Neil Purslow, Chief Investment Officer and Co-founder of Therium Capital Management.

Public Advocacy versus Private Opposition

In a March 25, 2025 article titled “Let’s Review Litigation Funding—But Safeguard the Sector First,” Neil Purslow struck a tone of reason and reform. He argued that responsible regulation is essential to ensure the sustainability of litigation funding and to protect claimants from abuse. But this public positioning clashes directly with his own record. Purslow was one of the most outspoken critics of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision in PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal, which reclassified many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements (DBAs) requiring greater regulatory oversight. The intent of the ruling was clear: to prevent litigation funders from draining disproportionate fees from claimant awards. Purslow's opposition to this basic safeguard reveals a deep conflict between his stated principles and his real priorities—namely, the protection of Therium’s profit model.

He repeated his call for responsible regulation in an April 2024 interview with the Legal Funding Journal, praising the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) as a model of accountability. Yet he failed to disclose that he sits on ALF’s board—a position that fundamentally undermines the independence he attributes to the organization. By promoting a body he helps govern as a solution to industry misconduct, Purslow blurs the line between regulator and regulated, presenting a carefully curated illusion of reform. This conflict of interest not only undercuts his credibility but suggests a calculated effort to maintain control over regulatory narratives while shielding Therium from genuine scrutiny. That he occupies this dual role—self-appointed watchdog and funder of ethically contentious litigation—only sharpens the contradiction between his words and his actions. Purslow’s image as a reformer does not merely falter; it collapses under the weight of his entanglements and self-interest.

Profit Over Principles: Therium’s Controversial Practices

Therium’s involvement in several high-profile cases highlights its troubling emphasis on profit maximization. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, despite securing a £58 million settlement for sub-postmasters wrongfully accused due to faulty software, claimants received only £12 million after substantial deductions for legal fees and Therium’s returns. Purslow justified these outcomes, citing complexities and risks assumed by Therium, yet this justification starkly contradicts his proclaimed commitment to justice.

Similarly, in Therium v. Bugsby Property LLC, Therium aggressively enforced a lucrative funding agreement entitling them to multiples of their investment and a substantial portion of settlements. Even uncertainties following the PACCAR ruling did not deter Therium from prioritizing financial recovery, clearly prioritizing profit over claimant welfare.

Therium’s financing of the controversial Sulu arbitration also drew international criticism. The funder backed claimants seeking $14.9 billion from the Malaysian government in a dispute marred by irregularities, including the conviction of arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa for judicial misconduct. Malaysian officials have described the case as a serious abuse of the international arbitration system and accused litigation funders like Therium of enabling dubious claims for financial gain. The fallout has sparked diplomatic tension across Southeast Asia and forced Malaysia to spend millions in legal fees, diverting public resources and intensifying its international legal burdens. The funder’s role in bankrolling such an inflammatory case raises serious questions about its due diligence and ethical standards. Therium’s conduct in the Sulu case exemplifies reckless profiteering cloaked in the rhetoric of justice and reform.

Therium’s conduct in the Sulu case exemplifies reckless profiteering cloaked in the rhetoric of justice and reform.

Critics and Conflicts of Interest

Industry insiders and international observers have voiced concern over Therium’s aggressive pursuit of high-reward litigation with questionable merits. Critics have pointed to Therium’s business model as emblematic of the risks inherent in a largely self-regulated industry—one where the same individuals, like Purslow, can simultaneously operate as funders and regulators.

Purslow’s continued participation on the board of the ALF, while using that position to promote the organization as a solution to industry misconduct, highlights a glaring conflict of interest. His dual role allows him to present the appearance of reform while ensuring that no meaningful oversight ever touches the operations of the company he leads. His blunt assertion that “funders are not legal aid funds” starkly contradicts his earlier idealistic framing of litigation funding, exposing a significant disconnect between his cultivated benevolent persona and Therium’s true financial motivations.

As co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Therium, Neil Purslow stands to profit directly from the firm’s success—profits that are ultimately drawn from the very claimants he claims to champion. His leadership role in a high-yield litigation fund reveals not only a vested financial interest, but a personal stake in preserving a business model built on extracting value from legal disputes. His consistent opposition to stringent oversight, such as the PACCAR decision, appears driven primarily by personal financial incentives rather than genuine advocacy for justice.

The Widening Gap Between Advocacy and Action

Neil Purslow’s cultivated persona as a justice-seeker is fundamentally at odds with the track record of Therium and his own actions. His calls for regulation are contradicted by his resistance to independent oversight, his role in regulatory bodies with conflicts of interest, and the exploitative practices of the firm he founded and leads. When examined in full, Purslow’s public image simply reveals hypocrisy and self-interest. This contradiction demands serious scrutiny from regulators, policymakers, and the public. Litigation funding cannot be entrusted to those who claim to safeguard justice while quietly reaping its profits at the expense of the very people they claim to serve.

REFERENCES

Binham, C. (2024, March 15). Letter: Business that bankrolled postmasters puts its case. https://www.ft.com/content/78379a5f-7793-49d6-b5df-e30a990a944c

Fahy, M. (2025, March 25). Let’s review litigation funding—but safeguard the sector first. https://www.law.com/international-edition/2025/03/25/lets-review-litigation-funding-but-safeguard-the-sector-first/

Lawdragon. (2021, January 21). Litigation funding focus: Neil Purslow and Eric Blinderman of Therium Capital. https://www.lawdragon.com/legal-consultant-limelights/2021-01-21-litigation-funding-focus-neil-purslow-and-eric-blinderman-of-therium-capital

Legal Business. (2024, December 23). 'It's always a fight' – US and UK funders on a busy year battling Davids, Goliaths and regulation. https://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/law-firms/its-always-a-fight-us-and-uk-funders-on-a-busy-year-battling-davids-goliaths-and-regulation/

Legal Funding Journal. (2024, April). An LFJ conversation with Neil Purslow. https://legalfundingjournal.com/lfj_conversations/an-lfj-conversation-with-neil-purslow/

Norton Rose Fulbright. (2023, November). Fallout from Supreme Court decision on litigation funding arrangements. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-disputes/blog/202311-fallout-from-supreme-court-decision-on-litigation-funding-arrangements