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

Delaware's Superior Court has adopted a civil rule that allows parties to seek narrow discovery about third-party litigation funding arrangements, while keeping the funding agreements themselves out of reach.

As reported by Reed Smith, new Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b)(3), titled "Litigation-funding agreements," took effect on 30 September 2026 and applies to civil matters before the court. The rule defines a covered arrangement as one between a party and a counterparty other than that party's attorney, in which the counterparty agrees to pay litigation expenses and holds both a contractual right to repayment contingent on the outcome and a contractual right to control aspects of the litigation.

Where the definition is met, opposing parties may obtain discovery in four areas: whether such an agreement exists, the identity of the counterparty, how the arrangement satisfies the definition, and the extent of any control or settlement-approval rights. The rule expressly bars discovery of the agreement itself, of information a party supplied to the funder, and of attorney work product. Control provisions may be ordered produced only for cause, and funding agreements remain inadmissible at trial.

The rule follows recommendations issued in 2023 by a Delaware Supreme Court committee, which was set up after the state legislature encouraged a study of transparency in third-party litigation funding. Reed Smith partners Brian M. Rostocki and Nicholas R. Rodriguez wrote the analysis.

Delaware's federal court has drawn attention for its funder-disclosure standing order; the Superior Court rule now extends a narrower, codified version of that inquiry into the state's civil docket.

Omni Bridgeway has reached the full US$1 billion target for the second series of its flagship funds, the ASX-listed funder announced on Wednesday, taking the group's assets under management to A$5.9 billion.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the close marks the second time Omni Bridgeway has raised US$1 billion for a single vehicle, following the first such fund in 2019. The company said 99% of investors in the prior series reinvested, with repeat backers accounting for more than half of the new capital and the average commitment running above US$100 million. More than US$300 million has already been deployed into investments.

The structure is equity-funded rather than debt-financed, and Omni Bridgeway itself is taking roughly a 20% general partner co-investment alongside outside institutions. Chief executive Raymond van Hulst told Bloomberg Law that the sector's failures have tended to involve managers funded with borrowings, noting that Omni Bridgeway carries no debt and therefore faces no mismatch between the duration of its liabilities and the long tail of its cases.

The raise lands against a mixed backdrop for listed funders. Omni Bridgeway recorded A$712 million in new commitments in its 2026 financial year and reports 822 completed investments through 30 June 2026 at a portfolio-wide 2.4x multiple on invested capital, with past results including the A$475 million Robodebt settlement and a A$440 million Brisbane floods class action resolution. Ares Management acquired a stake in the funder's investment portfolio in December 2024.

The fund will back single cases and portfolios across intellectual property, antitrust, group claims and arbitration in multiple jurisdictions.

TeddyHoldings.AI, a legal services platform incubated by holding company Tucker's Farm Corporation, has raised $60 million in seed funding and passed $25 million in revenue, adding to the outside capital now moving into law firm aggregation.

According to a press release from Teddy AI, the company describes itself as a compliance- and client-focused, partner-oriented legal services vehicle. It is keeping its specific focus, leadership and cap table confidential for now. The round drew roughly $115 million in equity interest over three weeks of fundraising calls before closing at $60 million, with traditional limited partners, including an endowment manager, among the backers.

Kyle Tucker, founder of Tucker's Farm's private equity arm and formerly of Apollo and Viking, was candid about the limits of the legal rollup thesis. "We think most law firms are tough businesses - key man risk, project-based revenue, a ton of AI risk," he said. He added that the firm is also skeptical of personal injury rollups outside "the top brands/machines," citing concerns over long-term returns on capital and the sustainability of cash flow.

Tucker said Teddy "is not an AI company," and that technology will be used only to the extent it serves clients. The company will revisit the size of a Series A round depending on its reinvestment needs.

Tucker's Farm, which began as a goat dairy in 1994, aims to acquire $100 million to $200 million of long-term assets each year through acquisitions and reinvestment in the lower-middle market.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has added its voice to the trucking industry's campaign for mandatory disclosure of third-party litigation funding, arguing that defendants in nuclear verdict cases should be told who is financing the claims against them.

As reported by Land Line, OOIDA wants outside funding of lawsuits disclosed as a matter of course rather than contested case by case. The association's position puts owner-operators and small fleets alongside the larger carriers that have driven the disclosure debate to date, and reframes it as a concern for the smallest operators rather than only for well-capitalised defendants.

The piece, written by Keith Goble, is pegged to Ohio's new funding law, which takes effect on 6 October. The statute requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements and bars funding from foreign governments, foreign corporations and foreign investors outright. State Representative Meredith Craig, a Smithville Republican, said that "for too long, foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens."

Michigan is moving on a broader measure. House Bill 5281 would require disclosure of funding agreements, establish a registration regime for funders operating in the state, prohibit commissions, referral fees and other payments between funders and attorneys or healthcare providers, and bar foreign entities from financing Michigan litigation. State Representative Mike Harris, a Waterford Republican, described the current arrangements as "shadow cash" moving through the civil justice system.

The article does not put a figure on how much outside capital is financing trucking claims, which remains the central gap in the industry's argument for disclosure.

Claimants in the long-running rugby brain injury litigation have been left with a £2.8 million costs bill payable to the defendants by the end of October, with no clarity yet on who will actually pay it.

As reported by NR Times, Senior Master Cook attributed the delays that generated the costs to what he described as the "contradictory and misguided approach" taken by Rylands Garth, the firm that originally ran the group action. KP Law has since taken over the claimants' case and must meet outstanding disclosure obligations by 31 October.

The litigation is funded in full by Asertis, which has financed the entire action over six years, including the neurological testing required to establish each claimant's condition. The report notes that it remains unclear whether the £2.8 million falls to the funder, the former firm, or the claimants themselves, a question with direct consequences for a claimant group that includes seven rugby union players who have died since the action began.

Hundreds of claimants have already been struck off the group register as the case has progressed, and Paul Downes KC has warned of the consequences of further procedural failures. The costs order is the latest in a sequence of adverse developments for the action, which was presented as a landmark test of governing bodies' duty of care in contact sport.

For funders, the case illustrates how a cost liability generated by the conduct of a law firm rather than the merits of the underlying claims can land on a funded book, and how little clarity English procedure offers about where that liability ultimately sits.

Krasha Financial Services has announced plans to launch a dedicated litigation finance platform aimed at the Indian market, with first deployments targeted for the fourth quarter of the 2026-27 financial year.

As reported by India CSR, the platform will fund commercial litigation, arbitration, insolvency claims and award enforcement. Krasha has set a minimum claim size of US$10 million and will cap funded matters at a five-year expected duration, a structure designed to filter out the long-tail cases that have historically made Indian litigation difficult to underwrite. The company said it is in advanced discussions with a UK-based legal finance firm about a strategic partnership, which would give it access to established underwriting practice in a more mature market.

Krasha's chief financial officer, Avdhesh Singh, framed the opportunity around the scale of unresolved Indian litigation, citing more than 50 million pending cases across the court system. The company pointed to global litigation finance market estimates of roughly US$29 billion in 2026, rising to about US$43 billion by 2031, and referenced Burford Capital's reported 26% internal rate of return as a benchmark for the asset class.

The litigation finance platform will sit separately from Krasha's existing neo-financing business, which has a deployment target of ₹1,200 crore for FY2026-27. The group also runs Prism Strategy, a Category II alternative investment fund of roughly US$60 million to US$70 million. Krasha was founded in November 2023.

India has no dedicated statutory framework for third-party funding, and the launch will test how far a domestic funder can build an underwriting model without one.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has told the proposed class representative in a £6.3bn claim against Amazon that the terms it agreed with its litigation funder are constraining its ability to act in the interests of the class, and signalled that certification will be difficult unless those terms are changed.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the Tribunal warned that the funding agreement held by the Association of Consumer Support Organisations is "tying its hands," and indicated that the application faces an uphill battle at certification unless ACSO amends terms it has already agreed with its funder. The hearing took place before the Tribunal on 5 October.

ACSO, a trade body that represents 86 claimant law firms, applied in August 2025 for a collective proceedings order on an opt-out basis on behalf of more than 45 million UK consumers who purchased goods from third-party sellers on Amazon's marketplace. The claim period runs for six years to 14 August 2025. ACSO has instructed Stephenson Harwood, with Ben Lask KC and Luke Kelly of Monckton Chambers as counsel and Brattle Group providing economic analysis. ACSO has described its backer as a reputable member of the Association of Litigation Funders but has not named it publicly.

Amazon has urged the Tribunal to reject the claim, arguing that it duplicates existing proceedings and that it would generate outsized returns for the lawyers and funders involved. The Tribunal's concern about the funding terms adds a second obstacle alongside that duplication argument, and places the economics of the funding arrangement at the centre of whether a 45 million-member class is certified at all.

Deminor's newest Dutch hire has said many sound business-to-business disputes in the Netherlands go unpursued because of cost, risk or resource constraints, pointing to an opening for litigation funders.

As reported by Litigation Finance Insider, Wouter de Jong discussed his move into funding in an interview published on 4 October. De Jong joined Deminor as Senior Legal Counsel in its Utrecht office after more than 14 years in disputes, including eight as a patent litigator in private practice and six as Head of Litigation at a major international company, as Deminor announced in September.

He said litigation funding is less unfamiliar to Dutch companies than it was 15 years ago but remains poorly understood. Two misconceptions recur with clients: the non-recourse "no cure, no pay" structure, and the extent to which Deminor offers litigation expertise beyond capital. He credited the Netherlands' legal system, efficient proceedings and strong judiciary for producing meaningful outcomes within reasonable timeframes.

De Jong also highlighted intellectual property. The Unified Patent Court, he said, lets patentees resolve disputes across larger territories in a single forum, and he has seen rising local inquiries about patent funding. Patent cases demand deeper underwriting of the technology and the scope of protection, making them slower to assess than typical commercial disputes.

The interview signals where Deminor expects growth from its Dutch presence, which opened in June as its tenth office worldwide: single-claim commercial and IP disputes, rather than the collective actions for which the Dutch market is better known.