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

A New Jersey appeals court has upheld the enforceability of a consumer legal funding agreement, ruling that state insurance and medical-lien statutes do not limit a privately negotiated contract between a funder and an injured plaintiff.

In Viglianti v. Blue, decided July 14, 2026, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a trial court's order directing that $166,382.30 in settlement proceeds be paid to Legal Bay, LLC. The New Jersey-based funder had advanced $90,000 to cover spinal-fusion surgery and related care for Michael Viglianti, who had exhausted his personal injury protection coverage after a 2020 automobile accident. Under the agreement, Legal Bay would be repaid with interest only if Viglianti recovered in his underlying suit, which later settled for $250,000.

After the settlement, Viglianti argued the agreement was unenforceable because it conflicted with New Jersey's PIP medical fee schedules (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and 39:6A-4.6) and a statute capping physician and dentist liens at 25% (N.J.S.A. 2A:44-39). The panel rejected each argument, reasoning that those provisions govern claims against tortfeasors and payments by insurers — not a private agreement voluntarily entered by a represented party. The court also emphasized that the agreement paid for medical care rather than the litigation itself.

The unpublished opinion noted its limited scope, declining to assess whether the return was fair, and observed that the Legislature is weighing bills (S. 2357 / A. 2159) that would regulate and cap litigation funding agreements.

A UK Court of Appeal decision has cleared roughly 5,800 motorists to pursue their car-finance mis-selling claims together as a single mass action, a procedural milestone expected to shape consumer litigation across England and Wales.

As reported by Claims Media, the court ruled in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd that the claimants may proceed against eight major lenders through an "omnibus claim" rather than filing individual lawsuits. The dispute centers on personal contract purchase and hire purchase agreements allegedly mis-sold between 2007 and 2024.

The ruling lands amid the Financial Conduct Authority's separate £9 billion redress scheme, which offers average payouts of around £830 but has been slowed by legal challenges and is unlikely to begin before 2027. By validating the omnibus format, the decision gives consumers an alternative route to potentially higher compensation outside the regulator's process.

Barings Law, which secured the judgment after litigating since 2020, has launched a "My Free PCP Claim" service that it says guarantees clients keep 100% of their damages by absorbing costs above the defendant's fee contribution — a model designed to avoid the roughly 30% deductions common in funded or contingency arrangements. "This ruling is a step towards securing true justice for millions of drivers who were mis-sold car finance over many years," said Barings Law chairman Robert Whitehead.

A new opinion piece argues that the opacity surrounding third-party litigation funding has become a national-security vulnerability, urging Congress to force disclosure of who is bankrolling lawsuits against American energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure.

In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Robert Romano, executive director of Americans for Limited Government, contends that foreign adversaries such as China and Russia can exploit litigation as a form of economic warfare — financing challenges to pipelines, data centers, defense contractors, and domestic manufacturers without ever being identified. The public, he writes, simply has no way of knowing who holds a stake in such cases.

Romano cites a December 2025 Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse report estimating that adversarial litigation could cost the U.S. economy $54 billion in lost output and more than 450,000 jobs. He points to two measures pending in Congress — the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (H.R. 2675) and the Litigation Transparency Act (H.R. 1109) — as vehicles for mandatory disclosure.

"Transparency won't determine who wins those cases," he writes, "but it will allow judges, litigants, policymakers, and the public to understand who has a financial or political stake." Framing the reform as an "America First" priority, Romano argues that restoring confidence in the courts requires exposing the financiers behind legal challenges to domestic economic development — a stance that adds momentum to the broader disclosure debate.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has escalated its intervention in England and Wales' high-volume consumer claims sector, disclosing that it has shut down seven firms and opened dozens of active investigations as it confronts what it calls major shortcomings in how bulk claims are handled.

As reported by Solicitor News, the regulator said that as of the end of June 2026 it had 94 open investigations involving 68 firms operating in the high-volume consumer claims market. It has also established a dedicated supervision taskforce designed to identify and address risks earlier, engaging directly with firms before problematic conduct hardens into consumer harm.

The SRA identified seven categories of consumer harm in the sector, ranging from inadequate information for decision-making to misleading practices and poor-quality legal services. The collapse of SSB Law — whose failure left clients exposed and drew scrutiny to the funding arrangements behind mass consumer litigation — has become a reference point for the regulator's concern.

The enforcement push runs alongside the SRA's newly opened consultation, which would impose specific requirements on solicitors who use or arrange third-party litigation funding for consumer claims, including notification, risk assessments, client disclosures, and independence from funders. That consultation remains open until September 17, 2026. Together, the measures signal a regulator moving from diagnosis to intervention in a sector increasingly financed by outside capital.

The trucking industry is intensifying its scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, arguing that undisclosed outside capital is distorting the economics of truck-crash lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business.

As reported by Land Line Media, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that outside investors — sometimes including foreign entities — are bankrolling crash litigation without transparency, prolonging cases, inflating damages, and leaving plaintiffs with modest returns while funders capture the larger share of any recovery. In some instances, the group warns, foreign government involvement raises national-security questions.

The article frames the issue against a wave of state-level legislation. Ohio has enacted disclosure requirements and barred foreign participation outright, with Rep. Meredith Craig declaring that "foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens and businesses by investing in our courts." North Carolina has gone further, imposing an outright ban on third-party funding backed by fines of up to $50,000, while New Hampshire has prohibited financing by foreign governments and designated adversarial nations. Michigan has approved disclosure and registration requirements and banned foreign entities and incentive payments to attorneys and medical professionals.

Industry voices echo the theme: Tom Balzer of the Ohio Trucking Association argues that such funding "incentivizes frivolous claims, prolongs litigation, and inflates damages." Together, the measures reflect a coordinated push to bring litigation finance in trucking cases into public view — and a signal that transportation is becoming a central front in the national funding-transparency debate.

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a multibillion-dollar force across major legal markets, yet the rules governing it remain strikingly inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next, according to a new cross-jurisdictional analysis.

As reported by JD Supra, the review — authored by Arthur Coviello, Colin Dunn, and Mark Selwyn of WilmerHale — examines third-party funding across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court. It notes that funders now manage billions in assets, with an estimated 20% committed to patent litigation, and that the U.S. leads but no longer dominates a market with established industries in the U.K., Germany, and China.

The authors highlight a sharp regulatory divergence. The United States has built a patchwork of state and federal measures, including disclosure requirements, while the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have largely declined to adopt comprehensive rules despite voicing similar concerns about conflicts of interest, funder control, and foreign influence.

The analysis catalogs recent developments: at least five bills pending in Congress addressing transparency and national-security concerns, the lingering effects of the U.K.'s 2023 PACCAR decision and the Civil Justice Council's call for "light touch" regulation, the European Commission's November 2025 decision not to adopt proposed funding rules, and the International Trade Commission's recent disclosure proposal. Without mandatory disclosure, the authors argue, judges and parties cannot reliably assess who holds a stake in a case or where potential conflicts may lie.

A proposed UK collective action against five musical-instrument manufacturers has collapsed after its litigation funding fell through, leaving the proposed class representative facing roughly £1.5 million in costs.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the withdrawal of five collective proceedings brought by proposed class representative Elisabetta Sciallis against Fender, Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Casio. The claims followed a Competition and Markets Authority finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' freedom to set prices online.

Ms Sciallis had initially pointed to a funding agreement with North Wall Capital, first set at £6.5 million and later increased to £18 million as more claims were filed. Negotiations between the funder and her firm, Pogust Goodhead, ceased in early 2023, but the tribunal found that the funder's departure was not clearly disclosed until shortly before a March 2026 case management conference — at which point the firm confirmed the North Wall agreement had never materialised and that some 25 alternative funders had been approached without success.

The tribunal, which was critical of how the funding position had been communicated, ordered indemnity costs from April 2023 onward, including £608,000 summarily assessed for three defendants and interim orders of £850,000 for two others. Ms Sciallis withdrew all five proceedings ahead of a June 2026 hearing that would have examined the funding. The case underscores how quickly a collapse in third-party backing can unwind even a well-advanced collective claim.

More than 40 companies have signed up under Georgia's new litigation-funding registry, an early measure of how the state's sweeping 2025 reform is reshaping an industry that long operated with little public disclosure.

As reported by the Daily Report, at least 41 companies have registered as litigation funders in Georgia — though some observers question whether registration alone will meaningfully change how the industry operates.

The registry stems from Senate Bill 69, the litigation-funding measure Governor Brian Kemp signed in April 2025 as part of a broader tort-reform package. The law requires commercial litigation financiers operating in the state to register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System, with the registration requirement taking effect on January 1, 2026.

Beyond registration, SB 69 restricts foreign ownership of funders, bars financing tied to foreign adversaries, and makes a funder's involvement discoverable in civil litigation. It also establishes a consumer-protection disclosure regime and requires registrants to disclose ownership details and any criminal convictions.

Supporters cast the framework as a long-overdue set of guardrails for an opaque, fast-growing market. Skeptics counter that a registration list, absent aggressive enforcement or deeper disclosure of funding terms, may do little to illuminate who is bankrolling litigation or on what terms — the very questions the reform set out to answer.

New Hampshire has retreated from an ambitious effort to regulate the litigation finance industry, ultimately enacting a narrowed law that targets foreign funders while abandoning the broad registration and oversight powers lawmakers had initially contemplated.

As reported by Intelligent Insurer, the state stepped back from provisions that would have given regulators expansive authority to register and supervise commercial litigation funders, leaving only the measures aimed at foreign financing intact.

The enacted statute, the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act — which originated as HB 1384 — prohibits commercial litigation financing tied, directly or indirectly, to foreign adversaries or sanctioned entities designated under federal law. It also requires claimants or their attorneys to disclose any commercial litigation funding agreement to all parties in a civil action when the case is filed and whenever the agreement is amended, with insurers that have a duty to defend or indemnify entitled to the same disclosure.

The law carves out nonprofits: an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3) that represents a claimant on a pro bono basis, along with its funders, falls outside the definition of a commercial litigation financier. Most provisions take effect on January 1, 2027.

New Hampshire's decision to prioritize foreign-funding restrictions over comprehensive registration mirrors a broader pattern among states, which have increasingly trained disclosure and transparency mandates on overseas capital rather than on the domestic funding market as a whole.