How concentrated can a funder become?

Very. Burford's YPF-related assets, two claims arising from the same expropriation, were about 46% of the fair value of its capital provision assets at December 31, 2025. When the judgment was reversed in March 2026, capital provision assets fell from $5.61 billion to $3.34 billion over nine months. Excluding YPF, its largest correlated exposure was about 5% at the end of 2025.

What other concentrations matter?

Law firms and clients. Burford reported commitments split 54% to corporates, 40% to law firms and 6% other at December 31, 2025; its largest corporate commitment was $130.0 million (4%), and its largest single law firm relationship, covering more than 15 matters, was $118.3 million (2%). If such a firm 'were to encounter financial difficulties, dissolve or suffer a substantial loss of personnel,' many cases would be affected at once.

Does a large number of cases protect a fund?

Only if the cases are independent. AltStreet's Legalist review notes 250+ positions per fund, which spreads risk across many claims, but also a shift in Fund IV from patent toward class action cases, which concentrates exposure in one claim type and its legal developments. Count dependencies, not just cases.

How do large cases distort a track record?

By dominating results either way. Omni Bridgeway's 12 completed investments over A$20 million returned 1.54x against 2.4x on the rest, per AltStreet's review, and the company presents its headline multiple excluding them. A portfolio's average can hide how much rests on a few large positions.

What limits do funds use?

Concentration limits on single cases, defendants, law firms or claim types, often as a percentage of commitments. They control size at entry but not later growth in value: a case marked up after a trial win can become a much larger share of a fund than its limit allowed at commitment, as YPF did at Burford.

Case Concentration and Correlated Claims

Litigation Finance & Legal Claims

Definition

Case concentration is the share of a litigation portfolio's value in its largest cases, defendants, law firms or clients. Correlated claims are cases whose outcomes are likely to move together because they share a legal theory, a defendant, a court, evidence or counsel. Burford's 2025 Form 10-K warns that 'our portfolio may be concentrated in cases likely to have correlated results, and we have a number of assets involving the same counterparty.'

Why it matters

Litigation portfolios look diversified when counted by cases, but outcomes cluster around shared defendants, legal theories, courts and law firms. A single appellate ruling, a defendant's insolvency or a firm's collapse can hit many positions at once, and fair value marks can let one winning case grow into a dominant share of a book. Burford's disclosures show both kinds: a 46% exposure to one dispute that was reversed on appeal, and smaller correlated clusters it monitors separately. Ask a manager for its largest exposures by dispute, defendant, law firm and claim type, at cost and at fair value, and for how it measures correlation between them.

Common misconceptions

•Many cases are not diversification, because cases sharing a defendant, theory or law firm can fail together.
•Concentration limits at entry do not cap later concentration, because marks can grow a winning case far beyond its original share.
•Uncorrelated with markets does not mean uncorrelated with each other, because litigation outcomes cluster around shared legal questions.
•Law-firm concentration is not only operational, because a firm's failure or departures affect every case it runs.
•Excluding large cases from a track record is not neutral, because the largest positions often drive the portfolio's actual result.

Technical details

Worked example (illustrative): five related claims

Five claimants funded at $2.0 million each against the same defendant on the same legal theory; each pays 3.0x if it wins.

Treated as independent with a 60% win chance each: expected 1.8x, and the chance all five lose is about 1%.

In reality, one appellate ruling on the shared theory decides all five: a 60% chance of 3.0x on $10.0 million and a 40% chance of zero.

Same expected value, but the chance of losing everything rises from about 1% to 40%.

If the defendant is insolvent, all five collect the same reduced recovery.

Concentrations to map

Single dispute (several claims from one event).

Defendant or group of related defendants.

Legal theory and the appellate court that will decide it.

Law firm and client relationships.

Claim type and jurisdiction.

What AltStreet's reviews and filings show

Burford's 2025 10-K says it has 'financed multiple different counterparties in relation to the same or very similar claims, such that outcomes on these related exposures are likely to be correlated'; its largest correlated exposure other than YPF was about 5% of consolidated capital provision assets at December 31, 2025 (6% a year earlier), and commitments were 54% to corporates, 40% to law firms and 6% other.

Burford 2025 10-K: largest corporate commitment $130.0 million (4%); largest law firm relationship $118.3 million (2%), more than 15 matters with a firm among the 50 largest US firms.

Burford's YPF-related assets rested on a $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina entered September 15, 2023; the Second Circuit reversed it on March 27, 2026, and the assets' consolidated fair value fell from $2.6 billion at December 31, 2025 to $145.9 million at September 30, 2026; YPF was about 46% of capital provision assets at December 31, 2025.

AltStreet's Omni Bridgeway review (October 31, 2026) reports the company's own figures: 2.4x gross on 822 completed investments at June 30, 2026, unaudited and before fees, excluding the 12 investments over A$20 million, which returned 1.54x; 179 of the 822 lost, recovering 0.15x.

Questions about concentration

What are the five largest exposures by dispute, defendant and law firm, at cost and at fair value?

Which cases share a legal theory or an appellate court?

What concentration limits apply, and are they measured at cost or value?

How would one adverse ruling on the largest theory affect the fund?

How much of the track record comes from the largest few cases?

How investors apply the term

Investors usually apply this term by tying the definition back to the controlling documents and then asking which cash flows, rights, restrictions, or valuation assumptions it changes. A useful review looks at the term alongside fees, leverage, liquidity, reporting frequency, and manager discretion rather than treating it as a standalone concept.

The practical diligence test is simple: identify who benefits if the assumption is wrong, who has control when conditions change, and what evidence the investor receives after closing. Terms that cannot be reconciled to documents, cash movements, and monitoring data should be treated as marketing shorthand until proven otherwise.

Frequently asked questions

Are multiple lawsuits against the same defendant diversified?: Usually not. They share the defendant's ability to pay, its litigation strategy and often the same legal questions, so a ruling or an insolvency affecting one tends to affect all. Burford's 10-K describes 'related exposures where we have financed multiple different counterparties in relation to the same or very similar claims, such that outcomes on these related exposures are likely to be correlated,' and says an adverse outcome on one 'may result in, or increase the likelihood of, losses on the other related claims.'
How concentrated can a funder become?: Very. Burford's YPF-related assets, two claims arising from the same expropriation, were about 46% of the fair value of its capital provision assets at December 31, 2025. When the judgment was reversed in March 2026, capital provision assets fell from $5.61 billion to $3.34 billion over nine months. Excluding YPF, its largest correlated exposure was about 5% at the end of 2025.
What other concentrations matter?: Law firms and clients. Burford reported commitments split 54% to corporates, 40% to law firms and 6% other at December 31, 2025; its largest corporate commitment was $130.0 million (4%), and its largest single law firm relationship, covering more than 15 matters, was $118.3 million (2%). If such a firm 'were to encounter financial difficulties, dissolve or suffer a substantial loss of personnel,' many cases would be affected at once.
Does a large number of cases protect a fund?: Only if the cases are independent. AltStreet's Legalist review notes 250+ positions per fund, which spreads risk across many claims, but also a shift in Fund IV from patent toward class action cases, which concentrates exposure in one claim type and its legal developments. Count dependencies, not just cases.
How do large cases distort a track record?: By dominating results either way. Omni Bridgeway's 12 completed investments over A$20 million returned 1.54x against 2.4x on the rest, per AltStreet's review, and the company presents its headline multiple excluding them. A portfolio's average can hide how much rests on a few large positions.
What limits do funds use?: Concentration limits on single cases, defendants, law firms or claim types, often as a percentage of commitments. They control size at entry but not later growth in value: a case marked up after a trial win can become a much larger share of a fund than its limit allowed at commitment, as YPF did at Burford.