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

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) is applying markedly closer scrutiny to collective proceedings at the certification stage, a shift that practitioners describe as significant and that carries direct consequences for the litigation funders backing opt-out class actions.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the tribunal is increasingly testing the viability of claims early rather than deferring those questions to trial. In Waterside Class Ltd v Mowi ASA, the CAT declined to certify a 44-million-person salmon cartel claim, citing proportionality concerns where a £21 million costs budget was weighed against potential per-claimant damages of £2 to £9. The pattern echoes Gutmann v First MTR, which produced a £25 million settlement with a take-up rate below 1%, distributing funds to fewer than 7,300 of roughly 10 million potential claimants.

The tribunal now expects realistic distribution projections at the outset, rigorous value-for-money testing, and class representative fees set at "public sector rates," having rejected proposed charges of £300 per hour. It has also signalled it will examine how stakeholders are compensated if class members fail to materialise.

For the funding sector, the recalibration compounds existing uncertainty surrounding the debate over reversing the PACCAR ruling, including the prospect of retrospective fee-recovery challenges. Funders face a more demanding gateway to certification at a moment when the economics of large consumer claims are already under pressure.

The Law Commission has launched a project to consider the potential introduction of a dedicated consumer class actions regime, a development with meaningful implications for where funded collective claims may be brought in England and Wales.

As reported by Legal Futures, the initiative responds to a structural problem: the opt-out collective proceedings mechanism currently sits within the Competition Appeal Tribunal and is therefore confined to competition-law claims. As a result, claimant lawyers and funders have at times framed consumer grievances as competition issues to access the only viable collective route, a practice the commentary suggests is neither sustainable nor principled.

A standalone consumer redress regime could open opt-out class actions to a broader range of claims, from product liability and data protection to financial mis-selling, without the need to characterise them as competition matters. For the litigation funding sector, that prospect represents both opportunity and uncertainty, as the design of any new regime would shape case economics, costs exposure, and the role of third-party capital.

The Law Commission's review arrives as the CAT tightens certification standards for existing collective proceedings, underscoring a period of structural reassessment for group litigation in the United Kingdom. The scope, funding rules, and certification thresholds of any proposed regime will be closely watched by funders and defendants alike as the project progresses.

EY UK has paid £105.5 million to the administrators of collapsed healthcare group NMC Health to settle long-running claims that the firm was negligent in its audits between 2012 and 2018, and newly disclosed figures show third-party litigation funders captured a substantial share of the proceeds.

As reported by Insurance Journal, NMC's administration report filed on May 8, 2026 disclosed that £47.9 million was repaid to litigation funders, together with an agreed litigation return of £22.2 million, bringing total funder recoveries to roughly £70 million. The settlement was reached on confidential terms without admission of liability by EY, which has stated only that it is no longer in dispute with NMC and declined further comment.

NMC Health, once a FTSE 100 constituent, entered administration in 2020 after the disclosure of billions of dollars in undisclosed debt and alleged accounting fraud. Administrators at Alvarez & Marsal pursued more than £2 billion in damages, alleging EY breached its contract and duty of care; EY maintained throughout that its auditors had been deceived by a sophisticated fraud. The matter went to a 15-week trial before Dame Clare Moulder in May 2025 and settled before judgment.

The case stands as a prominent illustration of the role of litigation finance in insolvency-driven professional negligence claims, where funder capital enables estates to pursue high-value recoveries that benefit creditors. The return figures offer a rare public window into the economics of a large funded auditor claim.

The UK government's annual legislative agenda set out in the King's Speech this week made no mention of the long-promised litigation funding bill, leaving the industry's preferred reversal of the Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR ruling unresolved. The omission comes despite a December commitment from ministers to legislate on PACCAR and introduce a new regulatory framework for funders, and it has drawn sharp rebukes from across the third-party funding sector.

As reported by Legal Futures, counsel and funders called the absence a setback for the competitiveness of England and Wales as a litigation hub. White & Case partner Robert Wheal said the government had "recognised that uncertainty caused by the PACCAR ruling risked undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration," adding that it was "disappointing that time has not been found for the necessary legislation."

Jeremy Marshall, chief investment officer at Winward Litigation Finance, warned that the continuing ambiguity is eroding investor appetite. "Uncertainty is unhelpful for any investor and litigation funding is no different," he said, noting that the UK's premium standing in global legal services depends on credible funding rails for both consumer and commercial claims.

Trade bodies including the Association of Litigation Funders and the International Legal Finance Association voiced "deep disappointment" at the omission. The Ministry of Justice is reportedly waiting to attach the funding legislation to a suitable vehicle bill later in the parliamentary session.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has proposed a rule that would require parties in Section 337 intellectual property investigations to disclose their litigation funding arrangements, including the identities of entities that hold financial interests in or exercise control over case strategy and settlement decisions. The stated objective is to surface potential conflicts of interest and bring greater clarity to a venue that has become a primary forum for patent enforcement against imports.

As reported by Winston & Strawn, partner Alexander Ott discussed the proposal with Law360 and framed the disclosure regime as a tool that supports the agency's statutory mandate. "The commission's goal is to defend U.S. domestic industry," Ott said, making it important for the ITC to know "all the parties with a financial stake."

Ott suggested that commissioners could use funding information to weigh exclusion-order remedies more carefully, evaluating "how their decision helps or hurts the domestic industry ultimately." The argument lands inside a broader U.S. policy debate over whether mandatory funding disclosure should be confined to specific dockets or extended across federal courts, an issue currently before the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

If adopted, the ITC rule would mark the first formal, agency-level disclosure mandate aimed squarely at funded patent cases, layering a transparency obligation that plaintiffs and funders have resisted in district court litigation. The proposal is expected to draw written comments from funders, the patent bar, and large importers before the commission finalizes any change.

Burford Capital shareholders approved all 16 resolutions at the company's 2026 annual general meeting, ratifying the board's director slate, a final dividend, and a full suite of capital and share-issuance authorities. Roughly 70% of the company's outstanding shares were represented at the May 13 meeting, with every resolution clearing by a comfortable majority.

According to Burford's Form 8-K filing, shareholders re-elected all seven directors standing, with support ranging from 84.78% for John Sievwright to 96.90% for CEO Christopher Bogart. The board's $0.0625-per-share final dividend was approved with 96.73% support and is payable on June 12, 2026 to holders of record on May 22.

The advisory say-on-pay vote drew 72.92% backing, the lowest level of support among the governance items, while the reappointment of KPMG as auditor was nearly unanimous at 99.89%. Shareholders also authorized the board to issue ordinary shares for general corporate purposes (96.23%), conduct market repurchases (98.01%), and disapply pre-emption rights for both general share issuances (96.90%) and acquisitions (96.52%).

The vote arrives weeks after Burford's Q1 disclosures detailing a $2.4 billion YPF-related write-down and a strategic pivot toward a more diversified portfolio. Broad shareholder support for the capital framework gives management latitude to commit fresh capital, buy back stock, or finance acquisitions as it executes that repositioning.

State legislatures continued their march toward tighter regulation of third-party litigation funding this week, with separate bills advancing in Michigan and Colorado that take very different routes to constrain outside capital in litigation.

In Michigan, the state House on May 12 passed House Bill 5281, the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Harris. The bill requires registration and disclosure by funders, prohibits funder control over case decisions, bars foreign adversaries from financing Michigan lawsuits, and caps funder returns from any award. The measure is backed by the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform, a coalition of consumer advocates, small-business groups, and chamber-aligned organizations. It now moves to the Michigan Senate.

In Colorado, the legislature sent House Bill 1421 to Governor Jared Polis, who has until June 12, 2026 to sign or veto. The bill prohibits Colorado law firms from entering financial arrangements with non-attorney-owned alternative business structures, including arrangements in which out-of-state entities cover marketing or operational costs in exchange for a percentage of settlements. It cleared the Colorado House 53–11 and the Senate 33–2, supported by a coalition that included the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

Together, the two bills illustrate the dual fronts on which the U.S. litigation finance industry is now defending itself: disclosure and conduct rules in Michigan, and outright structural prohibitions on outside capital flowing to law firms in Colorado. Both reflect a coordinated state-level push by chamber and insurance trade groups, at times aligned with elements of the plaintiffs' bar, to redraw the boundaries of permissible third-party funding in U.S. civil litigation.

Burford Capital is shifting its public narrative from a single landmark case toward the breadth of its underlying portfolio after absorbing a $2.4 billion non-cash write-down tied to the YPF reversal. The firm posted a $1.6 billion first-quarter loss and saw nearly half of its market valuation wiped out in the immediate aftermath, but management has used recent disclosures to reframe the setback against the rest of the book.

As reported by Non-Billable, Burford continues to pursue legal avenues on YPF, though chief executive Chris Bogart has acknowledged that U.S. courts "rarely grant such requests," with international arbitration emerging as the more probable next step. The firm has also pointed to roughly $100 million of profit already realized from YPF through the sale of minority stakes to third-party investors.

Beyond YPF, Burford is leaning on the size and composition of its broader portfolio: more than 230 active assets that the company has previously identified as capable of generating in excess of $5 billion in future returns. Management is framing the residual book as concentrated in large-scale commercial claims handled by major law firms and specialist disputes practices, distinct from the public profile of the YPF dispute.

Burford has also signaled operational continuity, with Travis Lenkner advancing from chief development officer to chief operating officer. Taken together, the moves suggest a strategy of accepting the YPF setback as a discrete event while attempting to reanchor investor focus on the firm's underlying claim portfolio rather than headline-case asymmetry.

A new op-ed by Ike Brannon of the Jack Kemp Foundation argues that the rapid rise of "nuclear" verdicts, fueled in part by third-party litigation funding, is now translating directly into higher prices for U.S. consumers. The piece adds to the chorus of tort-reform commentary linking the growth of outside capital in litigation to broader inflationary pressures.

As reported by RealClearMarkets, Brannon points to 49 "thermonuclear" judgments exceeding $100 million in 2024, nearly double the prior year, with overall tort litigation payments topping half a trillion dollars and projected to reach $800 billion annually by 2030. The op-ed cites antitrust allegations against fire truck manufacturers Oshkosh Corp., REV Group, and Rosenbauer America, and notes that "dozens of local and state governments are suing energy companies" over fossil fuel production.

On funding specifically, Brannon highlights data showing 42 funders held $16.1 billion in U.S. commercial litigation assets under management in 2024, up from $9.5 billion in 2019, an increase of nearly 70%. He argues that the growth "creates incentives" for expansive litigation strategies aimed at maximizing settlement leverage rather than clarifying the merits of underlying claims.

The piece urges Congress to advance the Litigation Funding Transparency Act, which would require disclosure of outside funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside broader tort reforms aimed at speculative class actions. The argument lands at a moment of intensifying state and federal scrutiny of litigation funding economics and disclosure obligations.