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

Class actions before the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal counted more than 750 million members by the end of last year, an increase of 80 million over the prior twelve months, with a cumulative claimed value exceeding £151 billion.

As reported by Legal Futures, research from law firm CMS found the total value rose by almost £17 billion on 2024. The composition has also shifted: opt-out claims now account for £85.6 billion against £65.6 billion for opt-in actions, reversing the previous pattern in which opt-in claims made up the majority. Membership has climbed steadily, from 560 million in 2023 to 671 million in 2024 and 752 million last year.

For the first time, big tech is the most exposed defendant sector, surpassing the stated value of the Mariana Dam litigation by approximately £8 billion. Natural resources and energy, financial products and automotive follow. CMS expects the trend to continue and to generate new claim categories, including social media addiction and claims relating to artificial intelligence.

The European Class Action Report 2026 recorded 38 UK claims issued last year, recovering from 33 in 2024. The report describes the UK as "one of the highest, if not the highest, risk jurisdictions in Europe," citing a well-developed claimant bar with close ties to US plaintiff firms, broad disclosure rules, "a sophisticated litigation funding market" and procedural mechanisms that facilitate class actions.

The UK accounted for 36% of European class actions last year, more than double its nearest rival Portugal. Italy followed at 12%, then Austria and the Netherlands. Competition claims remain the most common category, alongside a clear increase in product liability and personal injury filings.

The regulatory map for third-party litigation funding has shifted decisively toward disclosure, with more than 20 states now requiring some form of transparency around outside capital in litigation. With the state-level picture largely settled, attention is turning to the federal courts.

As reported by Insurance Business, a new issues brief from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) documents the pace of legislative activity. "Litigation funding has operated in the shadows for too long," said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, adding that "transparency in litigation funding is the logical next step."

North Carolina's HB 315 is the most restrictive measure enacted to date, banning litigation investment outright and carrying civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Other 2026 laws — Ohio HB 105, Mississippi SB 2747, Tennessee HB 2108 and Utah HB 280 — focus on registration and disclosure requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and limits on funder control over litigation decisions.

Federal action has been slower. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced in February but has not advanced. In March, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice petitioned the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee for a uniform disclosure standard, drawing support from more than 200 major US companies, including dozens of insurers. The request may be taken up at the committee's October 21 meeting. The Western District of Louisiana introduced a standing order in September, though most federal judges continue to decide disclosure case by case.

Triple-I and the Casualty Actuarial Society estimate legal system abuse added between $231.6 billion and $281.2 billion to liability insurance losses over the past decade. Swiss Re puts the global litigation funding market at roughly $17 billion, projected to reach $31 billion by 2028.

Chariot Claims has closed a $10 million Series A round to expand a platform that sources and pre-qualifies consumer claims for mass arbitration, bringing total funding to $15.7 million.

As reported by LawNext, the round was led by Silverton Partners, with general partner Mike Dodd participating, alongside Indicator Ventures, Lightbank, Neon Fund, ZVC, Rosecliff, Alumni Ventures, FJ Labs, Graph Ventures and Vermilion. The company previously raised a $3.6 million seed round led by Indicator Ventures in April 2025.

Founded in 2023 as ClaimClam and rebranded in 2025, the company is led by chief executive Zim Hang. It generates more than 200,000 pre-qualified claims a month across roughly 80 active corporate cases. Chariot Claims is not a law firm.

The business is built on a participation gap. Only about 4% of harmed consumers file claims, and the company reports that its users recover an average of roughly $460, compared with the $32 average identified in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of class action distributions.

Proceeds will fund investment in artificial intelligence and expansion into children's data privacy, financial privacy and healthcare privacy claims, as well as defences against corporate retaliation. The company has more than doubled its headcount.

The raise reflects continued investor appetite for claim aggregation infrastructure, which sits adjacent to litigation finance and increasingly competes with it for the same consumer-facing claim volume.

The long-running rugby concussion group litigation has been pulled back from collapse after an eleventh-hour £1.5m payment satisfied a court-ordered costs liability owed to World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, commercial litigation funder Asertis remained in place after the claimants changed law firms, meaning the costs order could be met. Had the payment not been made, the claims of roughly 1,000 former players would have been at risk.

The payment follows a reprieve granted in August, when Senior Master Jeremy Cook handed down a 13,500-word judgment granting relief from sanction in principle after Richard Boardman's Rylands Garth was replaced by KP Law. The claims of Phil Vickery and Steve Thompson had previously been ruled strike-out-worthy. Defendants had sought more than £2.8m in total, with Rugby Union costs assessed at £2.5m across World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU, and 60% ordered on an interim basis.

The litigation is not out of danger. Some 377 claimants still face automatic dismissal unless medical records are provided by the end of the month.

The episode is a clear illustration of a funder's role beyond case capital. Where a claimant group incurs an adverse costs order mid-proceeding, the funder's willingness to stand behind it determines whether the litigation continues at all. Asertis's decision to remain committed through a change of solicitor preserved a case begun in 2022.

Mixed martial arts fighters suing the UFC over alleged wage suppression are pushing back against the organisation's effort to obtain information about the litigation funding behind their case, characterising the request as a distraction from the merits of the antitrust claims.

As reported by Law360, the fighters' opposition follows the UFC's move earlier this month to press a Nevada federal judge to pull back the curtain on who is financing the proceedings. The dispute arises in Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al, No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The October 15 report was written by Alex Lawson.

The case was filed in June 2021 by Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway against Zuffa and Endeavor Group Holdings, and covers fighters competing from 2017 onward. It is the successor to Le v. Zuffa, which settled for $375 million covering bouts between December 2010 and June 2017 and received final approval from Judge Richard F. Boulware in February 2025 without any accompanying changes to the UFC's business practices.

Funding discovery has become a standard defence tactic in large antitrust and class proceedings, and the fighters' objection tracks arguments made by claimants elsewhere: that the identity of a funder is irrelevant to liability. The case has already generated other discovery friction, including a sanctions motion in February over alleged evidence destruction.

The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld a Chancery Court ruling rejecting claims that hedge fund manager Casey Gard and affiliated entities improperly shifted a litigation finance business away from a company he co-owned with attorney Brett K. Findler.

As reported by Law360, the October 16 decision ends Findler's challenge to the lower court's liability findings. Findler and Priority Pre-Settlement Funding LLC had urged the justices to revive claims that his former partner quietly moved the funding business into hedge funds that the partner controlled. Counsel for Gard countered that Findler knew about the arrangement, agreed to it, and helped implement it.

The court heard oral argument on October 14, two days before issuing its ruling. The matter was reported by Law360's Jarek Rutz.

The dispute is a reminder that ownership and control questions inside funding platforms can be as contested as the underlying claims those platforms finance. Pre-settlement consumer funding businesses are frequently built around a working relationship between a lawyer who sources cases and a capital provider who prices them, and the economics of that relationship are often documented informally. Where the capital later migrates to a different vehicle, the question of who consented to what becomes the whole case.

Delaware's appellate courts have become an increasingly common venue for litigation finance disputes, with the Superior Court adopting a rule earlier this month permitting limited discovery of funding agreements.

Two discrimination class actions brought on behalf of First Nations families in Queensland have been formally discontinued after the proceedings lost their litigation funding, bringing a three-year case to an end without any determination on the merits.

As reported by the National Indigenous Times, the actions were launched in 2023 in the Federal Court against the Queensland child safety department and were financed by Therium Litigation Finance Atlas. Therium terminated its support in September 2025. WGC Lawyers, which ran the proceedings, was unable to secure replacement funding and filed a discontinuance application in April.

Justice Craig Dowling noted that significant attempts had been made to find alternative backing. In September, he determined that discontinuance would not be unfair, unreasonable or adverse to the interests of group members. The case was disbanded Wednesday, with the official notice of discontinuance filed Friday.

Group members had sought compensation, a public apology, a consultation process aimed at restoring family relationships, and trauma-informed training for departmental staff. A grandmother identified as Cindy criticised the lack of communication with claimants as the case unwound.

Separate proceedings run by Shine Lawyers in Western Australia and New South Wales are unaffected.

The outcome illustrates how closely group proceedings in Australia remain tied to the commercial appetite of a single funder. Therium has been in run-off since 2023, and its withdrawal left a 2023-vintage action with no realistic path to trial despite court-acknowledged efforts to replace the capital.

ASX-listed Shine Justice has marked its 50th year with a return to profitability and an international mass torts strategy that depends heavily on third-party litigation funding.

As reported by TipRanks, the firm now operates across Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States, with practice concentrations in personal injury, class actions and international mass torts.

Results presented on August 28 showed adjusted revenue up 7.8% to A$220.4 million and adjusted EBITDA up 13.9% to A$44.7 million. Net profit after tax attributable to members reached A$9.3 million, up from A$0.6 million, while operating cash flow held steady at A$19 million. Net work in progress rose 0.9% to A$366.6 million, and the company declared a fully franked dividend of A$0.04 per share. Offsetting that, Shine booked an A$11.2 million provision following an adverse U.S. court decision in a legacy class action now under appeal, and reported six in-principle settlement agreements worth more than A$219 million.

The company describes a hub-and-spoke model in which a U.S. hub sources large mass tort cases and exports them to spokes in Australia, New Zealand and Asia, with balance sheet risk minimised through litigation funding. Shine has secured up to A$40 million for talcum powder litigation and expects further backing for comparable claims in New Zealand and Thailand.

Simon Morrison has moved from managing director to a senior role focused on international mass torts, with Carolyn Barker taking over as group chief executive. Chief financial officer Marc Devine guided to high single-digit personal injury revenue growth of about 8% in FY27.

Listed litigation funders are facing renewed scrutiny as fair-value accounting pushes losses from adverse court and arbitration outcomes into earnings well before any cash changes hands.

As reported by Traders Union, reversals at Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management and others have intensified questions about valuation models that treat lawsuits as financial assets.

One recent flashpoint was a Paris-based ICC tribunal's dismissal of a $680 million claim against Nigeria that Burford had funded. The claim, brought by Sunrise Power, concerned a 2020 settlement the tribunal found had been signed by ministers who lacked authority to bind the state without presidential approval. Recoverability concerns were compounded by Sunrise Power's minimal assets and by cost penalties. Burford has separately absorbed the reversal of a $16.1 billion YPF judgment and a $2.4 billion write-down, while LCM has recorded a High Court loss alongside a 99% decline in its share price.

Under IFRS 9 and ASC 820, model-based unrealised gains and losses flow directly into reported earnings, tying marks to share prices, compensation and debt capacity. Net asset value therefore rests on probability-weighted assessments over which management retains significant discretion.

The scrutiny is not new. Muddy Waters alleged in 2019 that Burford "manipulates its performance metrics and abuses the latitude afforded it under fair value accounting," and the company later restated results for FY2019 through FY2022 following an SEC initiative. Burford has also reported a material weakness in internal controls affecting fair value measurement of capital provision assets, though it has pointed to $518.3 million in cash realizations year to date as evidence that timing, not deterioration, drives the volatility.