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

Ohio is moving to join the growing roster of states regulating third-party litigation funding, advancing a bill that pairs registration and disclosure requirements with an outright prohibition on foreign funders.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, House Bill 105 — passed by the Senate and sent to Governor Mike DeWine — would require both commercial and consumer funders to register with the state and disclose their funding agreements to the attorney general after cases resolve. Sponsors have described the sector as an "opaque," billion-dollar industry operating largely out of view.

The measure would bar funders from influencing how lawsuits are handled or settled, and would prohibit funding agreements with individuals or entities domiciled outside the United States. It draws on the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' "Transparency in Third Party Litigation Financing Model Act," creating a uniform registration and oversight framework under the attorney general.

Unlike North Carolina's first-in-the-nation outright ban enacted last month, Ohio's approach centers on transparency and foreign-influence guardrails rather than blanket prohibition — a model other states weighing regulation are likely to study closely. For the defense bar, mandatory disclosure of funding agreements would offer a clearer view of the financial interests behind a claim, potentially informing settlement posture and trial strategy.

A new commentary argues that pending federal legislation to regulate third-party litigation funding could do more constitutional harm than substantive reform, raising First Amendment and privacy concerns for funded parties and their backers.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, legal scholar John Shu points to two efforts on Capitol Hill: a bill from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would impose a 41% tax on litigation finance recoveries, and a separate disclosure bill from Representative Darrell Issa that would require funders and financiers to be publicly identified.

Shu contends that mandatory disclosure would expose confidential backers to "doxxing, harassment, retaliation, or worse," and that the tax-enforcement mechanism would force plaintiffs' lawyers to identify private funders to the IRS. He points to the agency's history of controversy over the "targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups" as reason for caution about compelled disclosure to federal authorities.

He grounds the constitutional argument in Supreme Court precedent — including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021) — decisions that shielded confidential donor and membership lists from compelled disclosure. The piece lands as a notable counterweight to the transparency push gaining momentum in statehouses and Congress, reframing the debate around civil liberties rather than courtroom economics.

A new study from Burford Capital and The Lawyer finds that cost and risk are keeping meritorious claims off the docket. In the London Disputes Report 2026, 67% of senior legal professionals surveyed agreed that many strong claims go unpursued because of the cost or risk of litigation.

According to Burford Capital, 85% of respondents agreed that risk-transfer tools such as legal finance improve litigation decision-making, and 84% believe businesses now expect greater cost certainty than law firms can readily provide. Another 73% said corporate boards are becoming more sophisticated in viewing disputes as financial assets.

The report also highlights behavioral drivers behind case outcomes. Some 60% of those surveyed agreed that settlement decisions are often driven by management fatigue rather than the underlying strength of a case, while 73% of in-house and private-practice lawyers reported direct experience with legal finance.

"Boards, executives and legal teams are increasingly evaluating litigation and arbitration as business assets," said Philipp Leibfried, Managing Director at Burford Capital. For an industry that has spent years arguing that legal finance is a mainstream corporate tool rather than a last resort, the findings offer data to match the pitch — suggesting that cost pressure, board sophistication, and risk transfer are converging to pull disputes squarely into the realm of financial decision-making.

North Carolina has become the first US state to prohibit third-party litigation funding outright, with its Prohibit Litigation Investments Act taking effect on June 22, 2026. The law makes it unlawful for any person to provide money — whether as a direct payment, advancement, loan, or investment — for civil proceeding expenses in exchange for a right to repayment that is contingent in any respect on the outcome of the proceeding.

As reported by JD Supra, the statute applies broadly across civil actions, arbitrations, mediations, and administrative proceedings, and covers contracts entered into, renewed, or amended on or after the effective date. It carves out exclusions for contingency-fee legal services, non-contingent loans, attorney cost advancements under the Rules of Professional Conduct, and funding arrangements that carry no outcome-contingent return.

The penalties are significant. Offending contracts become void, the Attorney General may seek injunctions and civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, and injured parties may recover damages — including treble statutory damages — plus court costs and attorney fees. Insurers and risk managers have praised the measure as a landmark curb on litigation abuse.

The law's sweeping language has also raised concerns beyond the funding sector. Practitioners warn that it creates uncertainty around routine corporate advancement and indemnification of directors, officers, and LLC members, potentially conflicting with longstanding protections under the state's Business Corporation Act.

Burford Capital's shares have fallen nearly 50% after the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a $16 billion judgment against Argentina in the long-running YPF case — a ruling that had represented the single largest asset on the litigation funder's books. The reversal marks one of the most consequential setbacks the litigation finance industry has seen, given how central the award had become to Burford's valuation.

As reported by City AM, the Second Circuit reversed a 2023 decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that had ordered Argentina to pay roughly $16 billion to two minority shareholders, Petersen Energía and Eton Park, whose claims were financed by Burford. The dispute stems from Argentina's 2012 expropriation of a 51% stake in oil major YPF from Spain's Repsol.

The appeals court found that the plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims failed as a matter of Argentine law, justifying the reversal. The market reaction was immediate: Burford's stock dropped nearly 50% on the NYSE and more than 46% in London — its steepest decline since July 2020.

The parties have 14 days to apply for a rehearing, and Burford has signaled that it may petition the US Supreme Court or pursue investment treaty arbitration. For an industry that has increasingly leaned on marquee, high-value judgments to demonstrate returns, the ruling is a stark reminder of the binary risk embedded in single-case exposure.

Omni Bridgeway has secured top-tier recognition in the Chambers and Partners Litigation Support Guide 2026, earning Band 1 rankings in both Litigation Funding and Global Asset Tracing and Recovery. The recognition arrives as the ASX-listed funder marks its 40th anniversary, underscoring its standing as one of the largest and longest-established players in global legal finance.

According to Omni Bridgeway, the firm was ranked Band 1 across International Arbitration, US Intellectual Property, Europe, Singapore, the Middle East, and Canada, and Band 2 in the United Kingdom, United States, and Latin America. With operations spanning 24 international locations, the funder positions itself as a global leader in legal finance and risk management.

Central to Omni Bridgeway's pitch is an end-to-end capability that runs from case inception through post-judgment enforcement and recovery — a breadth reflected in its separate Band 1 ranking for global asset tracing and recovery, an area demanding cross-border coordination and strategic execution. The firm emphasizes disciplined capital deployment and a focus on realized outcomes across jurisdictions.

The Chambers rankings, based on months of independent research and confidential client interviews, are among the legal industry's most closely watched benchmarks. One client, quoted in connection with the recognition, likened litigation funding to investing: "sometimes money is just money, but other times, you have a partner that cares about their investment and wants it to grow." For Omni Bridgeway, four decades in, the results reaffirm a market-leading position as the funding sector continues to professionalize and expand.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority's roughly £9.1 billion motor finance redress scheme has been partly suspended after the Upper Tribunal agreed to pause key elements pending the outcome of four legal challenges. Under the suspension, lenders are no longer required to calculate compensation, make payments, or contact eligible consumers, though they must continue to comply with the rules that remain in force.

As reported by Reuters, the challenges come from three car finance lenders — CA Auto Finance, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services, and Volkswagen Financial Services — alongside the consumer group Consumer Voice, which is pressing for larger payouts. All four argue that the rules underpinning the mass redress scheme are unlawful in whole or in part and are asking the court to quash or invalidate them.

The scheme is intended to compensate motor finance customers treated unfairly between 2007 and 2024, a period in which the FCA says undisclosed commission arrangements between lenders and dealers incentivized brokers to inflate interest rates. Hearings before the Upper Tribunal are expected around mid-November 2026 and could extend into 2027, with actual redress potentially delayed to 2027 or beyond.

The suspension adds fresh uncertainty to a landscape in which funded commission litigation is already advancing through the courts — including the recent Court of Appeal ruling permitting omnibus claim forms — and sharpens the question of whether affected consumers will ultimately recover through the regulator's scheme or through the courts.

AdvoCap Insurance Agency, a subsidiary of case-cost financier Advocate Capital, has launched a Case Expense Insurance Program aimed at plaintiff and contingent-fee law firms across the United States. The product is designed to protect the substantial sums firms advance to move litigation forward, adding a risk-management layer to a corner of the market where firms have traditionally shouldered those costs alone.

According to PR Newswire, the program covers eligible case expenses in qualifying matters, including expert witness fees, medical record retrieval, deposition costs, and accident reconstruction. By insuring against unrecovered litigation expenses, the offering aims to strengthen firm balance sheets, improve cash-flow predictability, and give attorneys greater confidence to invest in meritorious cases.

"Plaintiff firms routinely make significant financial commitments before seeing any return," said Donna Jones, President of Advocate Capital and AdvoCap Insurance. "This program provides an additional layer of protection that can help firms grow strategically, manage uncertainty, and continue investing in the cases that matter most to their clients."

The launch reflects the continued convergence of litigation finance and insurance, as providers build products around the capital that contingent-fee practices tie up in active cases. For firms weighing how aggressively to fund their dockets, tools that de-risk advanced case costs increasingly sit alongside traditional case-expense financing as part of the plaintiff bar's capital toolkit.

Consumer legal funder ProLegal has expanded its pre-settlement funding operations into Kansas, timing its entry to the July 1 effective date of the state's new Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act. The move opens a market that had effectively been closed to funders, and signals how newly enacted state frameworks are reshaping where the consumer funding industry can operate.

According to ProLegal, the company provides non-recourse cash advances to plaintiffs, typically within 24 to 48 hours, with approval based on the strength of the underlying legal claim rather than credit history or employment. Because the funding is non-recourse, a plaintiff who does not prevail owes nothing.

Kansas had previously been inaccessible to funders after the state's banking commission classified litigation funding as lending, subjecting it to restrictions that made operations impractical. The new Act clarifies the industry's legal standing by recognizing consumer legal funding as a non-recourse advance in which the funder assumes the full risk of loss.

The law also embeds consumer protections that mirror a broader national trend: funders may request updates on a claim's status but are barred from influencing whether, when, or for how much a case settles, and may not interfere with the independent judgment of the plaintiff's attorney. For ProLegal, the expansion reflects both a commercial opportunity and the growing role that clear statutory regimes play in legitimizing consumer legal funding across new jurisdictions.