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

The Fundamental Distinction Policymakers Cannot Ignore

By Eric Schuller | February 23, 2026

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

If policymakers want to understand consumer legal funding, they should start with insurance, not lending. At first glance, insurance and consumer legal funding may appear unrelated. One protects against risk. The other provides funds to plaintiffs in pending lawsuits to help pay for their day-to-day expenses. But structurally, they share a defining characteristic: risk is assumed by the capital provider, not imposed on the consumer. That single feature separates consumer legal funding from loans and aligns it more closely with underwriting.

Public policy depends on accurate classification. When a product is mischaracterized, regulation can miss its mark. Consumer legal funding is frequently labeled a "loan," yet its mechanics contradict that description. A loan creates a guaranteed repayment obligation. Consumer legal funding does not. To regulate wisely, lawmakers must understand that distinction.

Insurance is built on underwriting risk. An insurance company evaluates probabilities. It examines health risks, property risks, liability exposure, accident frequency. It prices policies accordingly. The insurer does not lend money to the policyholder. Instead, it assumes risk in exchange for compensation. If the insured event occurs, the insurer pays. If the event does not occur, the insurer retains the premium. In either case, the insurer's business model depends on accepting uncertainty. Insurance is not debt. It is risk transfer.

Now consider consumer legal funding. A funding company evaluates a legal claim. It assesses liability, damages, collectability, procedural posture, and likely duration. It underwrites the case. Instead of collecting premiums, it provides monies to the plaintiff. Its return depends entirely on a defined event: recovery in the lawsuit. If recovery occurs, the provider receives its agreed return from the proceeds. If recovery does not occur, the provider receives nothing. The funding company has effectively underwritten litigation risk. That is not lending. That is risk assumption.

The central question in distinguishing loans from contingent capital is simple: Who bears the risk of failure? In a loan, the borrower bears the risk. Repayment is mandatory regardless of outcome. In insurance, the insurer bears the risk. Payment depends on whether a covered event occurs. In consumer legal funding, the funding company bears the risk. Repayment depends on whether the case succeeds. If a plaintiff loses their case, they owe nothing. There is no collection action, no wage garnishment, no deficiency balance. The capital provider absorbs the loss. That structure is fundamentally inconsistent with debt.

To see the contrast clearly, consider the defining characteristics of a traditional loan: an unconditional obligation to repay, repayment regardless of performance or outcome, interest accrual over time, recourse against income or assets, and credit-based underwriting. If you borrow money to open a business and the business fails, you still owe the bank. If you lose your job after taking out a personal loan, you still owe the lender. If you use a credit card and experience hardship, the balance remains. Debt survives failure. Consumer legal funding does not. If there is no recovery in the legal claim, there is no repayment obligation. That single fact removes the defining feature of a loan.

Insurance companies price risk across portfolios. Some claims will generate losses. Others will generate gains. Sustainability depends on aggregate performance. Consumer legal funding companies operate similarly. Some cases succeed. Others fail. Pricing reflects probability of recovery, expected timeline, and litigation risk. Like insurers, funding providers must absorb unsuccessful outcomes as part of their business model. If policymakers were to impose lending-style interest caps on insurance premiums, the insurance market would collapse. Premiums are not structured like loan interest because repayment is not guaranteed. Similarly, consumer legal funding cannot be evaluated as if repayment were certain. The risk of total loss is real. When regulation ignores that risk allocation, it misunderstands the economics.

Labeling consumer legal funding as a loan may appear harmless, but it has significant policy consequences. Lending regulations are built around products where repayment is guaranteed and borrowers bear default risk. Those regulations assume predictable interest accrual and enforceable repayment obligations. Consumer legal funding lacks those features. If policymakers apply lending frameworks to non-recourse, outcome-dependent arrangements, they risk imposing regulatory structures that do not fit the product, distorting pricing models built around risk of total loss, reducing availability of funding for injured consumers, and eliminating a non-recourse option that differs fundamentally from debt. Regulation should reflect economic reality, not rhetorical convenience.

For injured plaintiffs, litigation is rarely quick. Cases may take months or years to resolve. During that time, medical bills accumulate. Rent is due. Utilities must be paid. Families rely on a steady income that may no longer exist. Traditional loans require fixed repayment regardless of outcome. Insurance does not. Consumer legal funding does not. That distinction explains why some consumers choose it. They are not borrowing against wages or income. They are accessing funds tied to a potential asset — their legal claim. If that asset produces value, repayment occurs from that value. If it does not, there is no personal debt. That is not debt stacking. It is risk sharing.

The core issue is risk transfer. Debt transfers risk to the borrower. Insurance transfers risk to the insurer. Consumer legal funding transfers litigation outcome risk to the funding company. The defining feature of a loan is an unconditional promise to repay. Without that promise, the structure changes entirely. If there is no recovery and the consumer owes nothing, the essential element of debt is absent. Policy debates should begin with that structural truth.

None of this suggests that consumer legal funding should operate without oversight. Transparent contracts, disclosure requirements, and consumer protections are appropriate in any financial arrangement. But regulation must match mechanics. Insurance is regulated as insurance because it is risk underwriting. Debt is regulated as lending because repayment is guaranteed. Consumer legal funding is non-recourse and outcome-dependent. It should be evaluated through that lens. When lawmakers start from the wrong definition, unintended consequences follow.

Consumer legal funding is non-recourse, payable only from legal proceeds, transfers outcome risk to the capital provider, and creates no unconditional repayment obligation. It shares structural similarities with insurance underwriting and other contingent compensation arrangements where payment depends on performance. The defining feature of a loan is guaranteed repayment. Consumer legal funding has no such guarantee. Before regulating it as debt, policymakers should ask a simple question: If the case fails and the consumer owes nothing, where is the loan? Sound public policy begins with structural accuracy.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Nera Capital Secures £50M Asset Mandate

By John Freund | February 23, 2026

Nera Capital has strengthened its litigation finance platform with the onboarding of a new South America-based funding partner committing £50 million across litigation finance and legal assets. The mandate not only expands Nera’s available capital base but also sees the firm formally appointed as asset manager for the new funds, reinforcing its growing role as both originator and portfolio steward within the UK litigation market.

In a press release, Nera Capital announced that the £50 million commitment will be deployed across a range of UK-based claims, with the firm responsible for underwriting, structuring, capital deployment, and ongoing portfolio management. The capital will be allocated in line with Nera’s established investment criteria and risk management framework, targeting carefully selected legal assets. The funding partner, described as having an “extensive track record” in high-yielding special situations investments uncorrelated to traditional asset classes, brings prior experience in litigation finance across South America.

Robin Grant, CFO at Nera Capital, emphasized that the partnership aligns with the firm’s disciplined approach to litigation finance and enhances its ability to deliver attractive, risk-adjusted returns to investors. Aisling Byrne, Director at Nera Capital, highlighted the funder’s blend of financial and legal expertise, noting that the asset manager appointment reflects international confidence in Nera’s ability to identify viable claims and manage them through to resolution.

Established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin, with offices in Manchester and Holland, Nera Capital provides law firm lending across consumer and commercial claim portfolios and is a member of the European Litigation Funders Association.

Commercial

By John Freund | February 21, 2026

Burford Capital, a leading litigation financier, has been targeted for document production in a dispute over third party funding in Germany, according to a report, pulling the funder into an ancillary fight over access to materials. While details of the underlying case were not immediately available, the development underscores a recurring pressure point in European litigation funding.

An article in Law360 states that German civil procedure allows only narrow, court supervised requests for specific documents, yet parties increasingly test the boundaries when funders are perceived to hold information relevant to control, economics or settlement. For funders, such motions raise questions around confidentiality commitments to claimants, protection of commercially sensitive terms, and the scope of any privilege attaching to communications with counsel.

Burford was targeted for documentation in connection with a legal funding dispute in Germany, and that the request has become a focal point in the broader disagreement over the role of funders in the proceeding. The report reflects broader friction between parties seeking transparency into funding arrangements and funders that view their contracts and analyses as confidential. Although Germany does not recognize US style discovery, recent cases have seen litigants seek disclosure of discrete categories of funder related material, often invoking proportionality and necessity to persuade courts to order production.

If courts compel broader funder disclosure, financing terms and case management may shift to mitigate risk. Cross border disputes will test how German orders interact with confidentiality and privilege protections elsewhere. Funders and claimants should prepare playbooks for narrowly tailored requests and protective orders.

Public

Announcements Commercial

Longford Capital Doubles Down to Support American Innovation

By John Freund | February 19, 2026

Longford Capital Management, LP today announced that it has launched the Longford Capital American Innovation Initiative to help American inventors protect their legal rights, access the U.S. legal system, and advance American innovation.

America is the greatest country in the world and Americans are achieving advancements in every facet of our lives, including healthcare, artificial intelligence, clean energy, technology, aerospace, cybersecurity, transportation, wireless communications, and many others. Intellectual property is critical to American exceptionalism and national security. American inventors are systematically the victims of intellectual property theft at the hands of foreign and domestic bad actors. Well-financed multi-national corporations steal the innovations of small and medium size American companies leaving them will little options to protect their legal rights in the expensive U.S. legal system. For more than a decade, Longford has been supporting American inventors, investing approximately $500 million to support nearly 100 intellectual property owners trying to defend their assets. These efforts have resulted in recoveries of more than $1.5 billion from patent infringers.

Take, for example, Malcolm Beyer, Jr., a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, retired Captain in the U.S. Marines, and small business owner. His company developed a communication system that increases safety and operational effectiveness for the U.S. military, law enforcement, and first responders. When his patented technology was infringed by foreign companies, he didn’t have the money to defend his legal rights in court. He turned to Longford Capital. Longford provided millions of dollars to pay his legal fees, which allowed Mr. Beyer to successfully defend his legal rights and protect his innovation. Without access to litigation finance, Malcolm Beyer’s company would not have survived.

Today, we are ramping up our efforts to support our country, American inventors, small and medium size businesses, and the advancement of American exceptionalism. The ability to protect innovation through the patent system and the U.S. legal system is essential to attract investment and encourage the best and brightest Americans to dedicate their careers to improving our lives. Longford’s funding empowers American innovation and makes America stronger. Members of Longford’s legal team are perennially recognized as leading IP strategists with an established record of developing and implementing world-class IP value creation programs for American companies.

About Longford Capital

Longford Capital is a leading private investment company that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, research universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes. Longford was one of the first litigation funds in the United States and is among the world’s largest litigation finance companies with more than $1.2 billion in assets under management. Typically, Longford funds attorneys’ fees and other costs necessary to pursue meritorious legal claims in return for a share of a favorable settlement or award. The firm manages a diversified portfolio, and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, claim monetization, insurance matters, and a variety of others.

Public

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Ian Coleman, Insurance & Funding Broker, Commercial and General

By John Freund | February 18, 2026

Ian is a qualified solicitor (non-practicing) in England & Wales. Having been involved in the Legal Expenses Insurance industry since November 1992, he has dealt with Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE) Legal Expenses Insurance in its various forms.

His work has included underwriting for ATE cover, a number of the early competition claims seeking damages for abusive anti-competitive conduct being brought then both in the High Court and Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) in England.

He also underwrote for ATE cover a number of group actions many of which were run under Group Litigation Orders (GLO) and other case management devices, spanning a wide variety of case types. Ian has underwritten numerous commercial litigation cases, civil fraud claims and insolvency matters.

Since 2020 Ian has acted as a broker, intermediating various insurance products relating to litigation and arbitration risks as well as intermediating litigation funding requirements where required.

Below is our LFJ conversation with Ian Coleman:

What does the landscape for litigation funding look like now in the UK?

There are many strong opportunities available in the UK with excellent law firms. The use of litigation funding has become normalised in conjunction with ATE Insurance to cover the adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is no longer seen as a tool just for the impecunious.

Opportunities range from commercial arbitration and investor state disputes to commercial litigation, civil fraud claims and of course the various forms of competition compensation claims conducted in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT).

The availability of litigation funding frequently drives the law firm enquiry.

The Supreme Court decision in PACCAR remains current authority albeit that the Government has said that it will legislate to reverse the position and has received recommendation that be both retrospective and prospective. The caveat being when parliamentary time allows. However, a multiple on capital deployed (or in some cases committed) is permitted offering healthy returns for investors.

It has been suggested that ‘light touch regulation’ will be included in any such legislation or in follow-on legislation. The Lord Chancellor requested advice from the Civil Justice Council (CJC) with regards to the question of regulation. The CJC published its Final Report in June 2025. The CJC has recommended that regulation should not apply to arbitration proceedings as it should remain a matter for arbitral centres to determine whether and, if so, how any such regulation should be implemented. In Court and CAT proceedings regulation of litigation funders should be weighted according to whether the funding is provided to consumers or commercial parties.

The CJC suggests a minimum, baseline, set of regulatory requirements should therefore apply to litigation funding generally. These should include provision for: case-specific capital adequacy requirements; codification of the requirement that litigation funders should not control funded litigation; conflict of interest provisions; the application of anti-money laundering requirements; and disclosure at the earliest opportunity of the fact of funding, the name of the funder, and the ultimate source of the funding. The terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.

It should be noted that the CJC specifically rejected the introduction of caps on litigation funders’ returns.

Law firm portfolio funding or case by case funding are options to consider albeit a balance of the law firm’s and their clients’ needs will be key in deciding which approach is requested. The CJC has recommended specific regulatory provisions for portfolio funding.

What is known as ‘The Arkin Cap’ continues to provide that the Court can make an appropriate decision concerning litigation funder liability for adverse costs on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, litigation funders will inevitably require that suitable ATE is in place.

It should be noted that no regulation has yet been introduced and it is debatable when there will be parliamentary time to attempt to do so. In any event regulation logically would be prospective only.

Can you speak to the issue of domiciling of funding SPVs to maximise insurance availability?

Where litigation funding is sought it is extremely common in the UK for ATE Insurance to be required as part of the package and often Capital Protection Insurance is purchased by the litigation funder. Most of the insurance capacity for these products emanates from markets based in London.

Insurance may only be sold into a territory for which the insurer has a licence. The licencing requirements are dictated by the domicile of the Proposer (the party seeking insurance).

The Insurers invariably have a licence for the UK and Europe but not necessarily for other territories. In order to maximise the choice of insurance offerings the Proposer is ideally domiciled somewhere in the UK or Europe.

Where the Litigation Funder seeks Capital Protection Insurance (CPI) domiciling the SPV in say Guernsey may have a double benefit both in terms of insurance availability (to achieve the best terms) but also to maximise tax efficiencies. Most jurisdictions levy some form of insurance tax, but those that do not may be seen as attractive to the party paying the insurance premium. Any Litigation Funder seeking to set up an SPV in a tax and licencing friendly location should of course make their own enquiries in order to satisfy themselves that both requirements are met in that particular territory.

Where the Claimant is domiciled in a location that raises licencing challenges this may be overcome by the Litigation Funder providing an Adverse Costs Indemnity via its funding SPV and obtaining the ATE Insurance to cover off that risk.

This will however generally mean that security for costs must be provided but the ATE Policy can be fortified with what has become known as an Anti-Avoidance Endorsement (AAE). AAEs have been accepted in the UK Courts and in many arbitral forums.

Notwithstanding the place of domicile of the Proposer, the insurance policies will generally be written on the basis that the policy is governed by English Law and accordingly the duty of disclosure for the Proposer will be set out in the Insurance Act 2015 for non-consumers and Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 for consumers.

How do clients use insurance to mitigate risk and control funding spend?

CPI can be obtained to protect some or all the capital deployed. This can be purchased either on a portfolio basis or case by case. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages and that discussion deserves its own separate analysis. Both do mitigate the risk of losing capital. The scope of claim circumstances is a matter of negotiation with Insurers.

Generally, the conducting law firm will require some funding of their fees. Their fees can be further insulated from risk by Work in Progress Insurance (WiP) which protects an element of base fees should the claim be unsuccessful. In some circumstances WiP may be used to curtail the funding requirement.

For bilateral investment treaty arbitrations Arbitral Award Default Insurance (AADI) may also be available.

ATE is used commonly where costs follow the event to protect the risk of the claimant and litigation funder becoming liable for adverse costs.

Is the Competition Appeals Tribunal still a good funding opportunity?

There has been much discussion about the CAT since the changes in 2015. Case longevity, case outcomes and distribution have been frequent topics of conversation. The question to be posed is whether ‘herd-thought’ means that good opportunities are being over-looked. That has most certainly been the experience of the writer.

The sector in the UK has a number of strong law firms, and the CAT requirements are being clarified with decisions that are now flowing through the forum.

Decisions from senior Courts have further assisted in setting out road maps for bringing and conducting such cases particularly with regards to Opt-Out and abuse of dominant position claims.

It should not be a surprise that as the new regime bedded in the earlier cases would take longer to conclude and the pathway would need to be set.

In Opt-Out cases the CAT does consider the funding and ATE packages at Certification stage together with the Class Representative’s understanding of how they work. Whilst certification can be refused on the basis of the above it does not equate in the event of certification to a blessing of the arrangements which can be revisited later.

Sensible pricing models from the outset are important. Certification will now have some regard to the merits of the claim, scope of the defined class and distribution. These can all be well managed to substantially mitigate the risk of the CAT subsequently intervening in stakeholder entitlements.

For cases that are not Opt-Out the above considerations do not apply.

What can you tell us about the importance of being clear on the source of funds?

The hygiene factor around funds being used to support litigation and arbitration matters is increasingly significant. Litigation Funders should be aware of this and consider the level of checks that are required in other financial sectors. Matters such as KYC, AML, UBOs and sanctions / PEP enquiries are often mandatory. This approach would be reflective of the CJC recommendations.

The confirmation that such checks have been conducted and were satisfactory could well prove to be decisive where there are competing offers of litigation funding on the table.

Commercial Legal Innovation

By John Freund | February 18, 2026

A litigation funding startup founder is making the case that technology, disciplined underwriting, and alignment with law firms will define the next phase of growth in the funding industry.

In Part II of its interview series, Above the Law spotlights the founder’s views on building a differentiated funding platform in an increasingly competitive market. The discussion centers on how newer entrants can compete with established players by leveraging data analytics, focusing on select case types, and maintaining tight operational controls. Rather than pursuing volume for its own sake, the founder emphasizes a strategy built around rigorous case selection and long-term partnerships with law firms.

A key theme in the interview is the importance of underwriting discipline. The founder notes that not all meritorious cases make good investments, underscoring the need to evaluate damages models, collectability, and litigation timelines with precision. Technology plays a central role in that process, with analytics tools helping to assess risk factors and identify patterns across similar claims. This approach, the founder argues, allows the company to move efficiently while avoiding the pitfalls of overly aggressive capital deployment.

The interview also touches on market education. Despite litigation finance’s growing acceptance, misconceptions persist among lawyers and corporate stakeholders. The founder suggests that transparency around pricing, control, and alignment of interests remains critical to winning trust—particularly among firms that may be considering funding for the first time.

Commercial

By John Freund | February 18, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving from a back-office efficiency tool to a central driver of strategy in mass tort litigation, with significant implications for plaintiff firms, defense counsel, and the litigation funding community.

An article in Bloomberg Law explores how AI-powered tools are transforming the economics of large-scale product liability and personal injury cases. From claimant intake and medical record review to document analysis and settlement modeling, AI platforms are enabling law firms to process vast amounts of data at a fraction of the traditional cost and time. In mass torts—where tens of thousands of claims can hinge on nuanced medical and factual distinctions—these efficiencies are particularly valuable.

According to the report, firms are deploying AI to automate the review of medical records, identify injury patterns, and categorize claimants more quickly. This not only reduces overhead, but also enhances early case assessment, helping firms determine which claims warrant full investment. On the defense side, corporate legal teams are leveraging similar technologies to assess exposure and streamline discovery. The result is a technological arms race in high-volume litigation.

While some observers raise concerns about accuracy, oversight, and ethical guardrails, proponents argue that AI can reduce administrative waste and free attorneys to focus on higher-value legal analysis. Vendors servicing the mass tort bar are also positioning AI as a way to increase access to justice by lowering the cost of bringing claims that might otherwise be economically unviable.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

By John Freund | February 17, 2026

U.S. lawmakers are seeking to impose new transparency requirements on third-party litigation financing in major lawsuits, while carving out protections for nonprofit legal organizations that receive funding to provide free legal services.

An article in Reuters reports that a group of Senate Republicans led by Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act. The bill would require disclosure of third-party financing in class actions and mass tort litigation, a narrower scope than past proposals aimed at all civil cases. Importantly for the legal funding market, the legislation includes an exemption for nonprofit legal groups funded by U.S. donors that provide pro bono representation, protecting those organizations from having to disclose their backers.

Supporters of the measure frame it as a move toward greater openness about who is financing high-stakes litigation, arguing that visibility into funding sources is essential to ensure fairness and guard against undue influence. The bill would also bar third-party funders from influencing litigation strategy, settlement negotiations, or accessing confidential documents. However, critics—including the International Legal Finance Association, an industry body—contend that imposing disclosure rules could chill litigation finance and potentially limit access to justice for plaintiffs who rely on third-party capital to pursue claims. Conservative advocacy groups have also weighed in against the bill, fearing that disclosure mandates could expose donors to political scrutiny despite the nonprofit carveout.

The bill’s introduction builds on a history of legislative efforts by Grassley to regulate litigation funding transparency, though previous versions have stalled in the House amid bipartisan opposition.

For the legal funding industry, this legislation raises crucial questions about regulatory risk and disclosure expectations in the U.S. If enacted, the bill could reshape how funders participate in large-scale litigation and how transparency requirements are balanced against concerns over client privacy, fundraising, and the broader access-to-justice mission.

Commercial Deals

By John Freund | February 17, 2026

A UK-based litigation funder is seeking to reset its strategy and reassure investors after liquidating one of its key funds, underscoring the mounting pressures facing capital providers in an increasingly competitive and scrutinized funding market.

An article in Bloomberg reports that Katch Investment Group wound down a flagship vehicle and returned capital to investors, following a period of underperformance and portfolio challenges. The move marks a significant inflection point for the firm, which is now presenting a revised investment strategy aimed at regaining investor confidence and stabilizing its platform.

According to the report, the funder’s leadership has framed the liquidation as a proactive step designed to preserve value and recalibrate its approach in light of shifting market dynamics. The litigation finance sector has faced headwinds in recent years, including longer case durations, delayed resolutions, and increased regulatory and judicial scrutiny—particularly in collective proceedings. These factors have complicated return profiles and made capital raising more challenging, especially for publicly listed or institutionally backed funders under pressure to demonstrate consistent performance.

The firm is now pitching a refined model that emphasizes disciplined case selection, portfolio diversification, and closer alignment with investor expectations. The reset comes at a time when several UK-based funders are reassessing their exposure to large, high-risk group actions and exploring alternative structures, including co-investment arrangements and bespoke mandates.

Case Developments Commercial

By John Freund | February 17, 2026

A dispute emerging from the long-running talc litigation against Johnson & Johnson has spilled into a new front, as a plaintiffs’ law firm has filed suit against its own litigation funders in a high-stakes funding battle tied to the baby powder cases.

An article in Reuters reports that the firm, which represents claimants alleging that Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder products caused cancer, has sued multiple litigation funders over the terms and enforcement of its funding agreements. The complaint centers on allegations that the funders are seeking repayment amounts the firm contends are excessive or otherwise improper under the governing contracts. The lawsuit underscores the financial strain and complex capital structures underpinning mass tort litigation, particularly in sprawling, multi-year proceedings like the talc cases.

According to the report, the firm argues that the funders’ demands threaten its financial stability and ability to continue representing clients in the ongoing litigation. The case reflects the high-risk, high-reward nature of funding large portfolios of mass tort claims, where returns can hinge on bankruptcy proceedings, global settlements, or appellate outcomes. Johnson & Johnson’s use of bankruptcy maneuvers to resolve talc liabilities has already added further uncertainty and delay, complicating recovery timelines for plaintiffs’ firms and their capital providers.

The dispute highlights the intricate dynamics between law firms and funders in contingency-heavy practices. Funding arrangements in mass torts often involve layered investments, staged drawdowns, and complex priority waterfalls. When case timelines stretch or resolution values shift, tensions over repayment multiples and control rights can quickly surface.