Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.

The global litigation funding market is experiencing strong growth, yet lingering regulatory uncertainties continue to shadow its trajectory. According to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, the market was valued at approximately US $17.5 billion (AUD $26.9 billion) in March 2025 and is projected to surge to US $67.2 billion (AUD $103 billion) by 2037.

An article in LSJ states that major drivers of this expansion include rising legal costs, complex cross-border commercial litigation, and increased demand from small and mid-sized law firms seeking external funding to build out specialist teams. While funders embrace the growth opportunity, critics raise concerns around transparency, claimant autonomy, and potential conflicts of interest.

In Australia, a notable development occurred on 6 August 2025 when the High Court of Australia in Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd clarified that federal courts may make common fund or funding equalisation orders for the benefit of third-party funders (but not for solicitors) in class actions—except in Victoria, which still allows contingency fees. This decision is seen as a win for litigation funders, providing greater clarity across most Australian jurisdictions. Australia also saw regulatory reform in December 2022 when the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations came into force, exempting litigation funding schemes from the MIS/AFSL regime under specific conditions and emphasising the mitigation of conflicts of interest as a compliance feature.

On the regulatory front, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is considering extending relief instruments that exempt certain litigation funding arrangements from the National Credit Code and financial services licensing until March 2030. Meanwhile in the UK, the proposed Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 seeks to remove the classification of third-party funding agreements as “damages-based agreements” under the Courts & Legal Services Act – a move which proponents say will enable greater access to justice and clear the path for global funders.

U.S. lawmakers are intensifying their efforts to regulate third-party litigation funding, with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introducing the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. This bill mirrors H.R. 2675, which is already progressing through the House, and targets alleged foreign influence in U.S. litigation, particularly from state-owned entities and sovereign wealth funds.

Insurance Journal reports that the proposed legislation would prohibit foreign governments and their affiliated investment arms from financing litigation in U.S. courts. It would also introduce mandatory disclosure requirements, compelling funders to report their arrangements to both the courts and the Department of Justice. Additionally, the bill empowers the DOJ’s National Security Division to review and monitor foreign litigation investments as a matter of national interest.

Supporters of the bill, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), argue that litigation funding sourced from foreign entities presents a tangible threat to national security and economic resilience. APCIA’s senior leadership described it as a “clear and present risk” that could influence legal outcomes and distort the civil justice system.

For the legal funding industry, the implications are significant. If enacted, the law would alter the landscape for funders operating in the U.S. market, especially those reliant on foreign capital. It raises pressing questions about how funders are going to combat this continued assault on the very existence of the industry.

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

The UK‑listed litigation funder Manolete Partners PLC has released its interim financial results for the half‑year ended 30 September 2025, revealing a stable but subdued performance amid an expanding insolvency funding opportunity.

According to the company announcement, total revenue fell to £12.7 million (down 12 % from £14.4 million a year earlier), while realised revenue slipped to £14.0 million (down 7 % from £15.0 million). Operating profit dropped sharply to £0.1 million, compared to £0.7 million in the prior period—though excluding fair value write‑downs tied to the company’s truck‑cartel portfolio, underlying profit stood at £2.0 million.

The business completed 146 cases during the period (up 7 % year‑on‑year) and signed 146 new case investments (up nearly 16 %). Live cases rose to 446 from 413 a year earlier, and the total estimated settlement value of new cases signed in the period was claimed to be 31 % ahead of the prior year. Cash receipts were flat at about £14.5 million, while net debt improved to £10.8 million (down from £11.9 million). The company’s cash balance nearly doubled to £1.1 million.

In its commentary, Manolete emphasises the buoyant UK insolvency backdrop — particularly the rise of Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations and HMRC‑driven petitions — as a tailwind for growth. However, the board notes the first half was impacted by a lower‑than‑average settlement value and a “quiet summer”, though trading picked up in September and October. The firm remains confident of stronger average settlement values and a weighting of realised revenues toward the second half of the year.

The European Commission has stepped back from plans to impose EU‑wide regulation on third‑party litigation funding. At the closing of its “Justice for Growth” forum this week, Commissioner Michael McGrath bluntly stated that stakeholders reported “no need to regulate third‑party litigation funding at EU level”. Instead, the Commission will shift focus toward monitoring how the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) is being implemented across member states.

An article in Law 360 notes that the decision comes after a consultative process and stakeholder feedback via the Commission’s high‑level forum, which included representatives from business, consumer interest groups, and member‑state institutions.

Industry reaction was swift and positive. The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) welcomed the announcement, noting that potential new regulation had created “considerable uncertainty for the sector.” ILFA expressed relief that the “talk of the need for new regulation … appears to be closed.”

Nevertheless, the decision comes at a complex moment. Earlier this year, the Commission published a detailed study on mapping third‑party litigation funding in the European Union, which had outlined three options for regulatory intervention: no regulation, light‑touch regulation, or full regulation. While the choice of “no new legislation” appears to align with the industry’s preference, the heightened scrutiny of the RAD’s implementation could signal more targeted oversight of how funders participate in consumer collective redress actions.

Implications for the legal funding industry: With the Commission refraining from new legislation, funders operating across the EU now have greater regulatory clarity, at least for the near term. But the decision also places the spotlight on national implementation of the RAD and raises questions about whether member states might adopt their own regulatory responses instead.