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

Third-party funding agreements are not automatically void in the Philippines despite the country's long-standing hostility to champerty, according to a new analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning in *RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corp v Ross*.

As reported by Asia Business Law Journal, Anthony Jacoba, Jermiss Mishania Muarip and Rex Emmanuel Apad of Manila firm Ocampo & Suralvo write that the Court's November 2023 decision stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition. Instead, a funding arrangement falls foul of Article 1409 of the Civil Code only where its terms are grossly disadvantageous to the funded party, leaving the enforceability of each agreement to turn on its specific commercial terms rather than on the existence of funding itself.

The authors note that the champerty doctrine in the Philippines developed principally as a constraint on lawyers, who are barred from acquiring an interest in the subject matter of litigation they handle. A funder that is not counsel sits outside that prohibition, which the authors argue creates space for institutional capital to support arbitration claims.

Disclosure is already part of the local framework. The 2021 Arbitration Rules of the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center require parties to disclose pre-existing funding arrangements, aligning Philippine practice with the transparency expectations now common across major arbitral institutions. The authors suggest the combination of a narrow champerty rule and a disclosure obligation gives funders a workable, if still untested, route into Philippine-seated disputes.

German claims vehicle Financialright Claims GmbH has asked a Delaware federal judge to revive its lawsuit against a Burford Capital affiliate over an allegedly fraudulently induced arbitration agreement, arguing that an arbitral tribunal has now confirmed the court's authority to decide the dispute.

As reported by Law360, Financialright urged the court to reopen the case on the basis that the tribunal has resolved the threshold question that led to the action being stayed. The motion follows a partial final award dated 26 September 2026 in LCIA Case No. 246335, which the parties received on 2 October, as disclosed in a supplemental brief Financialright filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Burford's pending petition, No. 25-1269.

The dispute arises from a 2017 capital provision agreement under which Burford German Funding financed Financialright's acquisition and prosecution of German antitrust claims brought by hauliers against truck manufacturers. Financialright alleges it did not learn until late 2022 that the law firm Hausfeld held a part ownership interest in Burford German Funding through a separate entity, German Litigation Solutions LLC. Its Delaware complaint seeks a declaration that the arbitration clause in the funding agreement is invalid and unenforceable.

In August 2025, the District of Delaware granted Burford German Funding's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending the London-seated LCIA proceeding. Docket entries show Financialright filed its opening brief in support of reopening on 7 October, followed by a supporting declaration on 8 October.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has stayed Which?'s collective proceedings against Apple until 16 November 2026 after the consumer group terminated its litigation funding agreement with Litigation Capital Management and began searching for a replacement funder.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the UK's largest consumer organisation is seeking a new funder for its collective action against Apple following LCM's indicated plans to close. Orders published by the Tribunal set out the sequence in detail.

According to the Order (Stay) made by Mr Justice Waksman on 9 October 2026, the class representative told the Court of Appeal on 17 September that it was not in a position to defend Apple's appeal against the Tribunal's refusal to strike out the portion of the claim brought on behalf of non-paying iCloud users. In a letter dated 28 September, the class representative confirmed it had not obtained funding from LCM Funding UK Limited to defend that appeal, had given LCM notice that it had breached the litigation funding agreement, considered the breach incapable of remedy, and had exercised its right to terminate the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the non-paying user claim withdrawn and stayed the proceedings until 4pm on 16 November while the class representative pursues a new funder and after-the-event insurance. A further order of 14 October requires the class representative to notify the Tribunal and Apple of any material funding developments as soon as reasonably practicable. A case management conference is listed for 27 November to address funding, withdrawal and costs.

Simpson Millar LLP, one of the UK's largest consumer law firms and a flagship investment for specialist legal-sector capital provider Doorway, has reported an annual loss of £5 million and net liabilities of £41.8 million, even as it completed two seven-figure acquisitions over the summer.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, financial statements for the firm, which operates seven offices across England and Wales, show losses narrowing from £9 million in 2024 to £4.93 million in calendar 2025, with turnover up 11.5% to £24.6 million. As at 31 December, net liabilities stood at £41.8 million, up from £36.9 million, with amounts owed within one year of £88 million.

The LLP's immediate parent is Doorway Holdings Limited and its ultimate parent is Doorway 4 Law Limited, described in the accounts as a specialist equity provider to the legal sector. Both have committed funding to support the business. In 2018 the LLP entered a £25 million five-year loan agreement with Doorway 4 Law, extended during 2023 to £32 million with the maturity deferred and no set repayment date.

The firm has pursued cost savings in recent years, exiting certain private client markets in 2022 to concentrate on public and inquiry work. Its principal business is now personal injury, including clinical negligence, holiday sickness, industrial disease and road traffic accidents. Headcount fell 18% to 294 during the year, with 18 fee earners and 46 administrative staff cut, while investment in marketing continued in order to rebuild case stocks.

Acquisition activity has continued regardless. In June the group bought the trade and assets of Wirral-based Fife PI Limited from Forster Dean for £750,000 in cash plus a performance-related payment of £669,000. In July it acquired the personal injury practice of Manchester firm Clear Law Limited for £900,000 in cash, with a further contingent payment of £1.85 million agreed.

Hedge funds have stepped up acquisitions of legal claims tied to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires after a legislative push to restrict the trades lost momentum, with pricing on individual claims ranging from as little as 3 cents on the dollar to roughly 60 cents.

As reported by HedgeCo.Net, citing Bloomberg, the transactions involve subrogation rights, which allow an insurer that has paid out on a policy to pursue a third party such as a utility for its losses. Rather than wait years for litigation to conclude, insurers can sell those rights to investors at a discount in exchange for immediate cash.

According to broker Cherokee Acquisition, claims arising from the Eaton fire are being acquired at 55 to 60 cents on the dollar, while Palisades claims, viewed as riskier because liability is harder to establish, are trading at 3 to 5 cents. Cherokee director Bradley Max said there is "plenty of appetite for buyers and sellers," that most hedge funds active in the market are targeting returns in the low-to-mid teens, and that transactions are typically funded within a couple of weeks. He said Cherokee recently acquired roughly $100 million of Palisades-related claims for less than 10 cents on the dollar.

California adopted a law in 2025 requiring insurers to offer utilities a right of first refusal before selling claims to investors, but it stopped short of banning hedge fund purchases outright. Max said the rule has had little effect on demand.

The fires caused an estimated $40 billion in insured losses. A bellwether jury trial in the Eaton fire litigation is scheduled for January 2027. The spread between Eaton and Palisades pricing illustrates how sharply investors are discounting liability risk, while the legislative impasse has removed, for now, the prospect of the opportunity being closed off entirely.

The High Court has ruled that the claimant committee in the Mariana dam litigation had no authority to terminate its retainer with PGMBM, formerly Pogust Goodhead, or to instruct a rival firm in its place, resolving a control fight that had put the funded claim's management in doubt.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Mr Justice Waksman delivered an oral judgment finding that the committee could not terminate the collective conditional fee agreements or litigation management agreements covering roughly 420,000 claimants, and therefore could not appoint Bailey Glasser International to take over the next phase. "It is plain to me that Pogust Goodhead's construction is preferred," the judge said, adding that the committee "had no power to instruct BGI." He ordered £300,000 in costs on account within 14 days.

The claim arises from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil's Mariana municipality. The High Court found in November 2025 that the collapse was foreseeable and that BHP was strictly liable, with a phase 2 trial on quantum listed for next year.

Waksman acknowledged the committee's criticisms, including the departure of the counsel team over a fees dispute, the instruction of Quinn Emanuel while PGMBM remained on the record, and concerns about the firm's funder, Gramercy. The court heard at an earlier two-day hearing that PGMBM estimated claimants would face around £2 billion in costs exposure if the contracts were terminated.

PGMBM chief executive Alicia Alinia called the ruling a "decisive victory," saying "our clients are not commodities to be transferred between law firms." Humphries Kerstetter, acting for the committee, said it would analyse the judgment before deciding its next steps. Permission to appeal was sought at the hearing, which continues on consequential matters.

Three very different UK litigation funders have failed or stopped writing new business within six months, prompting a public disagreement among industry figures over whether the sector is facing structural problems or a run of isolated misfortunes.

As reported by ICLG, the orderly run-off announced by AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management follows the administrations of Fenchurch Legal in April and Woodville Consultants in July. LCM recorded a net realised loss of A$63.9 million (£33.7 million) on concluded investments, with seven of its eight completed cases ending in losses, a post-tax loss of A$165.7 million (£87.3 million) and net liabilities of A$53.6 million (£28.2 million).

Neil Purslow, chairman of the executive committee of the International Legal Finance Association, cautioned against losing sight of the sector's gains in access to justice and UK competitiveness when weighing what he called "recent exceptional cases." He attributed LCM's difficulties to "how it underwrote and concentrated its risk," and noted that Woodville and Fenchurch were not funders in the traditional sense, since they lent to law firms and claims businesses rather than contracting with claimants.

Crescient co-founders Louise Trayhurn and Simon Southwood identified problems of "governance as well as financial and operational gearing," adding that litigation funding and debt "have never been happy bedfellows." Bellevue Law senior consultant Faye Moore said the failures were "not that surprising" given litigation's inherent risks: "if you bet big, you stand to lose big."

CMS partner Kenny Henderson took a contrary view, noting that no funder has withdrawn from a collective proceedings order class action because of PACCAR and that a significant number of funded claims have been filed in 2026. Purslow said the sector now needs certainty on PACCAR and implementation of the Civil Justice Council's light-touch regulatory principles.

The cumulative value of opt-out class actions across Europe's highest-risk jurisdictions has surpassed €200 billion, and filings have resumed growth after a one-year dip, according to CMS's European Class Action Report 2026.

As reported by Scottish Legal News, the number of class actions filed across Europe rose to 107 in 2025 from 99 in 2024, still below the 2023 peak but pointing to renewed activity. In the UK, the total value of class actions climbed to €179.52 billion from €159.55 billion. Across the three leading opt-out jurisdictions — the UK, the Netherlands and Portugal — the combined value of opt-out claims reached €203.45 billion, up from €173.09 billion.

The growth since 2020 is steeper still. UK opt-out claim values have risen almost fivefold, from €21.65 billion to €101.66 billion, while the three-jurisdiction total has increased nearly tenfold from €22.52 billion.

Consumer and competition claims remained the largest category at 37% of filings, with product liability and personal injury at 14% and data protection at 13%. CMS expects the EU Product Liability Directive's implementation to broaden the scope for claims involving software and AI systems.

Kenny Henderson, a partner at CMS, said the €200 billion figure "would have been unthinkable just a few years ago," and that for large corporates operating in Europe, class actions are "an established and increasingly interconnected litigation risk." The report identifies litigation funding as a principal area to watch, noting that courts across Europe are paying closer attention to the relationship between funders and claimants, with significant judicial guidance expected in the coming years.

Pinsent Masons has warned that a new opt-out consumer class action regime in England and Wales could end up serving claimant law firms and litigation funders more than the consumers it is meant to compensate.

As reported by Out-Law, the firm has submitted its response to the Law Commission's scoping questionnaire on consumer class actions ahead of the 30 October deadline. The Law Commission is examining, at the UK government's request, whether a dedicated collective regime would strengthen consumer law enforcement; unlike competition claims, consumer law claims currently have no bespoke mass claims mechanism.

In its submission, the firm questioned whether such a regime would address a genuine unmet need. "Far from enabling access to justice, prioritising litigation over more appropriate mechanisms of redress could result in an explosion of speculative consumer law claims being brought for-profit with little to no benefits for those represented," it said. "This approach provides little in the way of justice, but large rewards for funders and lawyers."

The firm also argued that creating any new opt-out regime now would be premature, given that substantive consumer law enforcement reforms only took effect last year and that a separate consultation on the competition opt-out regime remains ongoing. On the existing regime's record, it said damages are "accessed by only a small number, and these damages are dwarfed by the returns for funders and lawyers," cautioning against "conflating 'access to justice' with 'access to litigation'."

If a regime does proceed, Pinsent Masons proposed guardrails including stricter regulation of third-party litigation funding, robust certification rules, an early strike out mechanism for abusive claims, and costs controls.