Neil Purslow has been recognized with an award for outstanding contribution to the litigation finance industry despite overseeing some of the most high profile setbacks in the sector.

The organization said the awards highlighted progress in litigation finance, collective actions, IP disputes, arbitration, advisory work, and new legal technologies, portraying the sector as an increasingly important element of contemporary dispute resolution. But the timing of the inaugural ceremony, and the choice of certain honorees, has prompted questions about what exactly is being endorsed.

The launch arrives during a difficult period for the litigation-funding industry, which has faced a series of damaging setbacks. In the United Kingdom, funders are still dealing with the consequences of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, which undermined long-standing funding arrangements and destabilized major cases.

Even high-profile claims that drew widespread sympathy have not yielded commercial success. The subpostmasters’ case, despite its public significance, reportedly left funder Therium barely recovering what it put into the litigation. At the same time, Innsworth was recently accused by lawyers for the Mastercard consumer claim of blocking a potential settlement to protect its profit share, reinforcing concerns that funders may prioritize returns over the interests of claimants.

“The subpostmasters’ case, despite its public significance, reportedly left funder Therium barely recovering what it put into the litigation.”

In the United States, litigation funding is under growing scrutiny as both a transparency issue and a national security concern. Critics argue that nondisclosure of funding arrangements can expose claimants to procedural challenges and weaken confidence in judicial integrity. It also builds on concerns raised in a 2022 U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, which characterized litigation funding as a security risk and highlighted Purslow’s Therium for exerting significant control in Gbarabe v. Chevron, including influence over mediation.

This backdrop makes ILFA’s decision to end the ceremony by honoring Neil Purslow with the award for outstanding contribution to the sector all the more striking. The tribute described his role as one of long-standing leadership and influence over global market standards. Yet the recent trajectory of Therium, where Purslow has been a leading figure, complicates that description.

As earlier reported by KnowSulu, Therium has been associated with practices criticized as opaque and structurally problematic. By directly paying the lawyers in the cases it funds, the firm has effectively created situations in which attorneys answer primarily to the funder rather than the claimants they are meant to represent. Industry insiders also have highlighted Therium’s use of corporate cells in Jersey (Channel Isles), where lighter oversight enables funders to bypass stricter client and case vetting in other jurisdictions, exposing a troublingly opaque and exploitative approach to so-called “international” litigation funding.

“Industry insiders have also pointed to Therium’s use of corporate cells in New Jersey, where lighter oversight allows funders to avoid more rigorous vetting of clients and cases found in other jurisdictions.”

Of course, these questionable methods have also negatively affected Therium’s bottom line. The firm backed several high-profile arbitrations that ultimately collapsed, including the Gbarabe claim and the highly publicized Sulu Arbitration According to industry insiders, further politically sensitive cross-border disputes linked to the funder appear to have failed as well, yet Therium’s limited transparency makes it impossible to determine how many such cases it has actually financed. Collectively, these setbacks have been linked to job cuts, the practical winding down of its funding operations, and the transfer of case management to Fortress Investment in June.

“According to industry insiders, further politically sensitive cross-border disputes linked to the funder appear to have failed as well, yet Therium’s limited transparency makes it impossible to determine how many such cases it has actually financed.”

All of this adds a layer of irony to ILFA’s celebration. The association chose to spotlight a figure whose fund has, in effect, unraveled. Therium stepped back from active funding altogether in October, repositioning itself as an adviser that connects claimants with other funders rather than deploying its own capital. Against that reality, ILFA’s tribute appears less like recognition of continuing leadership and more like a farewell nod to a once-influential actor whose role in the industry has sharply diminished.

REFERENCES

KnowSulu. (2025, April 18). Justice for sale: Therium’s ethical blind spots and Neil Purslow’s public charade. KnowSulu. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu. (2025, November 12). Sulu claimants’ desperate $18 billion claim against Spain thrown out. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu. (2025, October 29). Therium’s activity underscores national security risks in litigation funding. https://knowsulu.ph/

Kovacevic, D. (2025, November 16). ILFA unveils winners of first legal finance awards at London gala. Litigation Finance Insider. https://litigationfinanceinsider.com/

Macfarlanes. (2025, July 17). Merricks v Mastercard settlement: A landmark judgment and its implications for funders. https://www.macfarlanes.com/