As a former leader in litigation finance, Therium’s opaque practices highlight the challenges confronting funders, investors, and the wider legal system. In both Europe and the United States, calls for greater transparency and regulation are growing to address an intransparent environment that continues to raise concern. Image Source: Freepik

Therium Capital Management’s rise as a leading litigation funder began with a structure that predates its current corporate group. In 2010, the firm incorporated Therium Litigation Funding LLP in the United Kingdom, its earliest known collective investment vehicle designed to pool external capital for legal claims. The entity was eventually folded into Therium Group Holdings Ltd and represents the firm’s first attempt to institutionalise litigation finance.

“Therium Litigation Funding LLP was formed before Therium Group Holdings Ltd and represents the firm’s first attempt to institutionalise litigation finance.”

In its early stages, Therium appears to have struggled to secure capital for its initial cases, relying heavily on referrals from its legal and commercial networks to get its business off the ground. However, a person with knowledge of the fund has raised questions about the role of one company in referring investors during this difficult period: RFN Capital Ltd.

Public filings at UK Companies House list RFN Capital Ltd. as holding a formal ownership position within Therium’s first funding structure rather than acting solely as an external adviser or investor. What is notable is what the public filings do not reveal. It is not known how much capital each member contributed, how profits were shared, or whether any member’s interest was granted for reasons other than a financial investment. As such, there is no disclosure in the public record explaining the basis on which RFN Capital acquired its membership interest. However, according to an industry insider, investors referred by RFN Capital were not made aware of RFN Capital’s role in Therium LLP.

“However, according to an industry insider, investors referred by RFN Capital were not made aware of RFN Capital’s role in Therium LLP.”

This raises considerable concerns on conflicts of interest against the backdrop of UK legal principles governing undisclosed benefits received by intermediaries acting in fiduciary or advisory roles. UK courts have taken a strict approach to such arrangements. As a matter of principle, where an adviser receives a benefit that is not disclosed to the principal, it may give rise to civil liability even in the absence of criminal conduct.

In FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC, the Supreme Court confirmed that secret commissions received by an agent are held on trust for the principal. While that case involved a cash commission, the broader principle illustrates why undisclosed benefits—whether monetary or in other forms—raise legal and governance concerns. Where an intermediary recommending a funder holds an undisclosed ownership, the undisclosed arrangement creates a structural conflict of interest and calls into question the adequacy of investor disclosure.

No court or regulator has yet confirmed that Therium or RFN Capital breached these principles. What can be said is that the earliest funding vehicle in Therium’s history operated with very limited transparency, not only to the public but also to investors and shareholders seeking to understand member incentives and financial arrangements. It is an opacity that continues to raise questions.

“Therium operated with very limited transparency, not only to the public but also to investors and shareholders seeking to understand member incentives and financial arrangements.”

Therium later positioned itself as a pioneer of institutional-grade litigation finance, at a time when the sector was attracting increased judicial and regulatory attention. By 2025, it reorganised as an advisory, withdrawing from a funding industry that increasingly encountered legal and financial obstacles despite demand for legal funds. Against that backdrop, the governance and disclosure practices of its first fund have become a legitimate subject of inquiry. Questions about who benefited from early structures, and on what terms, go to the heart of investor confidence in an industry built on trust and risk-sharing.

For critics, this lack of clarity is significant not only in assessing Therium’s previous practices, but also in evaluating the advice it may provide as a funding advisory that continues to hold influence in the sector.

REFERENCES

KnowSulu. (2025, November 11). Corrupt arbitration? Questions grow over Stampa’s ties to Sulu claimants’ lawyers in Spain. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu. (2025, November 14). Therium’s activity underscores national security risks in litigation funding. https://knowsulu.ph/

UK Government. (n.d.). FHR European Ventures LLP and others (Respondents) v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Appellant). UK Supreme Court. Retrieved December 19, 2025, from https://www.supremecourt.uk/

UK Government. (n.d.). Therium Litigation Funding LLP people — Officers. Find and update company information. Retrieved December 19, 2025, from https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/