Inside Fortress Investment Group’s Abu Dhabi office, now managing the litigation portfolio formerly led by Therium, as the latter undergoes a quiet withdrawal. Image Source: Fortress Investment Group

What was once one of the litigation funding industry’s most recognizable players has now quietly surrendered control of its caseload. On June 11, 2025, Therium Capital Management finalized the transfer of day-to-day portfolio oversight to Fortress Investment Group—an unambiguous signal that the firm is in retreat. Fortress, a global asset manager known for strict financial enforcement and risk containment, now directs strategy and funding execution across Therium’s book of cases. Although Therium remains administratively party to existing contracts, its diminished role leaves claimants and law firms vulnerable to delays, contract revisions, or outright case abandonment—especially where litigation no longer meets Fortress’s internal thresholds—thresholds shaped not just by financial return, but also by regulatory uncertainty following the UK’s PACCAR ruling. For investors, the loss of continuity and transparency may force a reassessment of exposure, timelines, and expected returns.

Fortress Assumes Control

Therium’s internal restructuring appears to have preceded and precipitated the Fortress handover. In April 2025, media outlets reported layoffs across its global offices and the quiet registration of a new affiliate, Therium Capital Advisors LLP, suggesting preparation for operational withdrawal. These developments culminated in the June handoff to Fortress, which now oversees the litigation portfolio.

Fortress, a global asset manager with over $6.8 billion in legal asset commitments, now controls Therium’s litigation operations. In this operational role, it brings centralized oversight, performance-based funding thresholds, and a strict investor-aligned model focused more on measurable returns than legal nuance.

Its model includes granular oversight of law firm spending, weekly financial reporting, and strict internal review cycles. While these structures may satisfy investor demands for discipline, they risk throttling complex or long-duration claims that depend on strategic litigation flexibility. One litigation funding insider put it bluntly: “They choke you to death and then put you out of business”—a warning that Fortress’s performance-driven controls may distort outcomes toward quarterly targets rather than long-term case resolution.

“They choke you to death and then put you out of business.”

This friction is particularly concerning given the nature of Therium’s legacy portfolio—from the annulled $14.92 billion Sulu arbitration to the discredited Excalibur Ventures case in the UK. Fortress’s prioritization of capital security over strategic litigation flexibility may introduce delays, restructuring pressure, or disengagement from cases deemed too speculative.

These risks are already materializing. Fortress’s tightly controlled funding protocols—designed for capital protection, not legal continuity—could upend litigation built on Therium’s looser terms. The asymmetry of power becomes clear: claimants often lack contractual recourse if their funder changes strategy, and Fortress can justify withdrawal on the basis of fiduciary duties to its investors.

The fallout extends further. Cases once greenlit under Therium’s more flexible approach may now be reassessed through Fortress’s stricter lens—risking early settlement, stalled proceedings, or even withdrawal of funding. In politically sensitive or investor-state disputes, the loss of continuity could erode legal leverage or disrupt momentum at key stages. Additional challenges include reduced funder communication, inflexible renegotiation terms, and decreased support for complex or multi-phase cases, particularly if Fortress deems them misaligned with overall portfolio strategy.

Moreover, this transition introduces valuation instability for investors. Litigation finance assets are already illiquid; shifting oversight midstream can disrupt expected timelines, weaken pricing in secondary markets, and signal fund wind-downs disguised as operational realignment. Some industry observers interpret the Fortress takeover not as scaling, but as an orderly exit engineered to limit reputational damage while offloading operational risk.

From Leadership to Liability

Therium’s partnership with Fortress offers short-term continuity—but at the cost of control. Fortress brings the infrastructure to manage complex portfolios, yet its priorities—focused on capital efficiency—diverge from the claimant-centric ethos Therium once professed.

As oversight shifts from those who built the cases to those who seek to stabilize their returns, the question is no longer whether Therium can adapt. It is whether those claimants—many of whom face governments, corporations, or global banks—will find themselves outmaneuvered—not in court, but in the boardrooms where litigation strategy has become just another line item on a balance sheet.

REFERENCES

Bloomberg Law. (2025, April 22). Litigation funder Therium conducts layoffs amid upcoming shift. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/

Hyde, J. (2025, April 23). Jobs lost as high-profile lit funder restructures. The Law Gazette. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/

Legal Funding Journal. (2025, June 11). Therium taps Fortress to manage caseload amid restructuring. https://legalfundingjournal.com/

The Lawyer. (2025, June 10). Therium hands off case portfolio to Fortress in major shift. The Lawyer. https://www.thelawyer.com/