A senior legal executive at CSAA Insurance Group has signaled what she describes as a potential turning point in the long-running conflict between insurers and the litigation finance industry. Speaking amid heightened political and regulatory scrutiny of third-party funding, the comments reflect growing confidence among insurers that momentum is shifting in their favor after years of unsuccessful pushback.

An article in Insurance Business reports that CSAA’s chief legal officer argued that 2026 could mark a decisive phase in efforts to rein in litigation finance, citing increasing legislative interest and judicial awareness of the role funding plays in driving claim frequency and severity. According to the article, CSAA views litigation funding as a key contributor to social inflation, a term insurers use to describe the rising costs of claims driven by larger jury verdicts, expanded liability theories, and aggressive litigation tactics.

The executive pointed to a wave of proposed disclosure rules and transparency initiatives at both the state and federal levels as evidence that lawmakers are taking insurer concerns more seriously. These proposals generally seek to require plaintiffs to disclose whether a third-party funder has a financial interest in a case, a reform insurers argue is necessary to assess conflicts, settlement dynamics, and the true economics of litigation. While many of these measures remain contested, CSAA appears encouraged by what it sees as a shift in tone compared to previous years.

The article also highlights the broader industry context in which these comments were made. Insurers have increasingly framed litigation finance as a systemic risk rather than a niche practice, linking it to higher premiums, reduced coverage availability, and increased volatility in underwriting results. Litigation funders, for their part, continue to argue that funding expands access to justice and that disclosure mandates risk revealing sensitive strategy and privileged information.

Axiom, the global legal talent and services provider, has decided to close its Arizona-based law firm, Axiom Advice & Counsel, marking the end of a high-profile experiment under the state’s alternative business structure regime. The move comes roughly three years after the firm launched, and reflects a broader strategic refocus rather than a regulatory intervention or disciplinary issue.

An article in Reuters reports that Axiom voluntarily chose to wind down the law firm as part of a reassessment of where it sees the greatest opportunity for growth. The firm plans to surrender its license, with the process subject to review by the Arizona Supreme Court, and indicated that the decision was made in 2025 following internal changes and departures at the firm. Axiom described the venture as a useful learning experience but ultimately one that no longer aligned with its core business priorities.

Axiom Advice & Counsel launched in early 2023 after Arizona became the first US state to permit non-lawyer ownership of law firms. The firm was positioned as a novel hybrid, combining Axiom’s flexible legal staffing model with direct legal services delivered through a licensed law firm. At launch, Axiom emphasized efficiency, technology enablement, and an alternative to the traditional law firm structure. However, by early 2025, key personnel had left the practice, and the firm concluded that operating a regulated law firm was not the optimal use of its resources.

The closure comes amid continued experimentation under Arizona’s ABS framework. Around 150 entities have been licensed, including legal services platforms such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, professional services providers like KPMG, and other alternative legal service providers testing new delivery models. While some have expanded their footprint, others, like Axiom, appear to be recalibrating their approach.

Global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway has released a positive second quarter portfolio update, pointing to strong completion metrics and reinforcing confidence in its diversified funding strategy across jurisdictions and dispute types. The update highlights the importance of disciplined case selection and portfolio construction at a time when the legal funding market continues to mature and face closer scrutiny from investors.

An article in GlobeNewswire outlines that Omni Bridgeway recorded excellent completion outcomes during the quarter, with multiple matters reaching resolution and contributing to realizations. The company emphasized that these completions were achieved across different regions and segments of its portfolio, underscoring the benefits of geographic and claim diversification. Management noted that the results were consistent with internal expectations and supported the firm’s longer term return profile.

According to the update, Omni Bridgeway continues to focus on converting invested capital into realized proceeds, rather than simply growing commitments. The funder highlighted that completion metrics are a key indicator of portfolio health, as they reflect both successful case outcomes and effective timing of resolutions. Strong completions also provide liquidity that can be recycled into new opportunities, supporting sustainable growth without excessive balance sheet strain.

The update also touched on broader portfolio dynamics, including the ongoing mix of single case investments and portfolio arrangements with law firms and corporates. Omni Bridgeway reiterated that its underwriting approach remains cautious, with an emphasis on downside protection and realistic settlement expectations. While the company acknowledged that litigation timelines can be unpredictable, it expressed confidence that the current portfolio is well positioned to deliver value over the medium term.

A Manchester based litigation funder has made a significant technology bet, committing £10 million to artificial intelligence while cautioning that parts of the legal funding sector risk falling behind if they fail to adapt. The investment reflects a growing recognition among funders that data driven tools and automation are becoming central to underwriting, case management, and portfolio strategy.

An article in Business Mondays reports that the funder is directing the capital into proprietary AI systems designed to improve case selection, risk analysis, and operational efficiency. According to the company, the technology will be used to analyse large volumes of legal and financial data, helping the funder assess claims more quickly and with greater precision than traditional methods allow. Management described the investment as both offensive and defensive, aimed at creating competitive advantage while ensuring the business remains resilient as the market becomes more crowded.

Alongside the announcement, the funder issued a warning to the wider sector, arguing that firms which rely solely on conventional underwriting approaches may struggle in the coming years. The increasing scale of disputes, the growth of portfolio funding, and pressure from institutional capital are all pushing funders toward more sophisticated analytics. AI, the company suggested, is no longer an optional add on but an essential component of modern litigation finance.

The article also situates the move within Manchester’s expanding legal and technology ecosystem, noting the city’s appeal as a base for innovation outside London. By building AI capability in house, the funder aims to attract talent from both legal and technical backgrounds while retaining tighter control over sensitive data and models.

For the legal funding industry, the announcement highlights an accelerating trend toward technology driven differentiation. As more capital enters the market and returns come under scrutiny, funders that can demonstrate superior risk assessment and scalability may gain an edge.

Litigation funder Burford Capital has secured a notable appellate victory in a long running antitrust dispute tied to allegations of price fixing in the US meat industry. The decision strengthens Burford’s position in a case that has drawn attention for both its financial scale and the broader questions it raises about the role of third party funders in settlement negotiations.

An article in Reuters reports that the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that would have enforced a proposed $50 million settlement between Sysco Corp and poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride. The appellate court concluded that Sysco had not entered into a binding settlement agreement because key terms were still unresolved at the time the offer was purportedly accepted. As a result, the court vacated the settlement and cleared the way for the claims to continue.

Burford had financed Sysco’s antitrust claims since 2019, committing approximately $140 million to support litigation alleging collusion among chicken, beef, and pork producers. When Sysco moved to accept the $50 million settlement offer, Burford objected, arguing the amount dramatically undervalued the claims. The funder sought and obtained a court order blocking the settlement, after which Sysco transferred its rights in the litigation to a Burford affiliate, Carina Ventures. That transfer positioned Burford to directly pursue the claims following the appeal.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge David Hamilton emphasized that the email exchanges cited by Pilgrim’s Pride did not reflect a final agreement. A concurring opinion, however, raised concerns about the degree of influence exercised by litigation funders over settlement decisions, suggesting that funder involvement can complicate negotiations and introduce competing incentives. Burford rejected that characterization, stating that the record did not support claims of undue influence.

A pivotal prosecution witness in the federal criminal case against prominent Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein saw his credibility sharply undermined under cross-examination, raising new questions about the strength of the government’s case and the handling of key evidence.

Bloomberg reports that at the center of the dispute is Walter Deyhle, a former accountant who prepared Goldstein’s tax returns and testified for the government regarding alleged underreporting of gambling winnings. Under questioning from the defense, Deyhle acknowledged that his earlier statements to investigators conflicted with documentary evidence, including a contemporaneous email from Goldstein describing significantly higher gambling income than Deyhle had initially conveyed. The defense emphasized that these discrepancies were material, particularly given the government’s reliance on Deyhle to establish intent and knowledge in its tax-related charges.

The cross-examination also exposed admitted errors in Deyhle’s tax preparation work, further eroding his reliability in the eyes of the jury. Defense counsel argued that these mistakes, combined with incomplete or inaccurate recollections, weakened the foundation of the prosecution’s narrative and cast doubt on whether Goldstein knowingly misled tax authorities.

Compounding matters, the defense accused prosecutors of failing to timely disclose information related to a meeting in which the incriminating email was first presented to Deyhle. The alleged disclosure lapse prompted a dispute over the government’s evidentiary obligations, with the court ordering additional briefing to determine whether any remedial action is warranted.

The proceedings additionally brought attention to testimony from a senior executive at Parabellum Capital, the litigation finance firm that previously provided financial assistance to Goldstein. The testimony offered rare insight into the nature of the funding arrangement, which included support to address tax liabilities and personal financial pressures. While not accused of wrongdoing, the funder’s involvement illustrated how litigation finance can intersect with personal financial distress in high-stakes legal matters.

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.