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

Lawyers at Signature Litigation have argued that the UK government's latest consultation on the opt-out collective actions regime must raise the certification bar without loading additional cost and delay onto class representatives.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, partner Becca Hogan, senior associate Tom Crawford and paralegal Nikki Sutton-MacGregor write that businesses facing collective claims can incur significant cost, uncertainty and reputational exposure before the merits are tested, while a low certification threshold leaves claimants exposed to funding expensive claims that ultimately fail.

The Department for Business and Trade consultation proposes a more explicit statutory merits test and closer scrutiny of costs against overall benefits. The authors note one proposal would have the Competition Appeal Tribunal indicate the "reasonableness" of a litigation funder's return at the point of certification. They cite the consultation's reference to claims against Stagecoach South Western Trains, where less than £216,000 reached class members against "more than £10 million" paid to lawyers, funders and other advisers.

On funding, the authors observe that the consultation "appears to give the green light for damages-based agreements," which would go further than the stalled Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Act 2024 by permitting DBAs directly in opt-out proceedings. They argue wider funding options should increase competition, reduce the cost of litigation finance and lift claim volumes, noting that market practice currently suggests a quantum of at least £500 million is needed to attract certain funders.

The consultation closes on 25 September 2026.

Victoria's contingency fee regime is producing court-approved rates that track third-party funder commissions almost precisely, according to the Australia chapter of Chambers' Litigation Funding 2026 guide.

According to the Chambers and Partners practice guide, authored by Jason Geisker, Dirk Luff, Sam Sheridan and Georgina Overend of Claims Funding Australia, the median group costs order rate since the regime began is 24.5%, within a range of 14% to 40%. That figure "closely compared to the 24% median rate for third-party litigation funding commissions" considered by courts across the seven years from the first common fund order in October 2016 through 31 December 2023.

Under the Victorian model, the Supreme Court fixes the percentage payable to the plaintiff law firm early in the proceeding and "may revisit this percentage at a later stage," including at settlement approval. The guide cites *Bogan v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased)* [2022] VSC 201 as authority that fee-sharing with funders is permissible under a group costs order, provided the law firm is not a "mere front" for the funder.

On after-the-event insurance, the authors report that competition "has applied downward pricing pressure, with more flexible options than the historical 20–40% of policy indemnity limits." They point to *i-Prosperity Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Crown Melbourne Ltd* [2025] NSWSC 1525, where the court accepted that an ATE policy carrying an anti-avoidance endorsement provided adequate security for costs.

The guide estimates Australian litigation funding market revenue at A$123.6 million for the 2025–2026 financial year.

The UK Financial Ombudsman Service has ordered litigation lender Novitas Loans to refund all interest and charges and halve a borrower's capital liability after finding the firm funded both parties to the same property dispute without telling either of them.

As reported by the Law Gazette, the complaint concerned former partners litigating against one another over property. Novitas had already lent to one party when it extended a facility to the other, leaving it with access to legally privileged information from both sides. The ombudsman found the arrangement "created a situation where Novitas had two or more competing interests and there was at least the potential that serving one of those interests could damage or harm the other interest."

There was no evidence the lender disclosed the dual funding to either client, no conflict management procedures, and no separate case officers assigned to each borrower. The ombudsman also found the pre-loan checks neither reasonable nor proportionate: Novitas asked only whether the applicant was a UK resident, checked for county court judgments or insolvency proceedings, and confirmed he owned a property that could be sold to repay the loan.

The borrower earned approximately £10,000 a year and already owed £240,000 when Novitas approved a £60,000 facility at 18% annual interest, later extended by a further £30,000. His former partner received approximately £50,000. The ombudsman described the arrangements as unfair, citing a "significant inequality of knowledge and understanding," and capped the borrower's total liability at roughly £36,000.

Novitas ceased accepting new clients in December 2021, and parent Close Brothers subsequently moved to write off around £90 million tied to unsuccessful funded cases.

Boston private equity firm Charlesbank Capital Partners is in advanced talks to take a stake in insurance defence firm Wood Smith Henning & Berman through a management services organisation, in a transaction that would rank as the largest private equity investment in a US law firm to date.

As reported by Above the Law, the deal values the firm at roughly $700 million, equivalent to about 18 times its adjusted EBITDA of $38.2 million. WSHB posted revenue of $244 million last year and operates more than 500 lawyers across 43 offices in 35 states and London. Charlesbank manages approximately $22 billion and traces its origins to managing Harvard's endowment. The parties have signed a letter of intent, with a definitive agreement expected in the coming weeks.

The structure is the mechanism that makes the investment possible. Rather than acquiring the law firm itself, Charlesbank would take a stake in a separate entity holding WSHB's back office, billing and technology operations, which then supplies those services to the attorney-owned practice for a fee. That split allows outside capital to participate in law firm economics without triggering the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership that applies in most US states.

LawFuel reported the talks on 20 August, framing the transaction as a test of the ownership rules that have kept institutional capital at the perimeter of the US legal market.

The deal follows a wave of MSO formation involving private equity and litigation funders in the personal injury sector, and arrives as several states move to restrict such arrangements.

Crestline Investors has closed its European Capital Solutions Fund II at $625 million in commitments, roughly 75% larger than its predecessor vehicle, with litigation finance named among the alternative asset classes the strategy is built to underwrite.

As reported by Pulse 2.0, the fund provides capital across the structure — from senior secured debt through to structured equity — for asset-backed and lower-middle-market businesses in Northern and Western Europe. Alongside conventional collateral, Crestline points to what it describes as less traditional assets including music royalties and litigation finance.

Roughly 35% of the fund had already been committed as of the second quarter of 2026. Limited partners include public and private pension plans, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.

Crestline has been deploying the strategy since 2015, completing approximately $2 billion across 45 European transactions. The firm manages around $18 billion in credit assets and operates as part of Rithm Capital.

Michael Guy, executive managing director and head of European credit, said the "European lower-middle-market continues to face a significant funding gap requiring creativity, speed and asset-level expertise." Keith Williams, executive managing director and chief investment officer, added that Crestline has "built relationships and proprietary sourcing networks, accessing bilateral opportunities difficult to replicate."

Crestline is a familiar name in the funding market, having provided a £20 million facility to UK funder Apex Litigation Finance in 2023. The latest close signals continued appetite among private credit managers to treat legal claims as one collateral type within a broader specialty lending mandate rather than as a standalone strategy.

Amazon has revised its Conditions of Use to require consumers pursuing mass arbitration claims to disclose whether third-party litigation funders are backing them. The updated terms, effective 15 August 2026, oblige claimants to identify any relationship with a funder, produce copies of funding agreements, and reveal any financial interest in the claim that has been assigned or transferred to a third party.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the move places Amazon alongside Uber, which has adopted comparable disclosure requirements as it faces thousands of passenger sexual assault claims. The provisions arrive as mass arbitration has become a significant pressure point for large consumer-facing companies.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company "continually update[s] our Conditions of Use to better serve our customers," adding that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."

The industry response was sceptical. Dai Wai Chin Feman, U.S. chapter chair of the International Legal Finance Association, described the requirement as "one of many new tactics in Amazon's arbitration terms that would face serious enforceability challenges if ever tested." He also questioned its practical significance, noting that individual consumer claims are generally too small to attract third-party funding in the first place.

Amazon removed a similar arbitration clause in 2021 following a wave of Alexa privacy challenges. Since then it has faced class actions over allegedly unsafe products sold on its platform and over its Prime cancellation practices.

Omni Bridgeway has reported a sharply lower bottom line for FY26, with net profit after tax falling 89% to A$45.9 million even as statutory revenue rose 57% to A$106.5 million. Total income declined 72% to A$182.2 million, and profit attributable to members fell 85% to A$53.7 million. The funder declared no final dividend for the year.

As reported by The Motley Fool Australia, the steep percentage declines largely reflect a high comparison base rather than a deterioration in the underlying business. FY25 income was inflated by a substantial one-off benefit tied to the Fund 9 transaction, which does not recur in FY26.

Beneath the headline figures, several operating metrics moved in the funder's favour. Omni Bridgeway recorded cash investment proceeds of A$350.5 million excluding secondary market activity, up 49% year on year, alongside A$564.4 million in newly added fair value. Employee expenses fell 16% as the group operated with a smaller headcount and reduced corporate overheads.

The company also pointed to record new commitments of A$712.2 million and a portfolio of more than 300 active litigation investments. Its late-July fourth-quarter update flagged an A$407.8 million pipeline spanning 43 exclusive term sheets.

Balance sheet measures were mixed. Net assets per share slipped to A$2.96 from A$2.99 a year earlier, while net tangible assets per share improved to A$2.08 from A$1.94.

The result caps a difficult stretch for the ASX-listed funder, whose shares have declined roughly 10% over the past 12 months against a rising benchmark index.

A commentary piece argues that the momentum behind third-party litigation funding disclosure laws has come from broad business coalitions rather than any single industry, pointing to Ohio as the template other states are now following.

As reported by AMAC, the article traces a run of state legislation beginning with Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, which requires outside financiers to register with state regulators, bars them from influencing litigation strategy and prohibits foreign funding. Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma each enacted their own versions, with Ohio and North Carolina subsequently added to the list.

Ohio State Representative Meredith Craig, a co-sponsor of House Bill 105, told the author that the coalition behind the measure mattered more than anything else. "We ultimately had every major business group supporting the legislation, from the Ohio Farm Bureau to the Ohio State Medical Association," she said. "That broad coalition showed this wasn't about helping one particular industry; it was about protecting Ohioans and the integrity of our courts." On the bill's bipartisan path, she added that members on both sides "agreed that it was time to defend our constituents and our businesses."

The piece frames the federal picture as moving in parallel, citing the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsors, which would require disclosure of funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside a joint filing by the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice seeking amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to create a uniform national disclosure standard.

Writing from the perspective of the Washington Health Innovation Council, the author focuses on medical device and biopharmaceutical companies, arguing that plaintiff recruitment advertising invoking the FDA name and logo can imply regulatory action that has not occurred, and that resources diverted to funded litigation lengthen development timelines.

A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination to name all real parties in interest has drawn a sharply divided response, with the dispute turning on the same transparency questions that animate the broader litigation funding disclosure debate.

As reported by IPWatchdog, 26 comments were filed before the period closed on 21 August, submitted by 17 organisations and eight individuals. The July rulemaking notice proposed that requests identify the requester and any other real parties in interest, with statements kept confidential on request, so the Office can assess whether statutory estoppel provisions bar a filing. The USPTO said it has received a significant number of reexamination requests aimed at patents already challenged in inter partes or post-grant review.

Eight of the 17 organisational comments opposed the rule outright. Supporters included Adeia, Nokia, Dolby Laboratories and the Council for Innovation Promotion. Adeia said it received ten anonymous requests between October 2025 and April 2026 after more than a decade without any, and had to defend its patents without knowing whether the requester was a licensee, competitor, affiliate of an estopped party or a foreign-backed organisation.

Dolby went further, arguing that a requester's own identification may be insufficient and proposing that requesters answer factual questions about their business model, member or subscriber funding, and the source of funds used for the challenge. Nokia recommended additional guidance covering indemnification obligations, industry consortia and third-party funding.

Opponents including the Business Software Alliance, Unified Patents and the PTAB Bar Association argued the Office has produced little evidence that estopped parties are exploiting anonymous reexamination, and warned that importing a fact-intensive real party in interest inquiry into an examiner-driven proceeding without discovery would generate satellite disputes and deter legitimate filings.