRR require locking capital until cases resolve. No interim exits. That's the price of genuine diversification benefits.
- Platforms add platform risk on top of case risk. Due diligence is 50% evaluating the platform/manager (track record, regulatory status, operational integrity), 50% underlying case quality. YieldStreet's 2025 exposé proves this matters.
Rung One: Public Equities—Daily Liquidity for All
The most accessible entry point requires nothing more than a standard brokerage account and enough capital to purchase a single share. Publicly traded litigation finance companies offer daily liquidity, transparent reporting through SEC and exchange filings, and no accredited investor requirements—making them the only truly retail-accessible option.
Burford Capital (NYSE: BUR): The Industry Bellwether
Burford Capital dominates as the "Berkshire Hathaway of Law"—dual-listed on NYSE and London Stock Exchange with multi-billion dollar market cap. As of late 2025, shares trade in the low-to-mid teens with a dividend yield around 1.5%, offering the most liquid access point to professional litigation funding at lower cost than a streaming subscription.
The company operates through Principal Finance (providing capital directly against litigation) and Asset Management (managing legal finance for third-party investors). This dual model creates diversified revenue beyond pure case outcomes—you're investing in both Burford's proprietary portfolio and its institutional management fees.
The liquidity-correlation tradeoff: Recent performance shows the challenge. Despite analysts' 'Strong Buy' ratings with price targets in the high teens, Burford has underperformed broader market returns. The disconnect? Public stocks correlate to equity markets (beta ~0.99) even though underlying legal claims remain fundamentally uncorrelated to economic cycles.
Bottom line: You get daily liquidity but sacrifice the uncorrelated return profile that makes litigation finance attractive for portfolio diversification.
What you're actually buying: Quarterly earnings show significant volatility from case resolution timing and fair value accounting adjustments. You're not directly investing in specific lawsuits—you're buying shares in a litigation finance operating company subject to all the joys and pains of public market sentiment, regardless of how the underlying case portfolio performs.
Omni Bridgeway (ASX: OBL): The Australian Global Player
Omni Bridgeway (formerly IMF Bentham) brings global diversification through its Australian Securities Exchange listing. As of late 2025, trading in the A$1.30-1.65 range, the company operates across Americas, APAC, and EMEA segments managing dispute finance from case inception through enforcement.
The firm traces back to 1986, making it one of the longest-established funders globally. Geographic span provides exposure to different legal systems and recovery rates that don't correlate perfectly. Recent performance has exceeded both the Australian market and Diversified Financial industry returns—though the low P/E ratio versus market average suggests either undervaluation or market skepticism about business model sustainability.
Manolete Partners (AIM: MANO): The Insolvency Specialist
UK-based Manolete Partners trades on London's AIM exchange with laser focus on insolvency litigation—buying claims from bankrupt estates and pursuing recoveries. This niche provides exposure to a specific litigation subset: clear legal frameworks under UK insolvency law, defendants often holding recoverable assets, and systematic processes through appointed administrators.
The downside? Narrower market opportunity and concentration risk if insolvency rates decline during robust economic periods. If you believe economic stress creates opportunities, Manolete offers pure-play exposure. If you want broader litigation diversification, stick with Burford or Omni.
Public Stock Summary
Advantages: Daily liquidity, low minimums (single share prices), transparent reporting, no accredited investor requirements, dividend income potential, and ability to size positions precisely.
Disadvantages: Stock price doesn't track NAV of underlying litigation portfolio, market correlation despite uncorrelated underlying assets (beta ~1.0), quarterly earnings volatility from case resolution timing, and limited control over case selection.
Best For: Retail investors wanting litigation finance exposure without lockups, those building diversified portfolios across asset classes, investors comfortable with equity market volatility, and anyone lacking accredited investor status but seeking alternative asset exposure.
Table 1: Publicly Traded Litigation Finance Stocks Comparison (as of late 2025)
| Company | Ticker | Exchange | Share Price Range | Market Cap | Dividend Yield | Geographic Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burford Capital | BUR | NYSE / LSE | Low-to-mid teens (USD) | Multi-billion USD | ~1.5% | Global, US-focused |
| Omni Bridgeway | OBL | ASX | A$1.30-1.65 | ~A$340M | Minimal | Australia, Americas, EMEA |
| Manolete Partners | MANO | LSE AIM | Variable (GBP) | ~£40-60M | Variable | UK insolvency specialist |
Rung Two: Crowdfunding Platforms—The $10k-$25k Sweet Spot
The crowdfunding revolution brought litigation finance investment opportunities to accredited investors through SEC-registered platforms. These platforms package individual cases or portfolios into structured products with $10,000-25,000 minimums—bridging the gap between public stock volatility and institutional private fund commitments.
Critical reality check: Despite "platform" or "marketplace" branding, these investments provide zero interim liquidity. You're locked in until cases settle (2-5 years typical, sometimes 7+ years). Some platforms experienced significant issues—YieldStreet's August 2025 CNBC exposé revealed major losses from 2021-2022 deals with allegations of insufficient transparency.
YieldStreet: Portfolio-Based Legal Finance
YieldStreet pioneered alternative asset crowdfunding in 2015 with litigation finance. The platform has deployed over $345 million across approximately 73 legal finance transactions, with 62 matured and repaid. Current offerings include diversified portfolios structured as Payment Dependent Notes (PDNs)—debt instruments where repayment depends entirely on lawsuit outcomes. (Learn about PDNs and other structures in our deep-dive guide.)
Access Points:
- Legal Finance Funds: $10,000-15,000 minimums, accredited investors, 2-5 year expected durations
- Alternative Income Fund: $10,000 minimum, non-accredited investor access, diversified across asset classes including legal finance
- Fees: 0-2.5% annual management depending on structure, potential profit participation
The 2025 reality: Recent reporting raised serious questions about transparency and risk disclosure. This sounds harsh, but it's where people get hurt—assuming "platform" means "professional oversight" when platform risk can exceed underlying case risk.
Always verify regulatory status, review resolved deal performance data, and understand fee waterfall structures before committing capital.
LexShares: Single-Case Commercial Litigation
LexShares differentiates through a marketplace model allowing accredited investors to select specific commercial cases. Founded in 2014, the platform reports historical win rates around 70% on resolved investments with median durations of 15 months—though individual case results vary dramatically.
Investment minimums start at $5,000, structured as LLC equity interests in case-specific SPVs. The platform targets middle-market commercial litigation: contract disputes, IP infringement, business torts, and fraud claims typically valued between $1-50 million.
Key Features:
- Minimums: $5,000 per case for marketplace offerings
- Status: Accredited investors only
- Liquidity: Zero until case resolution (no interim exits)
- Selection: Choose specific cases after reviewing summaries and legal analysis
AxiaFunder: UK/European Single-Case Access
AxiaFunder operates under FCA authorization offering UK and European investors access to single litigation cases with £1,000 (~$1,250) minimums. The platform has raised £21.8 million across 45 SPVs funding 6,213 individual claims, targeting 20-30% IRR through portfolios of housing disrepair and diesel emission cases.
The platform developed a secondary market allowing existing investors to list holdings—though transaction volumes remain minimal with months passing between trades (covered in our secondary market analysis).
For Accredited Investors Considering Crowdfunding Platforms
Litigation finance crowdfunding occupies the sweet spot between public stock volatility and institutional fund lockups, but requires careful platform evaluation beyond just case quality assessment.
Platform Due Diligence (this matters as much as case quality):
- Verify regulatory status: Check SEC registration, FINRA broker-dealer status, or FCA authorization—don't rely on marketing claims
- Demand resolved case data: Case-level IRR data on mature investments, not just aggregate performance or cherry-picked winners. Ask: "What happened to the deals from 2019-2021?"
- Understand all fee layers: Platform fees, asset management fees, performance carry, and waterfall structures—map how money flows before investing
- Accept illiquidity reality: Despite "marketplace" branding, expect zero liquidity until case resolution (2-5 years typical, sometimes 7+)
Honest assessment: YieldStreet offers portfolio diversification and non-accredited access but faces transparency concerns. LexShares provides granular case selection with strong historical data but requires accredited status. AxiaFunder specializes in UK claims with ATE insurance but concentrates geographic risk. Beyond case quality, you're also betting on platform solvency and operational competence—two distinct risk layers.
Rung Three: Private Institutional Funds—Where Professionals Play
The institutional rung represents litigation finance in its purest form: closed-end GP/LP structures with $1-5 million minimums, 7-9 year complete lockups, professional case selection, and target net IRRs of 20-30%. These funds operate like private equity—raising committed capital, deploying across portfolios, harvesting returns over multi-year horizons.
This is the only rung where you get genuinely portfolio-diversifying behavior. Cases resolve based on legal merits, not market cycles. But that benefit requires accepting complete capital illiquidity for potentially 9+ years accounting for duration extensions beyond initial projections.
Commercial Litigation Funds: Broad-Based Strategies
General commercial litigation funds like Parabellum Capital and GLS Capital deploy across diverse commercial disputes without sector restrictions. This flexibility enables managers to pursue highest-conviction opportunities across breach of contract, fraud, IP, antitrust, and international arbitration.
Structure: Delaware or Cayman Islands LP formation with 3-5 year investment periods (capital call structure) followed by 4-6 year harvest periods. Total fund life spans 7-10 years from first close to final dissolution.
Fees: "2 and 20" remains standard (2% annual management fee, 20% performance carry on profits above hurdle). Increasingly, funds adopt "European Waterfall" structures where LPs receive 100% of contributed capital back before GPs take any carry—aligning incentives for capital preservation. (See our structures guide for waterfall mechanics.)
Specialty Litigation Funds: Niche Focus Strategies
Curiam Capital: Focuses exclusively on divorce and family law litigation, funding high-net-worth divorce proceedings where one spouse lacks liquid assets to match the other's legal spending. Requires deep family law expertise and ability to value marital estates.
Validity Finance: Specializes in trial risk financing—providing capital during trial after liability established but before damages determination. This narrows uncertainty window since liability already proven.
Patent Litigation Funds: Multiple funds concentrate on IP disputes where technical complexity creates barriers for general commercial funders. Employ technical experts and understand PTAB proceedings.
Law Firm Lending: Portfolio Financing at Scale
Firms like Fortress Investment Group and Silver Point Capital pioneered law-firm portfolio lending — providing capital against firms’ entire case dockets rather than individual lawsuits. These deals typically involve revolving credit lines of $50–$500 million, with advances based on eligible case value (often 20–40% loan-to-value).
Advantage: Diversification across hundreds of cases within single credit facility, reducing binary outcome risk. Credit claims against law firm assets beyond just funded cases provide recourse if outcomes disappoint.
Pricing: Interest rates typically SOFR + 800-1200 basis points (8-12% above benchmark rates), varying based on firm credit quality and portfolio composition.
For Family Offices & Institutional Allocators
Litigation finance deserves consideration as uncorrelated alternative allocation—but proper implementation requires understanding what you're actually buying and matching liquidity profiles to portfolio objectives.
Allocation Framework:
- Size appropriately (2-5% of portfolio): Ensures illiquidity doesn't constrain rebalancing or redemption needs. If you can't lock up capital for 9+ years, don't allocate.
- Diversify across 3-5 managers: Spread $25M allocation ($5M each) rather than concentrating. Reduces key-person risk and creates vintage year diversification.
- Model 9-year durations minimum: Despite 7-year target lives, cases drag longer. Underwrite to 9+ year horizons in your liquidity budget.
- Negotiate at scale: At $5M+ commitment levels, negotiate management fee reductions, no-fault termination rights, and favorable side letter terms.
- Monitor valuation methodology: Fair value marking involves subjective judgment. Demand transparency on settlement probability assumptions and conservative policies.
The tradeoff is the point: Litigation finance's target IRRs of 20-30% exist precisely because capital stays locked until case resolution. If you're chasing liquidity, you're chasing the wrong asset class. The illiquidity premium IS the return premium.
Rung Four: Interval Funds—The Quarterly Liquidity Compromise
Interval funds bridge fully liquid public vehicles and completely illiquid private funds through quarterly repurchase offers. These SEC-registered structures offer periodic liquidity windows where investors can redeem 5-25% of NAV, providing some exit flexibility while maintaining long-term capital base.
The mechanism: Fund announces quarterly windows where shareholders may tender shares for redemption at NAV. Fund repurchases tendered shares up to predetermined limits, ensuring orderly liquidity without forcing asset sales. If tender requests exceed quarterly limit, redemptions get prorated across tendering shareholders.
Where to Find Litigation Finance Exposure
Interval funds holding litigation finance typically package legal assets within broader "specialty finance" or "private credit" portfolios:
Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX): Registered interval fund offering quarterly liquidity while investing in middle-market corporate loans, specialty finance, and structured credit including litigation funding participations.
Stone Ridge: Operates interval fund structures holding diversified alternative assets with legal finance sleeves. Appeals to RIAs seeking to allocate client capital to alternatives while maintaining some liquidity valve.
Tradeoffs:
- Liquidity: Better than private funds (quarterly vs 7-9 year lockup) but limited (5-25% quarterly vs daily)
- Returns: Lower than private funds (target 12-18% vs 20-30%) due to liquidity premium sacrifice
- Fees: 1.5-2.5% annual management plus fund expenses
- Minimums: $25k-100k typical, some require accredited status
Rung Five: Securitizations—Institutional-Only Structured Products
The most sophisticated access operates through securitizations where large funds bundle hundreds of lawsuits into SPVs and issue bonds against pooled cash flows. These structures resemble CLOs, creating rated debt instruments backed by diversified litigation portfolios.
Typical structure: Sponsor assembles 300-500 lawsuit funding participations totaling $500M-$1B aggregate estimated settlement values. SPV issues bonds in tranches (senior, mezzanine, equity) with credit ratings from KBRA or Moody's.
Ratings example: If SPV funds $500M cases with $1.5B estimated settlement value and issues only $300M senior bonds, the 3:1 coverage ratio provides cushion for cases settling below expectations.
Access restriction: QIBs (Qualified Institutional Buyers) only through Rule 144A private placements. These buyers—insurance companies, pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds—possess $100M+ deployment capacity justifying due diligence costs.
Yields: SOFR + 300-500bps for senior tranches to SOFR + 800-1200bps for mezzanine. Equity returns depend entirely on portfolio performance (0% to 30%+ IRR range).
Table 2: The Litigation Finance Access Ladder—Complete Comparison
| Access Level | Minimum | Liquidity | Typical Target Returns | Fees | Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Stocks | $10-50 | Daily trading | Market-dependent + low dividend | Brokerage only | None—retail accessible |
| Crowdfunding | $5k-25k | None (2-5+ yrs) | 15-30% IRR target (varies widely) | 1-2% mgmt + 10-20% carry | Mostly accredited (some exceptions) |
| Private Funds | $1M-5M+ | 7-9 yr lockup | 20-30% net IRR target | 2% mgmt + 20% carry | Qualified Purchasers/Institutions |
| Interval Funds | $25k-100k | Quarterly (5-25% NAV) | 12-18% target | 1.5-2.5% mgmt + expenses | Varies by fund |
| Securitizations | $250k+ (QIB) | Secondary (thin) | Bond coupon (A/BBB rated) | Embedded in yield | Qualified Institutional Buyers only |
Decision Framework: Which Rung Matches Your Profile?
Match Your Wallet, Time Horizon & Pain Tolerance:
→ Go with: Public stocks (Burford, Omni Bridgeway). Daily liquidity, low minimums, transparent reporting. Accept that you're buying a litigation finance business, not pure case outcomes. If you're tempted by crowdfunding, start tiny or wait until you can truly ignore that money for 3-5 years.
→ Go with: Crowdfunding platforms (YieldStreet, LexShares, AxiaFunder). Conduct thorough platform due diligence—this is where transparency issues surface. Accept zero interim liquidity.
→ Go with: Mix of crowdfunding ($100k-500k) and interval funds ($500k-1M). Crowdfunding = illiquid, higher upside; interval funds = lower upside, quarterly escape hatch. Diversify across 2-3 platforms to reduce sponsor risk.
→ Go with: Private institutional funds ($1M-5M per fund). Commit across 2-4 managers and multiple vintages. Negotiate fee reductions at $5M+ levels. This is where uncorrelated returns actually live.
→ Go with: Multi-manager private fund portfolio ($5M-10M per fund), law firm lending co-investments, potential securitization tranches through QIB status. Build dedicated team for ongoing monitoring.
Conclusion: Choose Your Rung Wisely
The litigation finance access revolution transformed an exclusive institutional asset class into a spectrum spanning retail stock purchases to multi-million institutional commitments. Each rung offers distinct tradeoffs between liquidity, minimum investment, return potential, and investor sophistication requirements.
Public stocks like Burford Capital democratized access most dramatically, reducing barriers from $10 million institutional minimums to sub-$20 per-share retail purchases. This accessibility comes at cost of market correlation—but provides learning opportunities and liquid exposure unavailable through any other vehicle.
Crowdfunding platforms bridged mid-tier gaps. YieldStreet, LexShares, and AxiaFunder enabled $10,000-25,000 allocations, accepting 2-5 year illiquidity in exchange for target returns of 15-30% IRR. Recent transparency concerns underscore importance of thorough platform due diligence beyond simple case outcome analysis.
Private institutional funds remain the domain of sophisticated allocators deploying $1-5 million with 7-9 year lockups. These structures deliver purest litigation finance exposure—professional selection, portfolio diversification, and target net IRRs of 20-30% uncorrelated to traditional markets. Family offices allocate 2-5% of portfolios here, accepting illiquidity premium in exchange for genuine diversification benefits.
The key insight: litigation finance access no longer requires institutional connections or eight-figure checks. The ladder exists—choose the rung matching your capital, time horizon, and pain tolerance for illiquidity. For comprehensive frameworks on evaluating litigation finance opportunities, understanding risk factors, and implementing proper due diligence, our complete guide provides institutional-grade analysis applicable to retail and professional allocators alike.
Just remember: whether buying $13 Burford shares or committing $5 million to private funds, the underlying fundamentals remain constant. Lawsuits generate binary outcomes based on legal merits, resolution timelines extend unpredictably, and returns depend on professional case selection. Access has democratized, but the expertise required to evaluate opportunities properly has not. Choose vehicles matching not just your wallet size, but your ability to conduct meaningful due diligence on what you're actually buying.
For deeper analysis, see our complete guides to litigation finance investing, legal finance structures, and tokenized lawsuit mechanics.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice. Litigation finance carries significant risk, including loss of capital and multi-year illiquidity. Stock prices, yields, and performance data reflect late 2025 conditions and will become outdated. Always conduct independent due diligence and consult qualified professionals before investing.