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

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.

The Financial Conduct Authority has turned on a consumer campaign group in the escalating fight over Britain's £9.1 billion motor-finance redress scheme, questioning how the organization is funded and its ties to the law firm representing it.

As reported by The Guardian, the regulator has urged judges to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Consumer Voice, arguing the group failed to give "a full and frank explanation" of its own interest and that of its solicitors, Courmacs Legal. In court filings, the FCA suggested Consumer Voice had not been honest about its business model or its relationship with Courmacs, and had not disclosed details of its funding arrangements.

Consumer Voice contends the FCA's compensation scheme will low-ball victims of mis-sold car loans, who face an average payout of roughly £829 per agreement — higher than the £695 the regulator floated in its earlier consultation, but still, the group argues, well short of fair value. Lenders including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander, and the finance arms of Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz are on the hook for the £9.1 billion the FCA expects the scheme to cost.

The clash places the funding and structure of claims-side campaign groups squarely in the regulator's sights, echoing a wider debate over transparency in third-party-backed consumer litigation. With millions of drivers due payouts this year, the dispute over who speaks for claimants — and who pays for that advocacy — is likely to intensify.

Australia's Treasury has brushed aside warnings from former corporate regulator chair Joe Longo that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is running short of the money it needs to fund major enforcement litigation, insisting the watchdog is adequately resourced.

As reported by Capital Brief, Treasury said there were no funding concerns around ASIC, despite Longo's plea in May for an urgent top-up at the close of what he described as the regulator's most successful year in court. Longo had warned a parliamentary committee that ASIC's Enforcement Special Account — the reserve built to absorb the costs of large, complex cases — was on track to fall to its minimum viable level by 30 June 2026.

"Absent replenishment, this will impede ASIC's ability to maintain its current enforcement program," Longo cautioned, adding that without additional funding the regulator might have to scale back or defer cases that would otherwise proceed. The account is designed to let ASIC pursue resource-intensive matters against well-funded corporate defendants without straining its operating budget.

The exchange spotlights a tension increasingly familiar to litigation-finance observers: even a public enforcement agency depends on a dedicated pool of case capital to sustain high-stakes litigation, and the adequacy of that pool shapes which matters get pursued. Treasury's rejection of Longo's alarm leaves unresolved how ASIC will bankroll its most ambitious cases as the special account approaches the floor he flagged.

The decision by cab aggregator Meru to abandon its long-running competition appeal against Ola and Uber has become an unlikely rallying point for advocates of third-party litigation funding in India, illustrating how the absence of outside capital can force even well-founded claims to be dropped.

As reported by Moneycontrol, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal permitted Meru Travel Solutions to withdraw its appeal challenging a 2018 Competition Commission of India order that had closed its antitrust complaint at the preliminary stage. The tribunal noted that Meru's operations and revenues had deteriorated to the point that continuing the litigation was no longer viable.

The commentary argues that Meru's exit is less a verdict on the merits than a reflection of a financing gap. Had third-party funding been readily available, the analysis contends, a cash-strapped litigant might have pressed on rather than surrender a claim it could no longer afford to pursue.

India permits third-party funding — no statute expressly prohibits it, and agreements are governed largely by the Indian Contract Act and Bar Council conduct rules — but the market remains thinly developed and lightly regulated. As commercial courts gain stronger procedural powers under 2026 reforms and high-value technology, energy, and infrastructure disputes proliferate, general counsel and chief financial officers are increasingly weighing outside capital as a strategic tool. Meru's withdrawal, the piece suggests, is a case study in the cost of leaving that tool underused.

The administrators winding down collapsed UK firm SSB Law have launched a £19.5 million claim against the after-the-event insurers tied to the firm's cavity wall insulation cases, in a dispute that underscores the financial fragility of high-volume consumer claims books.

As reported by Law360, the administrators are seeking to recover roughly £19.5 million (about $26 million) in insurance premiums that SSB Law paid for cover attached to clients' cavity wall defect claims. After-the-event insurance is designed to protect claimants against adverse costs if their cases fail, and it sits at the center of the funding model that supported SSB's mass consumer litigation.

SSB Law collapsed into administration after its cavity wall book unraveled, leaving clients exposed to costs and drawing scrutiny from regulators. The firm's failure has become a touchstone in the broader UK debate over how third-party funding and ATE arrangements should be governed — the same collapse the Solicitors Regulation Authority cited this week as it consulted on tighter rules for firms that rely on outside litigation finance.

The proceedings name the firm's ATE insurers, with Hailsham Chambers and Hugh James among the parties connected to the matter, though specific insurer identities were not disclosed in the filing. The claim represents one of the largest attempts yet to claw back value from a failed consumer-claims operation, and its outcome could influence how insurers price and structure ATE cover for future mass-claim portfolios.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has opened a consultation on sweeping new requirements for law firms that rely on third-party litigation funding to pursue consumer claims, citing risks to firm stability exposed by a string of high-profile collapses.

As reported by Legal Futures, the proposals would require firms to notify the regulator when they use or arrange outside funding and to maintain strict independence from their funders while acting in clients' best interests. Firms would have to give clients a prescribed "funding information document" spelling out alternatives, fees, funder returns, and the damages at stake, and to complete funding risk assessments every six months, signed off by a managing partner or compliance officer.

Those assessments would probe a funder's financial position, capital adequacy, liquidity, and sector experience. Large-scale users — firms with 500 or more claimants or drawing at least 30% of annual turnover from a single funder — would additionally be required to prepare orderly business closure plans. Personal injury, clinical negligence, Competition Appeal Tribunal collective actions, and defense work would be excluded.

The SRA pointed to third-party funding's role in the failures of SSB Law and Pure Legal, estimating that some 11 million clients could be affected by firms using such arrangements, even though only a small share of firms do. "We have seen clear evidence that third-party litigation funding can create risks to firm stability and lead to poor outcomes for consumers," said Aileen Armstrong, the SRA's executive director of strategy and policy.

Uber has quietly rewritten its rider and driver agreements to require anyone who sues the company to disclose whether their case is backed by third-party litigation funding — a novel contractual maneuver that could reshape how funded claims against large corporations proceed.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the updated terms compel plaintiffs to identify any litigation funder supporting their lawsuit and to hand Uber copies of the underlying funding agreements. The requirements extend to appointed arbitrators, and signatories effectively waive attorney-client privilege and confidentiality protections for documents shared with their funders.

Uber frames the change as part of a broader corporate campaign against litigation finance. The company, alongside more than 50 others, has lobbied Congress and state legislatures to restrict or ban the practice, arguing that outside capital fuels abusive litigation. Uber also helps fund tort-reform advocacy groups that oppose third-party funding.

Legal experts warned the language could deter funders from backing cases against the company at all. Georgetown law professor Maria Glover said "no rational funder is going to inject themselves into a case where they have to disclose basically their due diligence," calling the provisions "pretty egregious" given that many underlying claims involve wage theft and sexual assault allegations. Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney who represents Uber drivers, described the move as "an attempt to slow down claims being filed and actually adjudicated."

The shift arrives as Uber faces thousands of passenger sexual-assault claims, including a recent federal bellwether loss carrying an $8.5 million verdict.

A new market analysis argues that the most consequential shift in legal funding has little to do with litigation itself and everything to do with capital efficiency. Corporations that once treated major disputes as an unavoidable drain on working capital are increasingly evaluating claims the way they assess any other asset.

According to a report highlighted by openPR, published by HTF Market Insights, legal departments now weigh disputes by expected return, duration risk, probability-adjusted value, and portfolio diversification. Rather than asking whether litigation should be financed, the report contends, sophisticated organizations are asking which disputes deserve capital and which should be transferred to specialized funding partners.

The analysis attributes the trend to greater institutional participation, more rigorous underwriting, and growing executive acceptance that legal claims carry measurable economic value. As procedural complexity and extended case timelines persist, it characterizes third-party capital as evolving from an alternative financing option into a strategic balance-sheet instrument, producing structural rather than cyclical growth.

The report segments the market by type — commercial, personal injury, intellectual property, class action, and international — and by application across law firms, corporates, and small and mid-sized enterprises. Among the players it identifies are Burford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, Harbour Litigation Funding, Augusta Ventures, Longford Capital, Woodsford, Parabellum Capital, and Validity Finance. Single-case funding, it notes, remains the most recognizable segment, resembling private equity underwriting more than traditional lending.

High Rise Financial, a national consumer legal funding company, has extended its pre-settlement funding operations into Nevada, offering non-recourse advances to plaintiffs across Las Vegas, Henderson, Reno, North Las Vegas, and Sparks. The move continues a state-by-state expansion that recently reached Illinois.

According to a press release published via Newswire, the company provides cash advances to individuals awaiting settlement in personal injury, motor vehicle accident, slip-and-fall, premises liability, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product liability, and mass tort matters. Because the funding is structured as non-recourse, plaintiffs repay only if their case results in a recovery.

"Nevada represents an important growth opportunity and an important opportunity to serve plaintiffs who may be struggling financially while their cases move through the legal system," said co-founder Mark Berookim. The advances are designed to help claimants cover medical expenses, lost wages, and household bills during litigation delays, easing the financial pressure that can push injured parties toward premature settlements.

High Rise Financial works with attorneys nationwide and emphasizes transparent terms, streamlined reviews, and direct collaboration with counsel. Consumer legal funding of this kind continues to draw regulatory attention across several states, with lawmakers weighing disclosure and rate-cap requirements even as demand from plaintiffs grows. The Nevada launch adds another jurisdiction to a consumer-facing segment of the litigation finance market that operates alongside, but distinct from, the commercial funding used by corporations and law firms.