One thought I had had, that may go to Sakers' thoughts?
In the USA often a portfolio of cases are taken on. This type of funding is miles away from 2011/2012 when IMF-Bentham tended to take on & financed large singular cases, to assist litigating practices on a large or singular scale of claim.
In the USA a number of the cases are rather for portfolios of case work. Such as USA case 27 AUD = $45 m; case 31 AUD = $150 m; & case 37 AUD $275 m.
No single case here; but it rather a practice that requires funding.
The European Joint Venture turned out to be a sump for IMF-Bentham money, but perhaps they've learnt valuable lessons going forward into the structure of partnered actions with third party practices, where IMF-Bentham can lever off other firms capital structure, and so reduce each others risks?
