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

Samil PwC has signed a memorandum of understanding with dispute funding advisory Lithic Equity Partners to build out joint capability in international disputes and third-party litigation funding for Korean companies.

As reported by Herald Business, Lithic Equity Partners announced the agreement on 2 November, with Samil PwC publicising it the following day. Lithic, an Asia-Pacific international dispute funding advisory, is led by chief executive Moon Jin-seung. Samil PwC is led by chief executive Yoon Hoon-soo.

The two firms have divided the work along their respective specialisms. Samil PwC will handle quantum and damages assessment, expert witness testimony, eDiscovery, accounting and financial analysis, valuation, forensics and tax. Lithic will assess the economic viability and funding suitability of claims, prepare dispute budgets, structure third-party funding arrangements, supply intelligence on the global funder market, and compare and negotiate funding terms.

The parties also plan joint seminars, webinars, forums and conferences, along with knowledge exchange and published research. The stated aim is to help Korean companies respond strategically as cross-border disputes grow in volume and complexity.

Hong Jun-ki, who heads Samil's audit division, said damages assessment and accounting and financial analysis are becoming more important as disputes grow more complex. Moon described third-party funding as a non-recourse financial instrument rather than merely a means of covering costs.

The tie-up is a notable signal for funding in Korea, where third-party funding remains at an early stage of adoption. Pairing a Big Four accounting practice's quantum and forensic capability with a dedicated funding advisory gives Korean claimants a domestic route to structuring funded international claims.

The High Court of New Zealand has declined to allow an Omni Bridgeway-funded claim against Transpower and contractor Omexom to proceed on an opt-out basis, finding the proposed class of up to 24,000 businesses lacked sufficient common issues.

As reported by NZ Lawyer, the judgment in *Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited* [2026] NZHC 3275 was released on 21 October. The claim arises from the June 2024 collapse of a transmission pylon at Glorit, near Wellsford, after an unsupervised Omexom contractor removed all the nuts from three of the tower's four legs during routine maintenance. Roughly 180,000 people and 20,000 businesses lost power, some for days.

The court held that the duty of care question could only be answered with "it depends," following the Court of Appeal's approach in the cladding class action, and warned of an evidentiary vacuum beyond the two named plaintiffs. Large electricity users had bespoke supply arrangements and had taken differing protective steps, including insurance and backup generators. An adverse finding on duty would bind class members who had not opted out and who might have stronger claims, and the two named businesses were not sufficiently representative. The risk that the case would not proceed at all without an opt-out order could not overcome the absence of common issues. The court invited the plaintiffs to recast the claim or run it on an opt-in basis.

The claim is run by Lee Salmon Long and Piper Alderman on a no-win-no-fee basis with Omni Bridgeway funding. Losses have been estimated at NZ$60m by Infometrics and NZ$80m by the Northland Chamber of Commerce. LeeSalmonLong partner David Bullock has said the defendants' NZ$1m regional resilience fund was unlikely to cover actual losses.

Omni Bridgeway has taken its Robodebt class action commission to the Full Federal Court of Australia after the trial judge cut the funder's entitlement to roughly half of what it sought from the A$475m settlement.

As reported by Lawyerly, the funding entity Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Lion Pty Ltd has filed an appeal challenging the reduction, which took its commission down from approximately A$71m. The appeal was lodged in late August 2026.

The underlying proceeding, *Knox v Commonwealth*, was an appeal from the original *Prygodicz* settlement, brought to set that settlement aside so claimants could pursue a misfeasance in public office case built on evidence from the Robodebt Royal Commission. The Albanese Government announced a settlement in September 2025, and Justice Beach approved it on 23 June 2026, with the Commonwealth ordered to pay A$475,000,000. Total value of the settlement is around A$550m.

Gordon Legal, which acted for the class, has described the settlement as the A$475m sum less a 15% funding commission. In his approval judgment, [2026] FCA 1029, Justice Beach recorded submissions that the costs claimed "are excessive as is the 20% commission sought," and considered fixing the commission by reference to a multiple of five on pre-mediation costs. The judgment cited comparative authority in which the largest reduction took a commission from 30% to 18.66%, and emphasised the need for proportionality in the aggregate commission paid out of a settlement fund.

The appeal puts a significant question before the Full Court: how far a first-instance judge may go in recalibrating a contractual funding commission at the approval stage of a very large settlement.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that an investor cannot assign an ICSID arbitration award against a sovereign state without that state's consent, closing off a route that award buyers had hoped to use to acquire and enforce treaty claims.

As reported by Essex Court Chambers, the judgment in *Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc v Kingdom of Spain* [2026] EWCA Civ 1392 was handed down on 2 November. Foxton LJ, with Males LJ and Lewison LJ agreeing, dismissed an appeal by Blasket Renewable Investments LLC against a first-instance refusal to substitute it as a party to enforcement proceedings over a €29.3m award against Spain.

The court held that the right to enforce an ICSID award is a treaty right as between states, and that "on the current state of customary international law, treaty rights as between states are not assignable without the consent of the obligor." Foxton LJ also rejected the argument that section 2 of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 creates a new, freely assignable substantive right, characterising it instead as execution machinery. A voluntary assignee cannot invoke Article 54(2) of the ICSID Convention where the original award creditors still exist.

The ruling leaves important questions open. The court expressly reserved involuntary transfers arising from insolvency, death or corporate succession, as well as assignments made with a state's consent. Males LJ accepted that assignability of such awards may be commercially desirable, but found it is not where international law currently stands.

For the award-monetisation market, the decision narrows the mechanics rather than the appetite. Buyers seeking exposure to ICSID awards may still need to preserve the identity of the original creditor through corporate reorganisations, mergers or share transfers rather than outright assignment.

The International Legal Finance Association has responded to the Law Commission's Consumer Class Actions Initial Scoping Questionnaire, which closed on Friday, calling for an opt-out consumer regime modelled on the Competition Appeal Tribunal and supported by access to third-party funding.

ILFA argues that many consumer claims cannot be brought today because existing procedures outside the CAT are poorly suited to group actions: representative actions are of limited use where damages need individual assessment, and Group Litigation Orders are opt-in, complex and expensive. It wants the regime to cover the full range of consumer harms and to be open to small businesses.

On funding, ILFA says all opt-out cases in the CAT are supported by third-party funding and calls for PACCAR to be reversed, as the Civil Justice Council recommended in June 2025. It wants funding terms and payment priorities fixed at certification, so agreed waterfalls cannot be reopened at the end of a claim, and opposes making funder returns contingent on take-up rates.

"Too many consumers and small businesses are harmed by the same unlawful conduct yet have no viable route to redress, because each claim is too small to pursue on its own," said Neil Purslow, Chairman of ILFA's Executive Committee. "A consumer class actions regime of the kind the Law Commission is considering, modelled on the Competition Appeal Tribunal's opt-out regime, would give them one."

"Backed by litigation funding, such a regime would put money back into consumers' pockets at a time when the cost of living remains a pressing concern, instead of letting those responsible keep the proceeds," he added. "It would also make corporate wrongdoers answerable to every consumer they harm, thereby promoting more competitive markets that reward businesses for playing by the rules."

Omni Bridgeway is funding a class action against the New South Wales Government on behalf of people who paid merchant fees on card and PayPal transactions with state agencies such as Service NSW and Revenue NSW.

According to Omni Bridgeway's claim page, the claim follows the government's own admission in October 2024 that approximately 92 million card transactions since 2016 had attracted about $144 million in merchant fees levied without a lawful basis. The claim alleges the government received legal advice on four separate occasions from the NSW Crown Solicitor that the practice was unlawful.

The claim alleges that the government owed a duty of care to those who paid the fees and breached it by continuing to charge them, and that it made misleading statements about its right to do so in breach of Australian consumer protection laws. Omni Bridgeway notes that, as at the date of filing, the government had not confirmed whether it would refund the surcharges.

The class covers anyone who paid a merchant fee to the NSW Government between 23 September 2020 and 23 September 2026, for example when renewing a driver licence or vehicle registration, or buying a National Parks annual pass. Piper Alderman is on the record for the class.

The action is funded on a no win, no pay basis. If it succeeds, Omni Bridgeway will recover its costs plus a commission, and it has agreed to cover any adverse costs awarded to the government, so class members face no out-of-pocket exposure.

The client committee in the Mariana dam litigation has taken its fight over who represents more than 400,000 claimants to the Court of Appeal, after the High Court refused it permission to appeal a ruling that left PGMBM, formerly Pogust Goodhead, in control of the claim.

As reported by Legal Business, London disputes boutique Humphries Kerstetter, which acts for the committee, announced on 27 October that it had applied to the Court of Appeal for permission.

The application follows Mr Justice Waksman's October ruling that the committee had no authority to terminate the collective conditional fee agreements or litigation management agreements with PGMBM, and therefore could not appoint Bailey Glasser International to run the next phase of the case. "It is plain to me that Pogust Goodhead's construction is preferred," the judge said at the time, adding that the committee "had no power to instruct BGI." He ordered £300,000 in costs on account.

The dispute has direct consequences for the claim's funding. PGMBM is backed by Gramercy, and the committee's criticisms in the High Court included concerns about the funder. PGMBM had estimated that claimants would face around £2 billion in costs exposure if its contracts were terminated.

The underlying claim arises from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil. BHP was found strictly liable in November 2025, with a quantum trial listed for 2027. Any appeal on representation would run alongside preparations for that trial.

The cost of the U.S. tort system has nearly doubled over a decade, rising from $299.7bn in 2014 to $579.7bn in 2023, according to new research that identifies third-party litigation funding among the factors behind the increase.

As reported by Insurance Business Magazine, the figures come from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform's 2026 report, *International Tort Costs: A Comparative Analysis*, produced with the Insurance Information Institute. Tort costs grew at roughly twice the rate of the wider economy over the period and about four times the rate of inflation.

Commercial lines accounted for $377.73bn of the total against $202.01bn for personal lines. Other liability at $249.31bn and personal auto at $188.13bn together represent 75.45% of all tort costs. Self-insured and uninsured exposures made up $163.25bn, or 28.16% of the total.

Alongside third-party litigation funding, the report points to social inflation, nuclear verdicts and expanding theories of liability. Michel Léonard, chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute, framed the trend as a structural strain on the casualty market rather than a cyclical one. The analysis projects that U.S. and UK tort costs as a share of GDP will converge around 2029 to 2030.

The report is the latest from a body that has consistently urged disclosure requirements for litigation funding arrangements, and its figures are likely to feature in the state and federal debates now underway.

Harbour Credit has provided a £2m funding package to Manchester credit hire specialist Garvins Law, financing a management buyout that leaves founder Neil Garvin as the firm's sole shareholder.

As reported by Legal Futures, the package from the lending arm of litigation funder Harbour includes a £1m working capital facility. Garvins Law was founded in 2007 and employs 22 staff, having built its practice around credit hire work following the whiplash reforms. The firm was previously owned by alternative business structure EDAM Group, which entered administration in January 2025; Garvins remained solvent and continued trading throughout.

The firm's accounts for the year to 31 March 2026 show turnover of £2.5m, more than double the prior year, and a profit of £125,000 against a £200,000 loss the year before.

"We have an experienced team, an established position in the credit hire market and ambitious plans to grow the business," said Neil Garvin. Ellora MacPherson is managing director of Harbour Credit.

The transaction illustrates the continuing expansion of litigation funders into law firm lending, where capital is deployed against a practice's receivables and work in progress rather than the outcome of a single case. For claimant firms emerging from the ownership of a collapsed consolidator, that form of credit offers a route to independence without ceding equity to an external investor.