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

Several UK car finance providers urged the Court of Appeal on Wednesday to overturn a ruling that allows more than 5,000 customers to bring claims against them collectively, seeking to force the claimants to pursue individual actions instead. The hearing marks a pivotal test for the viability of group motor finance litigation in the UK, and by extension for the funders backing it.

As reported by Law360, the lenders argue that the claims are too varied to be managed as a single group proceeding and should be split into individual cases. The ruling under appeal had cleared the way for the 5,000-plus claimants to advance collectively — a structure that dramatically reduces per-claimant costs and is essential to the economics of funded mass motor finance litigation.

The appeal comes as the motor finance sector confronts one of the largest consumer redress exposures in recent UK history. The FCA's £9.1 billion motor finance redress scheme, confirmed earlier this month, addresses commission-linked mis-selling through a regulatory remediation channel — but parallel group litigation has continued to progress in the courts, with claimant firms pursuing damages arguments that extend beyond the FCA's redress framework.

For litigation funders, the Court of Appeal's decision will have direct implications for how mass motor finance claims can be structured, financed, and resolved. A ruling in favor of the lenders would splinter what is currently a single, fundable group proceeding into thousands of standalone actions — a structure that would be economically unworkable for most claimants and would effectively channel recoveries into the FCA scheme. A ruling upholding the group structure would cement the UK courts as a viable second track for motor finance claims running in parallel with regulatory redress.

The judgment is expected to be closely watched by funders, defendant lenders, and claimant firms involved in the wider generation of UK group consumer actions taking shape in the motor finance, data protection, and competition spaces.

Spanish litigation boutique Eskariam has secured a €50 million senior secured credit facility from U.S.-based Victory Park Capital, providing fresh capital to finance the firm's pipeline of complex damages and commercial disputes.

As reported by Iberian Lawyer, the facility underscores growing investor appetite for deploying private credit into litigation-intensive law firms in continental Europe, where the market for third-party capital has lagged the U.K. and the United States but is maturing rapidly.

Eskariam was founded to pursue large-scale damages claims, including cartel follow-on actions, competition cases, and high-value commercial disputes. The firm intends to use the facility to underwrite case costs, including expert fees and long-tail disbursements, while pursuing an expanding portfolio of multi-party claims on behalf of corporate clients.

Victory Park Capital, a Chicago-headquartered alternative asset manager with more than $10 billion in assets under management, has become an increasingly visible lender to specialty finance businesses, including law firm credit and litigation finance platforms. The Eskariam transaction reflects VPC's continued push into European legal assets, where credit facilities to claimant-side firms are emerging as a preferred structure for institutional investors seeking exposure to litigation returns without taking direct case risk.

The deal arrives against the backdrop of a European Commission weighing regulatory guardrails for third-party litigation funding, even as funders and law firms deepen the capital structures underpinning cross-border damages claims.

Federal trial judges are openly grappling with how third-party litigation funding is reshaping the litigation they oversee, even as the formal rules governing disclosure remain unsettled.

As reported by Law.com, district court judges have acknowledged that funded claims are now routine features of complex commercial dockets, with funding arrangements shaping case strategy, settlement posture, and litigation duration. Several jurists emphasized that rules of disclosure have not caught up to the economic realities already present in their courtrooms.

The remarks underscore a growing divide between the federal judiciary's operational experience with litigation funding and the slower-moving rule-making process. The Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules advanced a TPLF transparency proposal earlier this month, but broad federal disclosure remains a meaningful distance from adoption. In the meantime, individual judges are using existing case-management authority to probe funding arrangements where conflicts, control, or settlement dynamics come into question.

For commercial funders, the discussion highlights the importance of maintaining clean documentation and control boundaries between funded parties and their investors. Disclosure-adjacent questions — including whether funders exercise veto rights, participate in settlement decisions, or receive litigation work product — are increasingly the subject of ad hoc scrutiny from the bench.

The conversation also signals that judges are unlikely to wait for national rule-making before addressing TPLF-related issues that affect their cases, reinforcing the patchwork regulatory environment in which commercial funders currently operate.

A Michigan House committee has voted to advance legislation requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in civil cases, joining the wave of state-level transparency measures working their way through U.S. legislatures.

As reported by Michigan Farm News, the bill would compel parties in civil litigation to disclose outside funding arrangements to defendants, judges, and courts. Supporters argued that current practice allows outside investors to finance lawsuits without any of the other participants knowing, creating undisclosed conflicts of interest and distorting litigation dynamics.

The measure reflects a coordinated push by business coalitions, insurers, and tort-reform advocates to bring greater visibility to the capital structures behind civil claims. Similar bills are active in Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and at the federal level, reflecting an evolving state-by-state landscape in which funders increasingly face a patchwork of disclosure regimes.

Proponents argue that transparency gives courts information needed to manage conflicts and police abusive practices, particularly in multi-plaintiff and mass-tort contexts. Opponents, including consumer funding advocates and commercial funders, argue that broad disclosure risks discouraging legitimate financing arrangements and exposing confidential business information without a corresponding benefit.

For commercial and consumer funders operating in Michigan, the committee vote is an early warning that disclosure standards are moving in a less permissive direction. If enacted, the Michigan law would require operational and contractual adjustments to align with the state's reporting requirements, adding to compliance costs across multi-state portfolios.

A litigation funding firm has sued its insurer, alleging the carrier is wrongfully refusing to pay a guaranteed $200 million under a policy covering losses on an unpaid loan.

As reported by Law360, the funder claims the insurer is intentionally avoiding the claim despite the policy's express $200 million coverage amount. The dispute underscores the growing reliance on bespoke insurance products — including capital protection, judgment preservation, and portfolio-default coverage — within the modern litigation finance stack, and the operational risks that emerge when those policies are tested in practice.

Commercial funders increasingly layer insurance into case- and portfolio-level financing structures to manage downside risk, reduce perceived duration, and make their exposures more palatable to institutional investors. Insurers, in turn, have built growing litigation-related books, but claim disputes between funders and carriers remain comparatively rare and have only recently begun to surface in open court.

The litigation, once adjudicated, could add to an expanding body of case law addressing the interpretation of representations, warranties, and exclusions in litigation-linked policies. Outcomes in disputes of this type are closely watched by both sides of the market: funders relying on insurance to underwrite capital stacks, and carriers calibrating appetite for legal risk.

For the broader industry, the lawsuit is a reminder that insurance coverage — often cited as a key enabler of institutional capital into litigation finance — functions only as reliably as the documentation and claims process that underpins it.

Canadian personal injury firms are increasingly turning to legal finance products to manage expert costs and preserve working capital, with Expert Access positioning itself as a specialized option for contingency-fee practices.

As reported by Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Expert Access funds expert reports and related disbursements for personal injury practices, freeing up firm capital that would otherwise be tied up in long-tail cases.

Expert reports — including medical opinions, economic loss analyses, accident reconstruction, and forensic engineering — are a defining cost driver in Canadian personal injury litigation and are typically advanced by contingency-fee firms against uncertain recovery timelines. For smaller and mid-sized firms, the cumulative drag on cash flow can constrain how many files they can meaningfully pursue, especially in cases against well-capitalized defendants and insurers.

Legal finance structures that fund expert costs on a per-file or portfolio basis shift that cash burden off the firm's balance sheet and onto specialized capital providers, allowing firms to carry larger caseloads and accept more complex matters without stretching working capital. Providers are compensated through a pre-agreed return on disbursed amounts, typically payable upon resolution.

The trend reflects a broader maturation of Canadian legal finance, where products are increasingly differentiated by practice area, case stage, and risk structure. For claimant-side firms, the availability of dedicated expert-cost financing represents a practical tool for managing the single largest non-salary operating cost in many contingency-fee practices.

The Law Commission of England and Wales has launched a major project to examine whether the UK should adopt a consumer class actions regime, opening the door to a potential expansion of opt-out collective proceedings beyond competition law for the first time.

As reported by Legal Futures and Pinsent Masons, the review is sponsored by the Department for Business and Trade and will consider opt-in versus opt-out models, certification criteria, settlement and costs rules, and — critically for the finance community — the role of litigation funding. Work is expected to begin in autumn 2026, with a formal consultation paper to follow.

The UK's existing opt-out framework applies only to competition law breaches under the Competition Appeal Tribunal, leaving consumer and data-protection claims to rely on representative action procedures that require claimants to share the "same interest." Analysts have long argued that the narrowness of these avenues has left UK consumers with markedly fewer tools for collective redress than their counterparts under the EU Representative Actions Directive.

The initiative drew immediate endorsements from claimant-side practitioners and funders.

Martyn Day, Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), said:

"The Law Commission's decision to examine the introduction of a consumer class actions regime is a timely and important step towards closing the UK's justice gap. At present, the avenues open for large groups of individuals with the same claim to take legal action against companies are limited, so a mechanism that makes it much easier for those groups of individuals to club together makes great sense. It is also a step in the right direction in terms of us not being left behind by our continental European neighbours who are implementing the EU Representative Actions Directive that allows opt-out cases to be brought on behalf of consumers.

There is no doubt that a well-designed consumer class actions regime will strengthen access to justice and ensure better corporate accountability in this country. We strongly encourage claimant law firms to engage with the consultation process and contribute evidence that will help shape a fair and workable regime."

Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer at Winward Litigation Finance, said:

"The introduction of a consumer class actions regime would be a highly positive step for the UK, strengthening access to justice and ensuring that consumers can seek redress where they have been harmed.

For it to work in practice, it is vital that the Government recognises and protects the role of litigation funding, without which these claims can't be brought. Funding turns legal rights into real-world outcomes, providing justice for consumers and deterring bad corporate behaviour. They should have a good look at how funders and consumer groups have worked collaboratively in Australia."

Stakeholder engagement runs through October 30, 2026, with the eventual design of any new regime likely to shape both the economics of UK class actions and the capital structures deployed by funders active in the market.

UK litigation funder Fenchurch Legal has been placed into administration, with the court approving the appointment of BV Corporate Recovery & Insolvency Services despite the funder's stated intention to contest the move. The outcome marks a rapid escalation from the winding-up petition filed earlier this month and raises fresh questions about the durability of the high-volume consumer claims funding model in the UK.

As reported by Law Gazette, the administration was sought by Lowry Trading, a company owned by a family trust, whose petition was granted by the court. Fenchurch's portfolio had concentrated on housing disrepair, financial mis-selling, and Plevin PPI claims, with the funder typically providing 12-to-18-month loans to cover law-firm working capital and disbursements. Its 2024 accounts showed net liabilities of almost £567,000, and the funder was owed significant sums by two collapsed north-west firms, Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors and McDermott Smith.

The administration underscores how exposed claims-heavy funders can be to downstream law-firm failures, particularly where loan books depend on a narrow set of claim types and a handful of solicitor relationships. It also follows a period in which UK regulators and the courts have tightened scrutiny of high-volume consumer claims pipelines, compressing margins for funders that had built businesses around them.

For the wider market, the question now is how Fenchurch's in-flight claims will be handled by the administrators, and whether successor funders will acquire portfolios or leave claimants and solicitor partners to seek alternative capital.