The Global Leader in
Legal Finance and Risk Management

The article argues that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Amaplat wrongly lets sovereign immunity turn on technical form, treating an arbitral award and a foreign judgment confirming that same award as meaningfully different. It maintains that this formalism creates a circuit split, invites sovereign debtors to game enforcement timelines, and risks hollowing out the FSIA’s implied‑waiver doctrine, undermining the effective enforcement of arbitration awards against foreign states.

The article argues that insurers’ claims about the dangers of litigation finance are inconsistent with their own record‑breaking profitability, revealing a narrative driven more by control than economic reality. It maintains that litigation funding simply levels the playing field by enabling valid claims to proceed, undermining insurers’ attempts to frame it as a threat rather than a check on corporate power.

This article provides a funder's view and critique of the January 2026 CALA Report, arguing that its claim that third‑party litigation funding costs U.S. households $600 per year is unsupported, biased, and based on flawed assumptions. Concluding, that litigation funding enhances access to justice and does not contribute to social inflation, contrary to the narrative promoted by industry detractors.