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

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argues that the United Kingdom's collective action and costs rules are steering claims against large technology companies away from British courts, leaving affected workers and consumers to seek redress abroad.

As reported by IPPR, the think tank points to proceedings brought in the Dutch courts by Stichting Worker Info Exchange International against Uber on behalf of affected drivers, including British drivers. The case challenges Uber's alleged use of personal data to determine drivers' pay, following earlier research findings that its algorithmic pay system has made earnings less predictable and widened pay inequality.

The report draws a direct contrast between the two jurisdictions. Dutch law allows non-profit organisations to bring collective cases on behalf of affected people with limited risk of legal costs, while UK rules make equivalent legal action much harder and carry the risk of massive legal costs.

IPPR's recommendations go to the heart of the funding question. The report calls for allowing charities and NGOs to bring public interest cases against technology companies without requiring individual authorisation, introducing opt-out collective legal action across areas including workers' rights, and capping potentially crippling legal costs while reforming litigation funding rules.

The report, authored by independent legal strategy and technology policy consultant Swee Leng Harris, is supported by former attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, Labour MP Jess Asato, and the App Drivers and Couriers Union. Driver and union member Abdurzak Hadi said that taking on a company like Uber in court "costs huge amounts of money, far more than most drivers I know can afford."

Tata Power has escalated its long-running dispute with Kleros Capital Partners from the courtroom to the police station, with Mumbai Police registering a First Information Report against eight accused parties over an alleged fraud valued at ₹4,800 crore.

As reported by the Free Press Journal, the complaint names Kleros Capital Partners and two former Tata Power employees among the accused, alleging data leakage and criminal conspiracy in connection with a Russian coal mine transaction and the Singapore arbitration that followed.

Tata Power claims that confidential information shared with Kleros under non-disclosure agreements signed in 2013 and 2014 was later used against it in arbitration. It alleges direct losses of roughly $8 million and says a valuation report was prepared without a site visit before being relied upon in the proceedings. None of the allegations has been established in any court.

Kleros commenced SIAC arbitration in November 2020. The tribunal, chaired by Professor Lawrence Boo and including Stuart Isaacs KC and Amal K. Ganguli, issued a liability award in September 2023 and a damages award on 1 July 2025, with the majority ordering payment of $490.32 million plus simple interest at 5.33% per annum.

On 26 August 2026 the Singapore International Commercial Court rejected all three of Tata Power's set-aside applications, finding no breach of natural justice or apparent bias. The Court also held that Omni Bridgeway's involvement in unrelated proceedings involving the arbitrators did not establish apparent bias. Tata Power shares fell 3.89% following the ruling.

Australia's Federal Court has approved a $12 million funding commission to Court House Capital out of a $29.6 million class action settlement, rejecting the suggestion that hindsight should be used to shrink a funder's reward.

As reported by Australasian Lawyer, Justice Lee handed down Top Ryde Financial Services Pty Ltd v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Settlement Approval) [2026] FCA 1652 on 30 October 2026, approving roughly $16.6 million in total deductions comprising $4 million in legal costs and the $12 million commission.

The proceeding was brought by 15 former franchisees of RAMS, Westpac's former home-lending business, who alleged wrongful termination and the withholding of 25% of trail commissions after termination. The settlement deed required payment of $29,624,397.67, made up of withheld trail commission with interest plus an additional sum of approximately $20.8 million. RAMS also agreed to stop withholding part of future trail commission and to offer buy-outs of future trailer income. There was no admission of liability.

The Court acknowledged the commission exceeded the average percentage seen in some recent approvals, but noted that alternative formulas in the funding agreements would have produced either $8.58 million or $16 million. All but one franchisee had signed a funding agreement, and no group member objected. Justice Lee remarked that "a headline percentage may conceal more than it reveals," though he did limit the reach of the settlement deed.

For context, the 7-Eleven franchisee class action settled for $98 million in 2021, inclusive of a $24.5 million funder commission.

Rightmove has challenged the litigation funding agreement underpinning a £1.6 billion collective action against it, arguing that funder Innsworth Advisors holds an excessive degree of control over the proceedings.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the property portal told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the agreement is structured to secure the funder a potentially inappropriate return, with Innsworth reportedly in line for around £100 million.

The claim is brought by former Competition and Markets Authority panel member Jeremy Newman on behalf of roughly 7,200 class members, largely estate agents, letting agents and new-homes developers who paid listing fees between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026. The underlying allegation is abuse of dominance through excessive and unfair fees. The claim is funded by Innsworth Capital, the UK litigation funding arm of Elliott Management, with Scott+Scott UK LLP acting as counsel and Kairos Economics providing economic analysis.

The certification dispute centers on whether the action should proceed on an opt-out or opt-in basis. Rightmove argues that allowing opt-out here would raise questions about when opt-in could ever be appropriate. The proposed class representative counters that forcing an opt-in process is designed to shrink damages or exhaust the budget so that the litigation will "run into the sand," citing complexity, modest individual recoveries and fear of retaliation from a must-have commercial partner as deterrents to signing up.

The Tribunal rejected comparable opt-in arguments earlier in 2026 in Stasi v Microsoft, Ennis v Apple and Brook v Google. Rightmove has said it will defend the claim vigorously.

Burford Capital has reported third quarter 2026 results, posting total revenues of $135 million and describing the period as its strongest of the year on the strength of portfolio activity and cash generation.

As reported by PR Newswire, the funder released its 3Q26 and YTD26 financial results ahead of an investor call, with revenues coming in above analyst consensus of roughly $109 million.

Chief Executive Officer Christopher Bogart said revenues would have been well over $200 million were it not for a non-cash increase in market discount rates, which weighed on the carrying value of the portfolio without affecting underlying case progress. The distinction matters for a business whose reported earnings move with fair-value assumptions as much as with case outcomes.

On the balance sheet, Burford completed $100 million of de-leveraging during the quarter, retiring its nearest-term debt maturity, and finished the period with more than half a billion dollars in cash.

The company also disclosed a subsequent event: after quarter-end, it received a further $64 million in cash from the resolution of a matter originating in 2015, at a return of approximately 12x invested capital. That realization is not reflected in the third quarter figures and will instead land in fourth quarter results. Burford did not identify the underlying case.

The results follow a softer stretch for the funder, which reported earnings of $0.01 per share in August against expectations of $0.08. For an industry where returns arrive in lumps rather than streams, the quarter offers a reminder that cash realizations and accounting revenues rarely move in step.

Loopa Finance, the litigation and arbitration funder formerly known as Qanlex, has added two Investment Managers to support its expansion across Brazil, Chile, Europe and the United Kingdom.

According to a press release from Loopa Finance, Raquel Assis will be based in São Paulo and focus on consolidating the firm's growth in Brazil, one of its key markets. Roberto Gassmann, a Chilean-qualified lawyer based in London, will work to strengthen Loopa's presence in Europe and the UK while supporting its development in Chile and other Latin American markets.

Assis previously worked at Demarest Advogados on high-value civil litigation and international arbitration, including matters handled alongside Quinn Emanuel. She later joined Lass Legal Capital as an Investment Associate, where she assessed and structured nine-figure investments across Latin American jurisdictions.

Gassmann brings more than seven years of experience in complex litigation and international disputes. Most recently at Baker Botts in London, he worked on investment treaty and commercial arbitrations under ICSID, UNCITRAL, ICC and LCIA rules, covering mining, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure and construction disputes. He earlier practised at Chilean firms Albagli Zaliasnik and Balmaceda, Cox & Piña Abogados.

"Every investment decision we make begins with a thorough understanding of the legal merits, risks and commercial realities behind a dispute," said Fernando Folgueiro, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Loopa Finance. He added that the two appointees will strengthen the firm's ability to evaluate complex cases and build closer relationships with law firms and businesses across its markets.

Loopa operates with its own capital on a non-recourse basis, funding litigation and arbitration expenses, advancing against expected recoveries, and offering portfolio, law firm and class action funding, as well as legal costs insurance. The firm recently closed its $70 million Fund III.

Samil PwC has signed a memorandum of understanding with dispute funding advisory Lithic Equity Partners to build out joint capability in international disputes and third-party litigation funding for Korean companies.

As reported by Herald Business, Lithic Equity Partners announced the agreement on 2 November, with Samil PwC publicising it the following day. Lithic, an Asia-Pacific international dispute funding advisory, is led by chief executive Moon Jin-seung. Samil PwC is led by chief executive Yoon Hoon-soo.

The two firms have divided the work along their respective specialisms. Samil PwC will handle quantum and damages assessment, expert witness testimony, eDiscovery, accounting and financial analysis, valuation, forensics and tax. Lithic will assess the economic viability and funding suitability of claims, prepare dispute budgets, structure third-party funding arrangements, supply intelligence on the global funder market, and compare and negotiate funding terms.

The parties also plan joint seminars, webinars, forums and conferences, along with knowledge exchange and published research. The stated aim is to help Korean companies respond strategically as cross-border disputes grow in volume and complexity.

Hong Jun-ki, who heads Samil's audit division, said damages assessment and accounting and financial analysis are becoming more important as disputes grow more complex. Moon described third-party funding as a non-recourse financial instrument rather than merely a means of covering costs.

The tie-up is a notable signal for funding in Korea, where third-party funding remains at an early stage of adoption. Pairing a Big Four accounting practice's quantum and forensic capability with a dedicated funding advisory gives Korean claimants a domestic route to structuring funded international claims.

The High Court of New Zealand has declined to allow an Omni Bridgeway-funded claim against Transpower and contractor Omexom to proceed on an opt-out basis, finding the proposed class of up to 24,000 businesses lacked sufficient common issues.

As reported by NZ Lawyer, the judgment in *Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited* [2026] NZHC 3275 was released on 21 October. The claim arises from the June 2024 collapse of a transmission pylon at Glorit, near Wellsford, after an unsupervised Omexom contractor removed all the nuts from three of the tower's four legs during routine maintenance. Roughly 180,000 people and 20,000 businesses lost power, some for days.

The court held that the duty of care question could only be answered with "it depends," following the Court of Appeal's approach in the cladding class action, and warned of an evidentiary vacuum beyond the two named plaintiffs. Large electricity users had bespoke supply arrangements and had taken differing protective steps, including insurance and backup generators. An adverse finding on duty would bind class members who had not opted out and who might have stronger claims, and the two named businesses were not sufficiently representative. The risk that the case would not proceed at all without an opt-out order could not overcome the absence of common issues. The court invited the plaintiffs to recast the claim or run it on an opt-in basis.

The claim is run by Lee Salmon Long and Piper Alderman on a no-win-no-fee basis with Omni Bridgeway funding. Losses have been estimated at NZ$60m by Infometrics and NZ$80m by the Northland Chamber of Commerce. LeeSalmonLong partner David Bullock has said the defendants' NZ$1m regional resilience fund was unlikely to cover actual losses.

Omni Bridgeway has taken its Robodebt class action commission to the Full Federal Court of Australia after the trial judge cut the funder's entitlement to roughly half of what it sought from the A$475m settlement.

As reported by Lawyerly, the funding entity Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Lion Pty Ltd has filed an appeal challenging the reduction, which took its commission down from approximately A$71m. The appeal was lodged in late August 2026.

The underlying proceeding, *Knox v Commonwealth*, was an appeal from the original *Prygodicz* settlement, brought to set that settlement aside so claimants could pursue a misfeasance in public office case built on evidence from the Robodebt Royal Commission. The Albanese Government announced a settlement in September 2025, and Justice Beach approved it on 23 June 2026, with the Commonwealth ordered to pay A$475,000,000. Total value of the settlement is around A$550m.

Gordon Legal, which acted for the class, has described the settlement as the A$475m sum less a 15% funding commission. In his approval judgment, [2026] FCA 1029, Justice Beach recorded submissions that the costs claimed "are excessive as is the 20% commission sought," and considered fixing the commission by reference to a multiple of five on pre-mediation costs. The judgment cited comparative authority in which the largest reduction took a commission from 30% to 18.66%, and emphasised the need for proportionality in the aggregate commission paid out of a settlement fund.

The appeal puts a significant question before the Full Court: how far a first-instance judge may go in recalibrating a contractual funding commission at the approval stage of a very large settlement.