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

Burford Capital has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision that dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, the litigation funder's bid to arbitrate a dispute tied to German antitrust litigation. Burford contends the appeals court committed what it called a "fundamental error" in concluding that federal courts lacked authority over the matter.

As reported by Law360, Burford told the justices on June 16 that the Court's own decision earlier this year in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties is reason enough to undo the Third Circuit's ruling. In Jules, the Court held that a federal court which compels arbitration of federal claims under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act retains subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award, even without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the post-award proceeding.

Burford argues that principle squarely governs its case, and that the appeals court's contrary conclusion cannot stand in light of the new precedent. The funder is asking the justices to take up the matter and correct what it describes as a clear jurisdictional misstep.

The stakes extend beyond a single dispute. For funders, the ability to confirm and enforce arbitral awards in federal court is central to monetizing cross-border claims, and a jurisdictional dead-end at the enforcement stage raises both cost and risk. A decision to hear the case could bring welcome clarity for funders pursuing international, arbitration-related recoveries.

A new entrant has joined the litigation finance conference circuit. The inaugural Chicago Litigation Finance Summit convened at the Museum of Contemporary Art in early May, organized by Charles Zuo, a graduating JD/MBA candidate at Northwestern University.

As reported by Above the Law, Zuo built the program around a deliberately broad agenda, with panels spanning deal structures, funders operating across different capital structures, policy and academic perspectives, and legal technology. He described aiming for "both a diverse set of people and a diverse set of topics," pairing speakers who shared expertise but brought genuinely different vantage points.

Zuo's path to convening the summit included externing at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, clerking at Patterson Law, working at Bridge Legal, and serving as a law school ambassador for Harvey AI, alongside degrees in English literature, business analytics, and machine learning.

According to the profile, the inaugural event secured robust sponsor backing while maintaining editorial independence, and organizers reported strong feedback from attendees on the return generated by their participation.

The summit's arrival adds Chicago to a growing roster of regional venues where funders, lawyers, academics, and technologists gather as litigation finance continues to mature into an established asset class. Above the Law published the profile as the first installment of a two-part series.

A new lawsuit casts a harsh light on the consumer litigation funding model, with a major insurer accusing a New York funder of engineering a scheme to inflate personal injury claims at carriers' expense.

As reported by Insurance Business, New York Marine & General Insurance Company has sued Case Cash Funding and its principal, Gregory Elefterakis, a suspended attorney, in Manhattan federal court. The complaint, filed June 12, alleges that Case Cash advanced modest sums to injured claimants as "non-recourse" funding, then used its control over the claims to balloon them into multimillion-dollar demands.

According to the suit, the defendants paid referral fees to medical clinics, steered claimants toward favored attorneys, conditioned funding on claimants undergoing surgery, and blocked settlements that did not maximize their returns. In one instance, the parties had agreed on a $750,000 settlement, but the funder allegedly refused and asserted a lien of more than $1.4 million instead. The complaint cites a claimant who received just 13.3% of a $3.75 million settlement while the funder collected 47.5%, and another facing an effective interest rate of roughly 170%.

The filing also points to a securitization instrument, PEAR 2022-1, said to contain more than $84.6 million in receivables across nearly 16,807 advances—underscoring the scale of the operation. The case adds to mounting insurer pushback against consumer legal funding practices and feeds the broader debate over disclosure and regulation of the industry.

In a striking outcome for funded collective actions, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has signed off on the discontinuation of a £480 million claim against Qualcomm that delivers no compensation to the millions of consumers it was meant to benefit.

As reported by CDR News, the Tribunal approved a "drop-hands" settlement on June 10 under which all parties discontinue proceedings and bear their own costs. The claim, brought by the Consumers' Association (Which?) as class representative, had alleged that Qualcomm abused its market dominance to overcharge for smartphone chips, inflating handset prices.

The Tribunal assessed the claim's prospects at just 10% to 15%, concluding that the class representative "no longer had a realistic prospect of success." The result is believed to be the first CAT settlement resolved on a drop-hands basis, with neither the class nor the funder receiving any payment despite the claim's headline valuation.

The action had been backed by litigation funder Augusta Ventures alongside law firm Hausfeld. For the funder, the outcome represents a total loss on its investment in the case—a pointed illustration of the downside risk inherent in the opt-out regime.

The decision lands amid intensifying scrutiny of funded class actions in the UK, where the Tribunal has shown a growing willingness to test the merits, economics, and consumer benefit of collective proceedings before allowing them to advance or settle.

As private equity firms extend their reach into the legal industry, a new commentary argues that the tax code has failed to keep pace with how litigation funders actually earn their returns.

Writing for RealClearMarkets, Michael Toth contends that third-party litigation funders routinely claim favorable capital gains treatment on their returns when that income should be taxed as ordinary income. He notes that the Treasury Department "has never bothered to clarify the proper tax treatment of TPLF returns," leaving a roughly $20 billion industry to structure deals as "derivative contracts" despite funders performing work that closely mirrors that of plaintiffs' attorneys—vetting cases, advising on strategy, and managing litigation budgets.

The piece opens with Fortress's recent $125 million investment in an Arizona personal injury firm, which Toth frames as evidence that funders are shifting from wagering on individual case outcomes toward financing law firms' back-office operations and steadier revenue streams. He argues that the disclosure bills congressional Republicans have introduced since 2019 are "focused on yesterday's market," addressing single-case funding even as investors move toward portfolio and operational models. He also flags that nonresident foreign funders can often avoid federal tax on U.S. litigation gains altogether.

Toth's proposed fix relies on existing authority: he urges Treasury to apply the substance-over-form doctrine and tax funding returns as ordinary business income, while noting that Congress could amend the definition of capital assets to exclude legal claims.

The credibility of the UK's opt-out collective action regime increasingly depends on a stubborn problem: persuading class members to actually claim the damages won on their behalf.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Rachel Rothwell, editor of Litigation Funding, examines how little of the money awarded in landmark cases is reaching the consumers it is meant to compensate. In Gutmann v South Western Trains, the boundary fares case, roughly £25 million was awarded—yet take-up was less than 1%, with only about £200,000 distributed to class members and £3.8 million directed to the Access to Justice Foundation. Many passengers, she notes, abandoned their claims once asked to supply bank details, wary of fraud.

The forthcoming Merricks v Mastercard payout will test the regime on a far larger scale. With £100 million of the £200 million settlement ringfenced for as many as 44 million potential claimants—roughly £45 to £70 each—the case has become a referendum on whether opt-out actions can deliver for the public rather than primarily for lawyers and funders.

Rothwell canvasses several proposed fixes: a central public register of claims endorsed by government or the courts; compelling defendants, particularly in the tech and utility sectors, to assist with distribution; and building trust through charities and consumer groups while offering vouchers in place of direct bank transfers. Legitimacy, she argues, hinges on a meaningful share of damages reaching those actually harmed.

The High Court has rejected litigation funder Innsworth's judicial review challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's distribution of the £200M Merricks v Mastercard settlement, ending the first substantive test of a CAT settlement decision and handing class representative Walter Merricks what he called "a total victory."

As reported by Legal Futures, the CAT's January ruling allocated the first £100M to consumers, repaid Innsworth its estimated £46M outlay, and capped the funder's profit at 50% — roughly £23M — for a guaranteed total return of about £68M. In setting a 1.5x return, the tribunal noted that the settlement of a claim originally valued at £14bn was "very far from a success" for the 44M-member class.

Lord Justice Males rejected all three grounds of review, observing that a 50% profit "was not a bad result" for a funder that would likely have lost its entire investment had the case gone to another trial. Merricks accused Innsworth of seeking "to elevate its grab for profits over and above all other considerations," and said distribution to consumers can now begin. Innsworth, which is separately pursuing arbitration against Merricks, warned that inadequate funder returns will drive "a reallocation of capital towards lower-risk claims," and accused the CAT of acting as "a de facto regulator of the litigation funding market" while offering no clear guidance on permissible returns.

Winward Litigation Finance CIO Jeremy Marshall predicted the ruling "will certainly put the brakes on funders' appetites" for CAT claims.

While most state legislatures have pursued disclosure and registration regimes for litigation finance, North Carolina is advancing something far more drastic: an outright ban.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, North Carolina senators have approved legislation that bans litigation finance in the state, sending the measure to the state House.

The vehicle is House Bill 315, which began life as a "Gift Card Theft & Unlawful Business Entry" bill before being rewritten in the Senate as "an act to prohibit litigation investments in the civil justice system, to prevent the civil justice system from becoming a financial investment market." The amended bill makes it unlawful "to engage in litigation investment" in North Carolina or to furnish litigation investment to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding — defining litigation investment broadly as any provision of money for litigation fees, costs, or expenses in exchange for repayment contingent on the outcome.

The bill carves out narrow exceptions for contingency-fee arrangements, insurer obligations, nonprofit legal aid, non-contingent loans, and funding from family members. Its legislative findings lean heavily on national security concerns, citing the risk of undisclosed foreign persons and entities investing in domestic litigation.

The measure stands in sharp contrast to recent state activity elsewhere — Kansas, Michigan, and New Jersey have all advanced transparency-focused frameworks this year that regulate rather than prohibit the industry. If enacted, North Carolina would become one of the most restrictive litigation finance jurisdictions in the country, and industry critics have already characterized the gut-and-replace maneuver as a legislative bait-and-switch.

A proposed UK collective action against major musical instrument manufacturers is collapsing for want of litigation funding — a concrete illustration of the financing squeeze facing claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

As reported by Law360, consumer rights advocate Elisabetta Sciallis applied on Wednesday to withdraw her proposed class action against Fender, Yamaha, and other musical instrument manufacturers, saying she had been unable to secure litigation funding despite years of effort.

Sciallis, a principal policy adviser at consumer group Which?, filed a series of proposed opt-out collective actions in 2022 on behalf of consumers who purchased musical instruments, following on from Competition and Markets Authority decisions fining several manufacturers for resale price maintenance. The claims had been stalled at the certification stage for years, and the tribunal had grown increasingly impatient: a March 2026 case management order listed a preliminary hearing for after June 5 specifically to determine the adequacy of the proposed class representative's funding and insurance arrangements.

The withdrawal underscores a broader theme in the UK collective actions regime. With the CAT tightening its scrutiny of certification and funder returns — and with the Innsworth-Mastercard distribution fight casting doubt on the economics of opt-out claims — funders have become increasingly selective about which collective proceedings they will back. For proposed class representatives unable to assemble a viable funding package, even claims that follow on from regulatory infringement findings may prove impossible to sustain.