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

Litigation funding played a decisive role in a landmark New Zealand High Court ruling that has left ANZ Bank New Zealand facing potential liability of up to NZ$125 million. The class action, brought on behalf of approximately 17,000 borrowers, would not have been viable without backing from funders LPF Group and CASL, which financed the proceedings against the country's largest bank.

As reported by LawFuel, Justice Geoffrey Venning delivered summary judgment against ANZ on May 4, 2026, finding the bank in breach of disclosure obligations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA). The case turned on a coding error in ANZ's loan systems that affected variation letters issued between June 2015 and May 2016. Although the bank argued the underpayments averaged just NZ$2 per customer per month, the court held that "technical errors in disclosure, no matter how small the financial impact, trigger automatic statutory penalties."

ANZ was ordered to refund the lead plaintiffs NZ$32,728.42, establishing a benchmark that, when extrapolated across the class, produces the NZ$125 million exposure figure. The judgment rejected ANZ's "no harm" defense, confirming that Section 22 of the CCCFA imposes strict liability regardless of actual financial harm.

ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson described the consequences as "disproportionate." The bank reported after-tax New Zealand profit of roughly NZ$1.4 billion last year. The decision underscores how funded class actions are reshaping consumer redress in jurisdictions where individual claims would be uneconomic to pursue.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is set to examine whether certain forms of litigation financing risk undermining the effectiveness of the bloc's antitrust laws, in a referral that could reshape the funding landscape for cross-border consumer class actions. The case originates from Portugal and centers on the funding arrangements supporting Ius Omnibus, a non-profit consumer protection association that has emerged as a prominent claimant in European competition litigation.

As reported by MLex, the CJEU will determine whether class actions backed by particular funding structures pose a risk to the public-interest objectives of EU antitrust enforcement. The referral asks the court to assess whether economic incentives embedded in third-party funding can coexist with the bloc's competition rules or whether they create conflicts that compromise enforcement quality.

The decision is expected to carry significant implications for consumer associations and class representatives across Europe, many of which rely on outside capital to pursue mass claims against companies accused of anticompetitive conduct. A ruling that restricts certain funding models could narrow the financial pathways available to non-profit claimants, while a ruling that affirms flexible structures would reinforce that alternative finance is compatible with robust enforcement.

The case arrives as European policymakers continue to debate the boundaries of permissible litigation funding under the Representative Actions Directive and as national courts in Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal develop divergent approaches to funder disclosure and control. The CJEU's eventual judgment is poised to set a binding precedent across all 27 member states.

A new opinion piece in The Times is urging UK ministers not to weaken the country's collective actions regime, arguing that funded class litigation has become one of the few effective checks on consumer harms inflicted by major technology platforms. The intervention comes as the Department for Business and Trade reviews the opt-out class action framework introduced under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

As reported by The Times, the article catalogues a range of consumer harms attributed to large technology companies, from the design of addictive products to insufficient action against online predators. The author contends that, absent meaningful regulatory enforcement, collective redress backed by litigation funding is the most realistic route to accountability for individuals affected by the conduct of dominant digital platforms.

The piece arrives during a critical moment for UK collective redress. More than 20 opt-out actions have been certified under the Competition Appeal Tribunal's regime, with the cumulative value of certified and pending claims surpassing £160 billion. Funders, including Innsworth Capital and CASL, have continued committing capital to high-profile cases, including a £1 billion claim against Rightmove and the £1.7 billion Microsoft action recently approved by the CAT.

The author warns that any move to restrict opt-out actions or weaken funding arrangements would effectively close off mass claims as a tool for consumer accountability. With the Civil Justice Council's June 2025 report having recommended only modest changes to funding rules, advocates argue ministers should resist sweeping reforms that would tilt the balance back toward defendants.

A second opinion piece in The Times has framed the UK's opt-out class action regime as an indispensable tool for access to justice, arguing that decades of cuts to civil legal aid have left litigation funding for collective redress as the only viable mechanism for many claimants to vindicate their rights. The article enters a live policy debate as the government reviews both the opt-out framework and the broader rules governing third-party funding.

As reported by The Times, the piece argues that civil legal aid has been "cut to the bone" over the past three decades, leaving consumers and small businesses without practical means to pursue redress when harmed by powerful corporate actors. In that environment, funded opt-out claims serve as a critical bridge between widespread consumer harm and meaningful remedy.

The article responds to ongoing scrutiny of the regime by the Department for Business and Trade, which issued a call for evidence in August 2025 covering 31 questions on access, funding, certification, and damages distribution. The Law Commission has separately launched a project, announced on April 20, 2026, to consider extending the collective actions regime beyond competition law into broader consumer protection.

The author contends that any rollback of opt-out claims or restriction on litigation funding would disproportionately benefit defendants while leaving claimants without recourse. With more than 20 collective actions already certified and total claim values exceeding £160 billion, supporters argue the regime is delivering on its access-to-justice mandate and should be preserved rather than narrowed.

Corbin Capital Partners has held the final close of Corbin Litigation Finance Fund I at $342 million in fund and co-investment commitments, marking the alternative asset manager's first vehicle dedicated exclusively to litigation finance. The close caps a roughly two-year fundraise and consolidates a strategy that the $10 billion firm has run inside broader credit mandates since 2018.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the fund has already deployed across 26 investments, with approximately 30% of capital allocated to mass tort matters and the balance spread across antitrust, commercial disputes, and intellectual property cases. Corbin runs a credit-style strategy that finances both case portfolios and law firms directly, including prior exposure to Boy Scouts of America abuse claims and ongoing financing of sexual abuse cases against government, religious, and educational institutions.

The fund drew commitments from institutional investors, family offices, and high-net-worth individuals seeking returns uncorrelated with public equities. Cesar Bello, Corbin's director of litigation finance, told Bloomberg that the strategy depends on diversification across legal risks rather than concentrated case bets. Litigation finance assets under management have climbed to roughly $16.1 billion as of mid-2024, up from under $10 billion five years earlier, according to industry data cited in the report.

Corbin's leadership has signaled that litigation finance will remain a complementary allocation rather than a flagship strategy, but the dedicated vehicle gives the firm a more visible platform in an asset class increasingly courted by allocators searching for non-correlated yield.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has proposed a new disclosure rule that would require parties and intervenors in Section 337 investigations to identify ownership interests, legal-rights holders, and non-party funders or decision-makers with financial or control stakes in the matter. The rule reflects a broader patent-forum trend toward unmasking the parties operating behind named litigants.

As reported by JD Supra, the proposal would mandate disclosure across three categories: parent corporations and stock owners; non-party persons or entities with legal rights to bring the investigation based on the asserted unfair acts; and any non-counsel person or entity providing investigation-specific funding or holding approval rights over litigation or settlement decisions. Counsel contingency arrangements, personal loans, bank loans, and insurance are expressly excluded.

The Commission framed the rule as a transparency measure aimed at evaluating conflicts, clarifying whose rights are at stake, and facilitating settlement. The proposal aligns with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's real-party-in-interest scrutiny and Chief Judge Colm Connolly's standing order in the District of Delaware, which already requires disclosure of non-recourse funding and funder approval rights. Public comments are open until June 29, 2026.

For litigation funders, the rule does not bar third-party financing of Section 337 cases but does demand visibility into capital structures and decisional control. Funders backing patent-heavy ITC dockets will need to assess whether portfolio mechanics, exclusive-licensee arrangements, or settlement consent rights cross the disclosure threshold — and prepare for a regulatory environment in which the named complainant is no longer presumed to tell the whole story.

Litigation finance investors are stepping forward as one of the most active buyer groups in the scramble for equity stakes in U.S. personal injury law firms, deploying capital through managed services organizations and similar financing structures that work around state restrictions on non-lawyer ownership of legal practices.

As reported by Law360, funders are increasingly competing alongside private equity sponsors and specialty credit managers for ownership-adjacent positions in plaintiff-side firms, with a recent $125 million Fortress Investment Group transaction cited as a marker of the trend. The MSO model lets investors capture economic exposure to firm performance — case volumes, settlement-driven revenue, and platform value — without acquiring direct equity in the law firm itself.

The trend reflects a shift in how institutional capital is approaching the litigation asset class. Single-case funding and portfolio facilities remain the core of most funder books, but enterprise-level positions in law firms offer recurring exposure to caseload generation rather than discrete case outcomes. Personal injury firms, with their predictable case mix and high settlement throughput, have become the most sought-after targets.

The structures will sharpen the regulatory debate over non-lawyer ownership and disclosure. Arizona is the only state to formally permit alternative business structures, leaving MSO-style arrangements as the operative workaround in other jurisdictions. Plaintiff bar groups, defense interests, and tort reform advocates have all signaled concern over how funder equity in law firms intersects with rules of professional conduct, fee splitting, and the duty of independent professional judgment — pressure that is likely to grow as deal sizes climb.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified a £1.7 billion opt-out collective action against Microsoft, even after acknowledging "a degree of uncertainty" surrounding the case's litigation funder. The claim, brought by digital markets expert Dr Maria Luisa Stasi on behalf of approximately 59,000 businesses, alleges Microsoft overcharged customers running Windows Server on rival cloud platforms.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Tribunal heard that funder Litigation Capital Management (LCM) has access to a $75 million facility from Canadian investment firm Northleaf Capital Partners, renewed in December 2024 with the potential to double in size. Roughly 62% of the £14 million case budget is drawn from third-party capital under management — outside any direct exposure to LCM's balance sheet — leaving £5.3 million tied to LCM itself.

Microsoft argued the certification application should be dismissed in part because of questions over LCM's solvency. The CAT, chaired by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, weighed LCM's £41 million in listed assets alongside the Northleaf facility and concluded there was a "reasonable expectation of funding." The panel further noted that, even if LCM's portion fell short, the present state of the litigation funding market would likely make alternative capital available for an already-certified claim.

Scott+Scott, the proposed class representative's solicitors, also clarified the conditions under which LCM could terminate the funding agreement — confirming any merit-based termination decision must rest on independent legal and expert advice. The CAT ruled that the proposed funding and governance arrangements supported certification on an opt-out basis.