Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Kennedy, Manchin introduce bipartisan Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act to end overseas meddling in U.S. litigation

September 18, 2023

Kennedy, Manchin introduce bipartisan Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act to end overseas meddling in U.S. litigation

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary committee, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) today introduced the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2023 to stop foreign entities and governments from funding litigation in America’s courts.  “Leaving our courts unprotected from foreign influence—such as from China—poses a major risk to U.S. national security. The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act would put necessary safeguards in place to ensure that foreign nations, private equity funds and sovereign wealth funds linked to hostile governments are not tipping the scale in federal courtrooms,” said Kennedy. “Foreign actors such as China and Russia use third-party litigation funding to support targeted lawsuits in the United States, undermining our economic and national security. This legislation would provide a commonsense strategy to protect our legal system by requiring greater transparency and accountability from third-party groups and preventing third-party litigation funding from foreign states and sovereign wealth funds. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan bill to ensure that our federal courts are protected from foreign influence,” said Manchin.  Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. “Foreign states and sovereign wealth funds should not meddle in our justice system. This bill prevents foreign actors like China from financing malicious lawsuits, protects critical industries and prioritizes the interests of Americans in court,” said Johnson.  Currently, foreign entities flood courts with billions of dollars in litigation financing in order to achieve a particular outcome in a case. Hostile foreign governments or companies that are connected with those governments could fund lawsuits in federal courts in order to achieve their geopolitical objectives and undermine America’s national security, especially by targeting proprietary commercial and military technology and exploiting U.S. disclosure requirements. The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act would:
  • Require disclosure from any foreign person or entity participating in civil litigation as a third-party litigation funder in U.S. federal courts.
  • Ban sovereign wealth funds and foreign governments from participating in litigation finance as a third-party litigation funder, either directly or indirectly. 
  • Require the Department of Justice’s National Security Division to submit a report on foreign third-party litigation funding throughout the federal judiciary.
In January, Kennedy urged U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to take action in order to mitigate the threat foreign actors like China pose by covertly funding litigation in U.S. courts. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauds Sens. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) for introducing this landmark bill, and we urge Congress to quickly pass it to protect consumers, businesses, and U.S. national and economic security,” said Harold Kim, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. “The R Street Institute is excited to support and endorse Senator Kennedy’s legislation that will shine a light on the shadowy funders of third-party litigation, and limit the ability of foreign governments to negatively impact various U.S. industries by tying them up in anonymous third-party litigation. The current third-party litigation funding laws lack much needed transparency, and they could open the door to foreign entities detrimentally impacting our national security. We applaud the Senator for his leadership on this issue, and we urge more lawmakers to join him in this effort,” said Anthony Lamorena, Senior Federal Affairs Manager at the R Street Institute. Full text of the legislation is available here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.