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

Two Yale researchers are calling on the Delaware Court of Chancery to require parties to identify any outside litigation funder backing their claims, arguing that Delaware-incorporated companies can currently be sued in the state's marquee business court without ever learning who is financing the case against them.

As reported by Fortune, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian write that no federal statute or rule compels disclosure of even the existence of a litigation funder. They point to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as a counterexample: in April 2022, Chief Judge Colm Connolly issued a standing order requiring parties to disclose any funder and to state whether that funder controls litigation or settlement decisions. Because the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland makes Delaware the default patent venue for companies incorporated there, that order reaches a substantial share of the state's docket. The Court of Chancery has not followed suit.

The authors propose that every party before Chancery be required at the outset of a case to name any outside funder, identify it, and state whether it holds control over litigation strategy or settlement. They cite market growth as the reason for urgency, noting that global litigation finance reached $20.6bn in 2025 and is forecast to more than double over the next decade, with U.S. commercial funders holding roughly $16bn in assets under management at the end of 2024. They also reference a December 2024 Government Accountability Office report in which stakeholders flagged funding sourced from China, Saudi Arabia and France, and note that four senators introduced legislation in February requiring funder disclosure in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation.

Funders have consistently countered that third-party capital expands court access for claimants who could not otherwise afford to litigate.

Kindleworth, the UK legal consultancy backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, has opened an office in New York and appointed two senior figures to lead its expansion into the United States market.

As reported by Non-Billable, the firm has hired Maryana Kodner as Partner and Head of US Operations. Kodner is a former Clifford Chance litigator who has spent more than 20 years in senior operational roles at boutique New York law firms. Joining her as Strategic Advisor is Anand David, who previously oversaw the recruitment and integration of more than 300 partners and partner-led teams at Hogan Lovells, White & Case and Morrison Foerster.

Kindleworth provides infrastructure and support to lawyer-led firm launches, covering financing, strategy, recruitment, technology and operations. The business now has 60 professionals and has supported the launch of more than 50 law firms and offices globally, including the US launches of Three Crowns in Washington, DC and Pallas Partners in New York.

Burford Capital took a strategic minority investment in Kindleworth in 2025, backing the consultancy's international expansion. The New York opening marks the first substantial deployment of that capital in the US market.

Chief executive James Hacking said the firm has had "a front-row seat to one of the most significant shifts in the legal industry, as leading partners choose to build focused, entrepreneurial firms rather than remain within traditional structures."

The move reflects a broader pattern of litigation funders extending their capital beyond individual case investments and into the infrastructure of the legal services market itself.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has rejected Amazon's attempt to carve roughly 1,000 of its largest marketplace sellers out of an opt-out collective action and require them to opt in, leaving the full merchant class to proceed on an opt-out basis.

As reported by Law News, Amazon applied under rule 85(1) of the CAT Rules 2015 to vary the collective proceedings order so that merchants with more than £10 million in Gross Merchandise Sales would be excluded from the opt-out class. Although those merchants represent only about 1,000 of approximately 214,000 class members, they account for just over 40% of total marketplace sales. The Tribunal declined to create the resulting hybrid opt-out and opt-in structure in its judgment, cited as [2026] CAT 84.

Funding arrangements featured directly in the Tribunal's reasoning. The judgment noted that the litigation funding agreement and the after-the-event insurance policy backing the claim covered only opt-out proceedings, a point that bore on the practicality of Amazon's proposed restructuring.

The claim is brought by class representative Professor Andreas Stephan and is valued at approximately £2.7 billion. The collective proceedings order was made in November 2025. Kieron Beal KC and Christopher Monaghan of Geradin Partners act for the class representative, while Daniel Piccinin KC and Kristina Lukacova of Covington & Burling LLP act for Amazon.

The first trial is scheduled to begin on 25 April 2028 and run for approximately eight weeks, addressing market definition, dominance and abuse. A second trial will deal with causation, quantum and pass-on.

Litigation Capital Management has confirmed that the funded party in one of its commercial litigation investments has been refused permission to appeal, bringing the matter to a close and forcing the funder to write off the full carrying value of the position.

As reported by Investegate, the company disclosed in a regulatory announcement on 9 November 2026 that the investment had been carried at £5.0 million (A$9.5 million) as at 30 June 2026. With the appeal route now exhausted, that value will be written off in full, crystallising an impairment that reduces the funder's assets and is expected to weigh on both profit and net asset value.

The disclosure follows a difficult period for the Australian-headquartered funder. In July 2026, LCM reported that permission to appeal had been refused in a separate competition claim, resulting in a smaller write-off of £0.8 million (A$1.5 million). The company's full-year results for FY26 recorded a net realised loss of A$63.9 million, reversing a A$22.2 million gain in the prior year, alongside a negative fair value movement of A$54.1 million.

LCM has also been operating under financial constraints tied to its borrowing arrangements, having secured an extension of a covenant waiver from lender Northleaf Capital Partners to 13 November 2026. The funder announced a strategic review in July 2026 and is scheduled to hold its annual general meeting in Sydney on 30 November 2026.

The announcement illustrates the binary nature of litigation finance returns, where an adverse judgment and a subsequent refusal of appeal permission can eliminate an entire position's carrying value in a single step.

Debates over Consumer Legal Funding tend to focus on the financial relationship between the consumer and the funding company, but one key participant is often overlooked: the consumer's own attorney.

As reported by The National Law Review, Eric K. Schuller of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) argues that attorney involvement is one of the strongest consumer protections in the marketplace. Because the product is tied to a pending claim, the consumer is always represented by counsel before a funder ever sees the file. Maine and Nebraska define an eligible consumer as one represented by an attorney, Missouri permits contracts only where the consumer is represented, and Kansas limits the product to plaintiffs in a pending civil action.

Of the thirteen state laws reviewed, nine require the consumer's attorney to sign an acknowledgment in the funding contract, and two more require the consumer to certify that counsel was involved. In most of those states, a contract without the acknowledgment is void. The attorney typically confirms that disclosures were reviewed with the client, that the attorney is retained on contingency, that proceeds will flow through a trust account or settlement fund, and that the attorney has received no referral fee or other consideration from the funder.

Schuller contrasts this with payday loans, credit cards, auto title loans and even mortgages, none of which require the borrower's lawyer to attest to anything. He also highlights disclosure rules, including cumulative-amount disclosures in six states and ten-business-day rescission windows in Kansas, New York, Ohio, Missouri and Utah.

As more states weigh legislation, Schuller presents the attestation model as a proven blueprint that addresses the transaction's real structure while preserving the consumer's right to decide.

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argues that the United Kingdom's collective action and costs rules are steering claims against large technology companies away from British courts, leaving affected workers and consumers to seek redress abroad.

As reported by IPPR, the think tank points to proceedings brought in the Dutch courts by Stichting Worker Info Exchange International against Uber on behalf of affected drivers, including British drivers. The case challenges Uber's alleged use of personal data to determine drivers' pay, following earlier research findings that its algorithmic pay system has made earnings less predictable and widened pay inequality.

The report draws a direct contrast between the two jurisdictions. Dutch law allows non-profit organisations to bring collective cases on behalf of affected people with limited risk of legal costs, while UK rules make equivalent legal action much harder and carry the risk of massive legal costs.

IPPR's recommendations go to the heart of the funding question. The report calls for allowing charities and NGOs to bring public interest cases against technology companies without requiring individual authorisation, introducing opt-out collective legal action across areas including workers' rights, and capping potentially crippling legal costs while reforming litigation funding rules.

The report, authored by independent legal strategy and technology policy consultant Swee Leng Harris, is supported by former attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, Labour MP Jess Asato, and the App Drivers and Couriers Union. Driver and union member Abdurzak Hadi said that taking on a company like Uber in court "costs huge amounts of money, far more than most drivers I know can afford."

Tata Power has escalated its long-running dispute with Kleros Capital Partners from the courtroom to the police station, with Mumbai Police registering a First Information Report against eight accused parties over an alleged fraud valued at ₹4,800 crore.

As reported by the Free Press Journal, the complaint names Kleros Capital Partners and two former Tata Power employees among the accused, alleging data leakage and criminal conspiracy in connection with a Russian coal mine transaction and the Singapore arbitration that followed.

Tata Power claims that confidential information shared with Kleros under non-disclosure agreements signed in 2013 and 2014 was later used against it in arbitration. It alleges direct losses of roughly $8 million and says a valuation report was prepared without a site visit before being relied upon in the proceedings. None of the allegations has been established in any court.

Kleros commenced SIAC arbitration in November 2020. The tribunal, chaired by Professor Lawrence Boo and including Stuart Isaacs KC and Amal K. Ganguli, issued a liability award in September 2023 and a damages award on 1 July 2025, with the majority ordering payment of $490.32 million plus simple interest at 5.33% per annum.

On 26 August 2026 the Singapore International Commercial Court rejected all three of Tata Power's set-aside applications, finding no breach of natural justice or apparent bias. The Court also held that Omni Bridgeway's involvement in unrelated proceedings involving the arbitrators did not establish apparent bias. Tata Power shares fell 3.89% following the ruling.

Australia's Federal Court has approved a $12 million funding commission to Court House Capital out of a $29.6 million class action settlement, rejecting the suggestion that hindsight should be used to shrink a funder's reward.

As reported by Australasian Lawyer, Justice Lee handed down Top Ryde Financial Services Pty Ltd v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Settlement Approval) [2026] FCA 1652 on 30 October 2026, approving roughly $16.6 million in total deductions comprising $4 million in legal costs and the $12 million commission.

The proceeding was brought by 15 former franchisees of RAMS, Westpac's former home-lending business, who alleged wrongful termination and the withholding of 25% of trail commissions after termination. The settlement deed required payment of $29,624,397.67, made up of withheld trail commission with interest plus an additional sum of approximately $20.8 million. RAMS also agreed to stop withholding part of future trail commission and to offer buy-outs of future trailer income. There was no admission of liability.

The Court acknowledged the commission exceeded the average percentage seen in some recent approvals, but noted that alternative formulas in the funding agreements would have produced either $8.58 million or $16 million. All but one franchisee had signed a funding agreement, and no group member objected. Justice Lee remarked that "a headline percentage may conceal more than it reveals," though he did limit the reach of the settlement deed.

For context, the 7-Eleven franchisee class action settled for $98 million in 2021, inclusive of a $24.5 million funder commission.

Rightmove has challenged the litigation funding agreement underpinning a £1.6 billion collective action against it, arguing that funder Innsworth Advisors holds an excessive degree of control over the proceedings.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the property portal told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the agreement is structured to secure the funder a potentially inappropriate return, with Innsworth reportedly in line for around £100 million.

The claim is brought by former Competition and Markets Authority panel member Jeremy Newman on behalf of roughly 7,200 class members, largely estate agents, letting agents and new-homes developers who paid listing fees between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026. The underlying allegation is abuse of dominance through excessive and unfair fees. The claim is funded by Innsworth Capital, the UK litigation funding arm of Elliott Management, with Scott+Scott UK LLP acting as counsel and Kairos Economics providing economic analysis.

The certification dispute centers on whether the action should proceed on an opt-out or opt-in basis. Rightmove argues that allowing opt-out here would raise questions about when opt-in could ever be appropriate. The proposed class representative counters that forcing an opt-in process is designed to shrink damages or exhaust the budget so that the litigation will "run into the sand," citing complexity, modest individual recoveries and fear of retaliation from a must-have commercial partner as deterrents to signing up.

The Tribunal rejected comparable opt-in arguments earlier in 2026 in Stasi v Microsoft, Ennis v Apple and Brook v Google. Rightmove has said it will defend the claim vigorously.