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

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.

Fresh analysis of court data is sharpening the debate over whether mandatory disclosure of third-party litigation funding drives cases out of jurisdictions that require it. The evidence increasingly suggests it does — with patent filings in Delaware falling sharply after its federal court began compelling litigants to reveal their funders, even as neighboring courts that keep funding confidential absorb the overflow.

As reported by MLex, the data traces back to the April 2022 standing order issued by Delaware Chief Judge Colm Connolly, which requires parties to identify third-party funders, describe the nature of the backing, and state whether a funder's approval is needed for litigation or settlement decisions. A University of Utah study by law professor Jonas Anderson found that patent filings in Delaware dropped 41% in the two years after the order — from 1,899 to 1,121 cases — compared with a national decline of just 15% over the same period. By 2024, only one funded patent case was filed in Connolly's courtroom.

The pattern points to venue migration rather than a genuine decline in disputes. Courts without disclosure requirements, including districts in Texas, have become more attractive to funded plaintiffs, while the District of New Jersey — which has required disclosure since June 2021 — counted just 88 funded cases among some 40,000 filings.

With litigation finance now a roughly $15 billion industry and patent cases its single largest category at around 19%, the findings feed directly into a national policy fight over whether funding arrangements should be disclosed as a matter of course.

Loopa Finance has strengthened its standing in the global litigation funding market with its latest recognition from Chambers and Partners, which named the firm Band 1 in Latin America in the Litigation Support – Litigation Funding category and advanced it to Band 3 in Europe. The dual ranking reflects the funder's continued expansion across both regions and its growing presence in one of the world's most competitive markets for legal finance.

According to Loopa Finance, the 2026 edition also individually ranked four members of its team: Managing Partner Fernando Folgueiro, General Counsel Europe Ignacio Delgado, Investment Manager Marina Gouveia, and Head of Legal Federico Muradas. The firm framed the distinctions as validation of a multidisciplinary team combining legal expertise, financial analysis, and strategic vision across multiple jurisdictions.

"This recognition is the result of a philosophy that places our clients at the center of everything we do," said Folgueiro, adding that Loopa's aim is to develop financing solutions that "expand access to justice and enable the strongest claims to move forward based on their merits, regardless of access to capital."

The rankings arrive as Loopa builds on recent momentum, including the close of its USD 70 million Fund III, which significantly increased its capacity to finance litigation, international arbitration, and other high-value legal assets. Executives pointed to Brazil's sophisticated legal ecosystem and maturing European markets such as Italy and Portugal as areas of particular opportunity as the firm continues its pan-regional expansion.

Litigation funder Nera Capital has welcomed a Court of Appeal judgment in the Angel v Black Horse Limited motor finance litigation, calling it a significant step forward for consumer redress and large-scale collective claims. The ruling confirms that where thousands of claims raise substantially the same legal and factual issues, they may proceed using omnibus claim forms rather than requiring each claimant to issue separate proceedings.

According to Nera Capital, which has supported the litigation from its earliest stages, the decision removes unnecessary procedural complexity and enables the more efficient progression of high-volume motor finance commission claims. "For consumers, the decision removes unnecessary procedural complexity and supports more efficient progression of claims, strengthening access to justice," a spokesperson said, adding that individuals with materially similar claims should not face additional delay or cost solely because of the scale of the litigation.

The funder framed the judgment as delivering benefits across the system. For law firms, it provides certainty in managing high-volume claims, allowing them to focus resources on the substantive merits rather than duplicating procedural steps across thousands of individual cases. For the courts, the endorsement of omnibus proceedings in appropriate cases supports more efficient use of judicial resources.

As one of the first funders involved in motor finance commission litigation, Nera Capital said it remains committed to enabling access to justice through financial support for complex, large-scale claims. "This is a landmark decision for collective consumer litigation in England and Wales," a spokesperson said. "We have funded the Angel litigation from the outset because we believed consumers deserved a clear, efficient and proportionate route to redress." The ruling establishes a procedural framework for the next phase of claims as substantive issues continue to be determined.

Artificial intelligence is lowering the cost of building a legal case, and in doing so it is reshaping the economics of litigation finance by making smaller claims viable to pursue. As the expense of scoring, sorting, and preparing cases falls, so too does the minimum claim size at which litigation — and the funding behind it — becomes worthwhile.

As reported by PYMNTS, plaintiff firms are increasingly deploying AI to identify promising cases and concentrate resources on those flagged as most likely to produce substantial verdicts. Under the contingency-fee model, that targeting turns previously uneconomical claims into candidates for investment. One analysis found that 56 plaintiff firms focused on transportation claims spent more than $228 million annually on paid search advertising, with roughly 88% running active campaigns — a measure of how aggressively the plaintiffs' bar is scaling case acquisition.

The pressure is most visible in commercial auto liability, where the loss-and-defense-cost ratio reached 87.6 in 2024, the highest in eleven years, and the line posted a $4.9 billion underwriting loss — its fourteenth consecutive year in the red.

For litigation funders, the shift is double-edged. AI expands the universe of fundable claims and could help drive the market toward a projected $50 billion by the mid-2030s, but it also intensifies competition for the most promising cases and raises fresh questions about how efficiently capital is deployed. As the technology matures, the economics of what counts as a "fundable" claim are being rewritten in real time.

The New Jersey General Assembly has passed legislation requiring the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements, advancing the state toward becoming the latest to impose transparency obligations on the funding industry. The bill cleared the Assembly by an overwhelming margin, even as companion legislation in the state Senate has drawn pushback from trial lawyers and litigation finance representatives.

As reported by Law360, the measure requires parties to disclose the existence of third-party litigation funding arrangements and establishes a set of responsibilities for funders. Notably, the bill is framed as protecting plaintiffs as much as defendants: it requires funders to act in the best interests of the funded party, prohibits them from interfering with litigation decisions, and ensures that plaintiffs retain control over their own cases.

Supporters, including the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, argue that disclosure is essential because undisclosed funding can create conflicts of interest, complicate judicial administration, and allow funders to exert hidden influence over litigation. Opponents counter that mandatory disclosure risks exposing strategic information and chilling legitimate access to capital.

New Jersey's move reflects a broader national trend, with a growing number of states and federal proposals seeking to bring third-party funding arrangements into the open. With the Assembly bill now passed, attention turns to the Senate, where the industry's resistance may shape whether — and in what form — the disclosure regime ultimately becomes law. For funders operating in the state, the vote is a signal that transparency requirements are gaining legislative momentum.