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

A new academic study of more than 74,000 US jury verdicts and settlements has found that civil liability costs are rising faster than general inflation — and that the effect is stronger in states that do not regulate third-party litigation funding.

As reported by The Morning Call, the research was conducted by academics at Georgia State University together with Brighthouse Financial, covering verdicts and settlements nationwide from 2009 through 2024. The study attributes the bulk of the increase to rapidly growing jury awards rather than to case mix, finding that plaintiffs are winning a larger share of the cases that reach trial, that fewer cases are settling before trial, and that verdicts have climbed even after controlling for the types of claims being heard. The pattern holds across the range of case values rather than being driven solely by headline nuclear verdicts.

The op-ed, written by Curt Schroder, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, uses the findings to argue against Pennsylvania House Bill 1913, which would allow attorneys to suggest specific damages figures during closing arguments. Schroder contends that Pennsylvania currently has no consumer protections governing third-party litigation funding, and points to the study's finding of stronger social inflation in unregulated states.

He cites Philadelphia data as illustrative: the city recorded 12 verdicts of at least $10 million in 2024, more than in any year going back to at least 2017, with the median damages award reaching $192,664 — nearly twice the previous high of $100,000.

Two months after North Carolina became the first US state to ban commercial litigation funding outright, the nationwide wave of copycat prohibitions that some predicted has not arrived, according to a new industry analysis.

As reported by Carrier Management, the 22 June ban marked a turning point in what the publication describes as a decade-long contest between the third-party litigation funding sector and the commercial insurance industry. The measure was a significant win for insurers and corporate defendants. But the analysis cautions against reading it as the beginning of the end for the funding model, noting that the plaintiffs' bar is already shifting toward private equity structures to keep cases financed.

While some legal and business publications framed the North Carolina statute as the start of a nationwide domino effect, that momentum has failed to materialise. Instead, the piece finds that most states are choosing to build guardrails rather than insurmountable walls. Recent statutes have focused on mandatory transparency requirements, prohibitions on funder control over litigation strategy, and caps on investor payouts.

The scale of that regulatory activity is substantial even without outright prohibition. Citing data compiled by the US Chamber of Commerce, the analysis reports that 20 states have now enacted laws regulating the litigation funding industry, including 13 states that passed restrictions within the last two years alone. None of those states pursued a full ban.

The takeaway for funders is that the dominant legislative trend remains disclosure and conduct regulation rather than exclusion — a materially different operating environment from the one North Carolina has created.

A former Republican member of Congress is calling on the White House to use existing Treasury authority to force third-party litigation funders to identify who is behind the money they deploy in US courts.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, former Mississippi Representative Gregg Harper describes third-party litigation funding as "a quiet but corrosive practice that has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry," and argues that the practice allows undisclosed backers to shape American litigation without accountability.

Harper sets out a specific regulatory pathway rather than a legislative one. He proposes an executive order directing the Treasury Department, within 90 days, to issue a rule through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network under the Corporate Transparency Act that would treat litigation funders as entities required to report their beneficial owners, reversing earlier narrowing of that rule's scope. He further suggests Treasury and the IRS propose rules requiring funders — including lenders who underwrite litigation — to file public reports identifying the case, the parties, the underlying investors and the amounts committed. As a third step, he urges Treasury to examine designating litigation funders under the Bank Secrecy Act, which would trigger know-your-customer obligations.

The piece points to several examples he says illustrate the disclosure gap, including reporting that Reid Hoffman helped fund the E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump through a nonprofit intermediary, and philanthropic funding of attorneys embedded in state attorney general offices beginning in 2017.

Harper argues that persistent litigation delays infrastructure, data center and defense projects, and closes by framing the issue as one that "should be bipartisan."

The directors of collapsed UK car-finance claims funder Woodville were soliciting fresh investor money through a newly incorporated vehicle less than a month before the business entered administration, according to a new report that traces the final weeks of the group.

As reported by the Law Society Gazette, Woodville directors Ann Marie Bell and Peter James Legge appeared in a 17 June webinar titled "Unlock the Power of Litigation Finance," inviting investment in "Kairos Digital Loan Notes" offering a 15% return over 12 months. Woodville went into administration on 16 July. Kairos Litigation Limited had been incorporated only in February 2026, with its business described as the administration of financial markets. Bell used the session to invite investment in a €50m "fixed yield" fund tied to the FCA's motor finance redress scheme, stating that Kairos "is not dependent on the outcome of claims to make monthly interest payments." The FCA strongly discourages the use of solicitors or claims management companies in that redress process.

Bell and Legge are also directors of litigation funder Horizon Legal Group, which shares a Pontypridd address with Woodville and had administrators appointed on 2 July following High Court proceedings. The webinar was hosted by Luxembourg-based Black Manta Capital Partners, whose chief executive Alexander Rapatz warned of "significant risks."

Insolvency specialist Paul Muscutt of Crowell & Moring, acting on the Woodville administration, described the consumer litigation funding market as "fundamentally flawed," adding: "I'm a big fan of litigation funding — when done properly." He argued that a law firm's share of settlements worth a few hundred pounds cannot cover finance costs, and called on the SRA to step up scrutiny.

An investigation into the funding dispute behind South Africa's long-running "Please Call Me" litigation has detailed a series of adverse findings against the insolvency practitioner who has controlled one of the entities claiming a share of the payout.

As reported by ITWeb, Raining Men — the company that in 2015 pursued a 40% share of any winnings from Nkosana Makate's claim against Vodacom — has been in business rescue since January 2019 and remains there. Thomas Samons, appointed its business rescue practitioner on January 21, 2019, has been criticized in three separate forums.

Arbitrator Andrew Mabena, who ruled in 2020 that Raining Men held no claim to a share of Makate's winnings, levied punitive costs and described as "shocking" the reliance Samons and two funders placed on what he found to be a fraudulent transfer of rights from Black Rock to Raining Men, saying they had "perpetuated" a "disregard for ethical and responsible litigation."

Separately, Pretoria High Court Judge Harshila Kooverjie removed Samons as business rescue practitioner of three North West state-owned entities for incompetence, and a December 2025 judgment dismissed his attempt to overturn that decision. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission suspended his licence in February 2025, though he successfully challenged the suspension and remains licensed.

The funding chain traces to 2011, when Chris Schoeman — a disbarred advocate — signed the first funding deal with Makate. Black Rock was confirmed as the named funding party in 2013. Errol Elsdon, a Raining Men director, is now suing Makate for a share of his undisclosed Vodacom settlement on the basis of funding provided. Samons did not respond to ITWeb's requests for comment.

Consumer legal funding company Legal-Bay has reported that Pfizer Inc. and plaintiffs' leadership have entered into a settlement program intended to resolve a substantial share of the federal lawsuits alleging that the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera caused intracranial meningiomas.

As reported by Legal Bay, a case management order issued August 10, 2026 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida recorded that the parties had entered into a settlement memorialized in an agreement dated July 22, 2026. The multidistrict litigation had 6,289 cases pending at the time of the order.

Terms are confidential and no aggregate value has been publicly confirmed. Legal-Bay estimates that roughly 5,000 claims may resolve for more than $1.2 billion, averaging about $250,000 per claimant, with awards for the most severely injured potentially approaching $1 million. Those figures are the funder's own projections rather than court-confirmed numbers. Pfizer has not admitted fault or liability.

Legal-Bay said the registration deadline for the program is November 30, 2026, and that it is offering non-recourse advances to claimants, repayable only if a case succeeds, with funding available within 24 hours for pre-approved brain tumor cases.

"This settlement program is an important development for claimants who have faced medical, emotional and financial uncertainty," said Chris Janish, chief executive of Legal-Bay.

A settlement structure of this scale creates a defined repayment horizon for consumer funders holding advances against Depo-Provera claims, though the confidentiality of tier amounts and eligibility criteria leaves individual case values unresolved until the claims review process begins.

Frankfurt-listed jewelry retailer elumeo SE has disclosed that its wholly owned subsidiary Juwelo Deutschland GmbH has entered into an agreement with a litigation funder and filed a damages claim against companies within the Vodafone Group.

According to an ad-hoc regulatory disclosure published on August 3, 2026, the funding agreement covers the expected costs of a damages claim against Vodafone Group companies which, in Juwelo Deutschland's view, "have charged excessive feed-in fees over the past fourteen years."

The action is brought by four plaintiffs, one of which is Juwelo Deutschland, against two companies within the Vodafone Group. The disclosure puts the damages sought at a low three-digit million euro figure. Feed-in fees are the charges broadcasters pay network operators to carry their channels; Juwelo operates a jewelry shopping channel distributed across Vodafone's German networks.

elumeo did not name the funder, nor did it disclose the economics of the arrangement, including the funder's return or its share of any proceeds. The company also did not identify the court in which the claim was filed.

Disclosures of this kind are mandatory filings under Article 17 of EU Regulation 596/2014, which requires listed issuers to publish inside information as soon as possible. That elumeo treated both the funding agreement and the filing as price-sensitive suggests the potential recovery is material relative to the company's size, and it offers a rare instance of a listed European issuer confirming on the record that a third-party funder is bearing the cost of its litigation.

A claims-acquisition firm has sued an electric vehicle charging company in Texas federal court over a warrant it purchased out of a Chapter 7 estate, seeking specific performance or damages exceeding $20 million.

According to a press release issued by Angel Deal Syndicate, the firm has filed against TECSO Charge Zone Limited, a Vadodara, Gujarat-based EV charging business, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, as Case No. 1:26-cv-02071.

The instrument at the center of the dispute is the Accelerator Charge Zone Warrant, dated December 16, 2021, which Charge Zone issued to the startup accelerator Newchip. Angel Deal Syndicate says it acquired the warrant, and all rights Newchip held in it, from Newchip's Chapter 7 trustee at a court-approved auction in April 2024 in *In re Astra Labs, Inc.*, No. 23-10164-smr, before Judge Shad Robinson.

The firm alleges the warrant granted investment rights in qualified financing rounds together with access to financial records and notices of capital raises, and that those rights were not honored. It contends that non-compliance extended the enforcement period beyond the original two-year term, leaving the warrant exercisable through December 16, 2031. The complaint seeks specific performance or, alternatively, damages above $20 million, and adds counts for fraudulent concealment and a declaratory judgment confirming the warrant remains valid.

"This legal action underscores our commitment to fighting for small investor rights and ensuring transparency in financial dealings," said Val Kleyman, a spokesperson for Angel Deal Syndicate.

The account above is drawn from the plaintiff's own announcement, and the allegations are Angel Deal Syndicate's characterization of the dispute. TECSO Charge Zone has not publicly responded.