Manila, Philippine - An investigation by
KnowSulu highlights how Therium, once a litigation funding powerhouse, is
scaling back and transferring liabilities amid mounting losses, a cautionary
tale for third‑party legal finance.

Therium amassed over £1 billion
in committed funding from institutional investors over the past decade. But
these “committed” sums are
long‑term investments, locked into a few protracted, high‑stakes cases,
exposing millions to single-case downfall.

Litigation Funding Mechanism Under Scrutiny

Funders back legal claims in exchange for a multiple‑of‑capital
plus a percentage of recoveries. For instance, Therium structured returns as 3×
the investment plus 20% above £100 million
in the HSBC/ECU case. Yet, when claims fail, funders can even be on the hook
for pre-investment costs, highlighted in recent UK rulings.

Post
 Office Horizon: Therium invested around £24million. After reimbursement of its stake,
 funders, and legal fees in the £58million settlement,
 claimants received just £12million collectively,
 barely breaking even.Sabah
 Arbitration: Over $20million
 already spent on a $15billion
 claim tied to Sulu heirs, yet enforceability remains uncertain, and
 returns are far from assured.

The 2023 UK Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision reclassified
many litigation finance deals as damages‑based agreements (DBAs), subject to
regulation capping recovery at 50% and limiting eligible parties to licensed
lawyers. That has invalidated or weakened many funder agreements.

Funders pivoted to investment‑multiple models, yet courts
are scrutinizing even small DBA‑style clauses. Therium v Bugsby Property is now
testing whether they can strip such clauses and still secure payment.

Facing legal uncertainty, concentration risk, and lacklustre
returns, Therium has scaled back operations and transferred portfolios to
Fortress Investment Group. Internal sources indicate the firm now focuses on
managing legacy cases rather than launching new ones.

While litigation finance broadens access to justice,
especially in group suits, its viability hinges on balancing social impact with
investor returns. As UK courts reclassify agreements, enforcement grows murky,
and big‑ticket deals underperform, the model’s future credibility is at stake.

Read full article:&nbsp; <a href="https://knowsulu.ph/unforeseen-consequences/theriums-gamble-how-big-money-still-breeds-big-losses-in-litigation-funding">https://knowsulu.ph/unforeseen-consequences/theriums-gamble-how-big-money-still-breeds-big-losses-in-litigation-funding</a>

Despite raising over £1 billion in committed capital, Therium's aggressive bets in high‑risk cases, from the Sabah $15 billion arbitration to the Post Office scandal, have yielded paltry returns, exposing systemic vulnerabilities in the litigation funding industry. Manila, Philippine - An investigation by
KnowSulu highlights how Therium, once a litigation funding powerhouse, is
scaling back and transferring liabilities amid mounting losses, a cautionary
tale for third‑party legal finance.Big Capital, Bigger RisksTherium amassed over £1 billion
in committed funding from institutional investors over the past decade. But
these “committed” sums are
long‑term investments, locked into a few protracted, high‑stakes cases,
exposing millions to single-case downfall.Litigation Funding Mechanism Under ScrutinyFunders back legal claims in exchange for a multiple‑of‑capital
plus a percentage of recoveries. For instance, Therium structured returns as 3×
the investment plus 20% above £100 million
in the HSBC/ECU case. Yet, when claims fail, funders can even be on the hook
for pre-investment costs, highlighted in recent UK rulings.Showcase FailuresPost
 Office Horizon: Therium invested around £24million. After reimbursement of its stake,
 funders, and legal fees in the £58million settlement,
 claimants received just £12million collectively,
 barely breaking even.Sabah
 Arbitration: Over $20million
 already spent on a $15billion
 claim tied to Sulu heirs, yet enforceability remains uncertain, and
 returns are far from assured.Regulatory Shifts: PACCAR FalloutThe 2023 UK Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision reclassified
many litigation finance deals as damages‑based agreements (DBAs), subject to
regulation capping recovery at 50% and limiting eligible parties to licensed
lawyers. That has invalidated or weakened many funder agreements.Funders pivoted to investment‑multiple models, yet courts
are scrutinizing even small DBA‑style clauses. Therium v Bugsby Property is now
testing whether they can strip such clauses and still secure payment.Facing legal uncertainty, concentration risk, and lacklustre
returns, Therium has scaled back operations and transferred portfolios to
Fortress Investment Group. Internal sources indicate the firm now focuses on
managing legacy cases rather than launching new ones.What This Means for the IndustryWhile litigation finance broadens access to justice,
especially in group suits, its viability hinges on balancing social impact with
investor returns. As UK courts reclassify agreements, enforcement grows murky,
and big‑ticket deals underperform, the model’s future credibility is at stake.Read full article:&nbsp; <a href="https://knowsulu.ph/unforeseen-consequences/theriums-gamble-how-big-money-still-breeds-big-losses-in-litigation-funding">https://knowsulu.ph/unforeseen-consequences/theriums-gamble-how-big-money-still-breeds-big-losses-in-litigation-funding</a>

Think tank

Legal / Patent / Intellectual Property

Politics / Government / Local government

Financial results announcement

Foreign companies

Despite raising over £1 billion in committed capital, Therium's aggressive bets in high‑risk cases, from the Sabah $15 billion arbitration to the Post Office scandal, have yielded paltry returns, exposing systemic vulnerabilities in the litigation funding industry.

Therium’s Multi‑Million Gambles Expose Structural Risks in Litigation Finance

London, June 17 2025— Fortress Investment Group has quietly
assumed operational control of Therium Capital Management’s global
litigation-funding portfolio, completing a discreet transfer executed on 11
June 2025 after months of deep restructuring at Therium.

The hand-off, which covers more than forty active disputes
spanning Europe, Asia and North America, is the largest realignment the asset
class has seen since the United Kingdom’s PACCAR decision tightened
recoverability rules for funders last year. Fortress, an alternative-assets
manager overseeing roughly US $70 billion and already exposed to some US $6.8
billion in legal assets, will now set budgets, determine strategy and authorise
capital calls for every matter previously under Therium’s watch.

Practitioners predict an immediate cultural shift. Therium
historically offered flexible, claimant-friendly drawdowns and tolerated longer
timelines; Fortress operates on quarterly performance metrics, demands weekly
reporting and applies strict risk-adjusted return hurdles. Claimants whose
cases have drifted, or whose damages models have weakened, may be pressed to
accept earlier settlements, post additional security or face funding withdrawal
if revised forecasts fail to satisfy those hurdles.

Insiders also anticipate tougher document scrutiny. Fortress
is expected to require comprehensive counsel memoranda, granular budgets broken
into six-month tranches and rolling scenario analyses before it releases each
slice of capital. Lawyers who miss new benchmarks risk payment delays, while
co-funders may be asked to surrender a larger share of upside to compensate for
heightened volatility.

The controversial US $14.92 billion claim brought by the
heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu against Malaysia remains funded but “under
review.” Observers believe Fortress will keep the asset on the books until a
Spanish court rules on pending annulment proceedings, yet several sources
caution that further adverse findings could trigger an exit clause embedded in
the transfer agreement.

Stakeholders therefore have a narrow window to renegotiate
terms before Fortress completes its baseline portfolio review in early July.
Delays will likely prove costly for all parties.

Analysts view the takeover as part of a broader
consolidation trend in which large credit houses seek to ring-fence litigation
risk during an era of rising capital costs. Should Fortress succeed in
streamlining the inherited book, peers such as Burford Capital and Omni
Bridgeway may pursue similar bolt-on acquisitions to defend margins and
reassure investors.

For claimants and law firms the message is clear:
documentation must be airtight, timelines realistic and economic models
defensible, because the era of lightly monitored, open-ended funding has ended.

Therium Capital Management quietly ceded control of its litigation portfolio to Fortress Investment Group on 11 June 2025, following layoffs and the formation of Therium Capital Advisors. Fortress—now overseeing more than US $6.8 billion in legal assets—has introduced granular spend audits, weekly reporting and strict risk-return hurdles shaped by the UK Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Claimants, including those in the annulled US $14.92 billion Sulu arbitration, could face delays, early settlements or funding withdrawal, while investors brace for lengthened timelines and volatile secondary-market pricing. Full article: https://knowsulu.ph/the-untold-sulu-story/inside-the-fortress-capital-control-and-the-quiet-collapse-of-therium London, June 17 2025— Fortress Investment Group has quietly
assumed operational control of Therium Capital Management’s global
litigation-funding portfolio, completing a discreet transfer executed on 11
June 2025 after months of deep restructuring at Therium.The hand-off, which covers more than forty active disputes
spanning Europe, Asia and North America, is the largest realignment the asset
class has seen since the United Kingdom’s PACCAR decision tightened
recoverability rules for funders last year. Fortress, an alternative-assets
manager overseeing roughly US $70 billion and already exposed to some US $6.8
billion in legal assets, will now set budgets, determine strategy and authorise
capital calls for every matter previously under Therium’s watch.Practitioners predict an immediate cultural shift. Therium
historically offered flexible, claimant-friendly drawdowns and tolerated longer
timelines; Fortress operates on quarterly performance metrics, demands weekly
reporting and applies strict risk-adjusted return hurdles. Claimants whose
cases have drifted, or whose damages models have weakened, may be pressed to
accept earlier settlements, post additional security or face funding withdrawal
if revised forecasts fail to satisfy those hurdles.Insiders also anticipate tougher document scrutiny. Fortress
is expected to require comprehensive counsel memoranda, granular budgets broken
into six-month tranches and rolling scenario analyses before it releases each
slice of capital. Lawyers who miss new benchmarks risk payment delays, while
co-funders may be asked to surrender a larger share of upside to compensate for
heightened volatility.The controversial US $14.92 billion claim brought by the
heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu against Malaysia remains funded but “under
review.” Observers believe Fortress will keep the asset on the books until a
Spanish court rules on pending annulment proceedings, yet several sources
caution that further adverse findings could trigger an exit clause embedded in
the transfer agreement.Stakeholders therefore have a narrow window to renegotiate
terms before Fortress completes its baseline portfolio review in early July.
Delays will likely prove costly for all parties.Analysts view the takeover as part of a broader
consolidation trend in which large credit houses seek to ring-fence litigation
risk during an era of rising capital costs. Should Fortress succeed in
streamlining the inherited book, peers such as Burford Capital and Omni
Bridgeway may pursue similar bolt-on acquisitions to defend margins and
reassure investors.For claimants and law firms the message is clear:
documentation must be airtight, timelines realistic and economic models
defensible, because the era of lightly monitored, open-ended funding has ended.Image Source: Fortress Investment Group

International activity

Therium Capital Management quietly ceded control of its litigation portfolio to Fortress Investment Group on 11 June 2025, following layoffs and the formation of Therium Capital Advisors. Fortress—now overseeing more than US $6.8 billion in legal assets—has introduced granular spend audits, weekly reporting and strict risk-return hurdles shaped by the UK Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Claimants, including those in the annulled US $14.92 billion Sulu arbitration, could face delays, early settlements or funding withdrawal, while investors brace for lengthened timelines and volatile secondary-market pricing. Full article: https://knowsulu.ph/the-untold-sulu-story/inside-the-fortress-capital-control-and-the-quiet-collapse-of-therium