The Plaintiff’s Map argued that the anti-SLAPP protection gap persists in the states where powerful institutional plaintiffs have the most to gain from its absence. Here’s what that implies if you’re watching markets.
The SLAPP protection gap isn’t a civil liberties footnote. It’s a market structure — one that determines where certain categories of speech-based litigation can be weaponized at low procedural cost, and where it can’t. The ten states without functioning anti-SLAPP statutes are the jurisdictions where the economics of institutional intimidation through litigation still work. Anti-SLAPP reform, wherever it passes, changes those economics permanently.
That structural shift has a market expression. It runs through Burford Capital (NYSE: BUR, LSE: BUR), the dominant publicly-listed litigation finance firm, and through the broader $20 billion litigation finance asset class — but not in the way you might initially assume.
What the thesis suggests watching
The intuitive read of the main piece is that anti-SLAPP expansion creates a market for SLAPP defense financing — that as more states pass protection, litigation finance capital floods in to back SLAPP defendants. That read is wrong, and worth correcting before it shapes how you think about the market signal.
Defense-side litigation finance has a structural problem: it requires something to recover. A defendant trying to survive a meritless lawsuit typically has no counterclaim, no damages award, nothing for a funder to take a share of on the other end. Anti-SLAPP law doesn’t solve this problem by making SLAPP defense fundable — it solves it by eliminating the need for defense funding entirely. The motion is filed in 60 days, the case gets dismissed, the plaintiff pays fees. There’s no seven-year litigation runway to finance.
The actual market signal is upstream of that. Anti-SLAPP reform changes who decides to bring lawsuits in the first place. Fee-shifting and early dismissal make meritless suits expensive to file. Fewer meritless suits means a cleaner litigation environment — fewer cases clogging dockets, better signal-to-noise for funders underwriting the cases that do proceed. The primary beneficiary of that dynamic is not a new category of defendant getting funded; it’s the existing plaintiff-side litigation finance market getting a better quality pool of cases to evaluate.
Watch for this in Burford’s portfolio metrics: deployment pace, case rejection rates, and average time-to-resolution in newly protected states. If the anti-SLAPP reform wave is functioning as a litigation quality filter, the effect should show up as improved portfolio performance in states that have recently passed UPEPA-style laws — Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Delaware all enacted versions in 2025. That’s a testable prediction across a specific observable window.
The second market signal is in nonprofit D&O insurance. The main piece notes that repeated SLAPP exposure raises the cost of directors and officers coverage for nonprofit organizations — and some insurers have pulled back from the market entirely. The insurance market’s exposure to SLAPP-driven claim frequency is a quiet secondary risk that has not been priced transparently. As anti-SLAPP reform removes that frequency risk in protected states, pricing in those states should diverge from unprotected ones over time. This is slow-moving but worth tracking for anyone with insurance sector exposure.
The third signal is Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) itself. The North Dakota verdict — $345 million, on appeal — represents a contingent liability sitting on ET’s balance sheet. The Greenpeace appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court is pending, alongside a parallel anti-SLAPP action Greenpeace International filed in Dutch court under the EU’s new anti-SLAPP directive. The EU proceeding is notable: it’s the first test of the directive, and if Greenpeace prevails in the Netherlands, the precedent would complicate cross-border SLAPP strategies for any company with European operations. Energy Transfer has already asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the EU proceeding, a signal they understand the exposure. That’s a material legal risk for ET that most equity analysts are treating as background noise.
The bull case
If the anti-SLAPP reform wave continues — and the pace of passage suggests it will — the litigation finance market benefits from a cleaner case environment in an expanding share of U.S. jurisdictions. Burford has built its portfolio on the premise that sophisticated underwriting of high-quality commercial claims generates returns uncorrelated with public markets. With a $7.5 billion active portfolio and decades of resolution data, Burford is better positioned than any new entrant to capitalize on a shift in litigation quality across multiple state jurisdictions simultaneously.
The bull case isn’t that Burford suddenly underwrites SLAPP defense. It’s that the overall quality of the U.S. commercial litigation environment improves as anti-SLAPP coverage expands, and Burford’s portfolio composition reflects that improvement in case selection and resolution time. A firm with this portfolio scale and case history is uniquely positioned to measure — and benefit from — a cleaner litigation landscape as UPEPA adoption accelerates.
On the EU anti-SLAPP directive front: if Greenpeace prevails in the Netherlands case against Energy Transfer, it establishes that companies using SLAPP suits internationally can face reverse liability in EU jurisdictions. That’s a deterrent with direct market implications for any multinational with a track record of litigation-as-intimidation. The companies most exposed are concentrated in extractive industries — energy, mining, agriculture — where SLAPP suits have historically been the most aggressive.
The bear case
The most significant risk to this thesis is federal preemption going in the wrong direction. There is no federal anti-SLAPP statute. The circuits are split on whether state anti-SLAPP laws apply in federal diversity cases, meaning a sophisticated plaintiff can potentially escape state anti-SLAPP protection by filing in federal court. Energy Transfer’s original move was to file federally under RICO — a strategy that failed on the merits but illustrates the federal bypass. If Congress moves to restrict state anti-SLAPP applicability in federal proceedings, or if the Supreme Court resolves the circuit split against defendants, the protection gains of the last five years could be partially neutralized.
The second bear case is that anti-SLAPP reform in holdout states stalls indefinitely. If Alabama, North Dakota, and the remaining holdouts simply don’t move — and the evidence suggests North Dakota at minimum is not moving — the map remains bifurcated. The litigation finance thesis depends partly on the protection expanding to the states where it’s most needed. If it doesn’t, the quality improvement in the overall U.S. litigation environment is capped.
Watch for the North Dakota 2027 legislative session as the clearest near-term falsification signal. North Dakota’s legislature meets biennially. The 2025 session adjourned in May without introducing a single anti-SLAPP bill — months after a $345 million verdict in a case Greenpeace’s own legal team said demonstrated precisely why the state needed protection. If the 2027 session also produces no bill, the structural explanation for the gap becomes harder to dismiss — and the ceiling on litigation quality improvement becomes clearer.
Tracked call
Tracked call: Burford Capital will report measurably improved average time-to-resolution and lower case rejection rates in its U.S. portfolio in the 24 months following the cohort of 2025 UPEPA adoptions (Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Delaware), reflecting the litigation quality improvement in newly protected states.
Falsification window: Burford Capital FY2027 portfolio disclosures
Confidence: Low-Medium
What would change my mind
-
If Burford’s portfolio metrics show no differentiation by state jurisdiction — suggesting the firm’s underwriting focuses on case type and counterparty quality rather than state-level litigation environment — the thesis is wrong about the channel through which anti-SLAPP reform transmits to litigation finance returns.
-
If the federal circuit split on state anti-SLAPP applicability resolves against defendants before the 2025 UPEPA cohort generates observable data, the state-level reform wave loses most of its signaling value for this prediction.
-
If the North Dakota appeal substantially reduces the $345 million judgment against Greenpeace, Energy Transfer’s contingent liability exposure narrows and the EU anti-SLAPP deterrence argument weakens.
Working Hypothesis tracks every thesis publicly. The main piece’s scorecard call and this companion call are scored independently. Prior calls and resolution notes are at working-hypothesis.com.
This is not investment advice. Working Hypothesis is an analytical publication. All positions and calls are tracked publicly on the scorecard.