US-based litigation funder Diamond McCarthy has agreed to back a high-stakes investment treaty claim brought by Lansdowne Oil and Gas against the Irish state, with the claim reportedly valued at up to $100 million. The dispute arises from Ireland’s policy shift away from offshore oil and gas development, which Lansdowne argues has effectively wiped out the value of its investment in the Barryroe offshore oil field.

According to NewsFile, Lansdowne Oil and Gas, a small exploration company listed in London and Dublin, is pursuing arbitration against Ireland under the Energy Charter Treaty. The company alleges that Ireland’s 2021 decision to halt new licences for offshore oil and gas exploration, followed by regulatory actions affecting existing projects, breached treaty protections afforded to foreign investors. Lansdowne contends that these measures frustrated legitimate expectations and amounted to unfair and inequitable treatment under international law.

Diamond McCarthy’s involvement brings significant financial firepower to a claim that would otherwise be difficult for a junior energy company to pursue. The funder will cover legal and arbitration costs in exchange for a share of any recovery, allowing Lansdowne to advance the case without bearing the full financial risk. The arbitration is expected to be conducted under international investment dispute mechanisms, with proceedings likely to take several years.

Ireland has previously defended its policy changes as part of a broader climate strategy aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence and meeting emissions targets. Government representatives have indicated that the state will robustly contest the claim, arguing that the measures were lawful, proportionate, and applied in the public interest. Ireland is also in the process of withdrawing from the Energy Charter Treaty, although existing investments may remain protected for a period under sunset provisions.

Tata Steel is facing a major legal challenge in Europe after a Dutch environmental foundation launched a large-scale collective action seeking approximately €1.4 billion in damages related to alleged environmental and public health impacts from the company’s steelmaking operations in the Netherlands. The claim targets Tata Steel Nederland and Tata Steel IJmuiden, which operate the sprawling IJmuiden steelworks near Amsterdam.

An article published by MSN reports that the lawsuit has been filed by Stichting Frisse Wind.nu, a nonprofit representing residents living in the vicinity of the IJmuiden plant. The claim alleges that years of harmful emissions, particulate matter, noise, and other pollution from the facility have led to adverse health effects, reduced quality of life, and declining property values for people in surrounding communities. The foundation is seeking compensation on behalf of affected residents under the Netherlands’ collective action regime, which allows representative organizations to pursue mass claims for damages.

According to the report, the lawsuit has been brought under the Dutch Act on the Resolution of Mass Claims in Collective Action, known as WAMCA. This framework requires the court to first assess whether the claim is admissible before any substantive evaluation of liability or damages takes place. If the case proceeds, it could take several years to resolve given the scale of the alleged harm and the number of potential claimants involved.

Tata Steel has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as speculative and unsupported. The company has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the proceedings and argue that the claims fail to meet the legal standards required under Dutch law. Tata Steel has also pointed to ongoing efforts to reduce emissions and modernize its European operations as part of its broader sustainability strategy.

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.

Litigation funding has become a fixture in modern civil justice systems, designed to open the courts to claimants who lack the means to pursue meritorious claims. But a recent opinion piece by Labour MP Oliver Ryan argues that in the UK, the industry is increasingly drifting from that core purpose and instead serving the financial interests of investors and funders at the expense of real victims.

An article in City A.M. states that while third-party litigation funding has a legitimate role in enabling access to justice, market incentives are now skewing the system. Ryan highlights examples including the UK government’s move to “protect litigation funding” and reverse the Paccar ruling—a Supreme Court decision that had cast doubt on traditional fee structures—arguing that policy solutions must reflect how the market actually operates on the ground, not just how policymakers hope it will.

Ryan points to the handling of the Post Office scandal as a stark case in point. Despite grievous harms suffered by sub-postmasters, he notes that approximately 80 percent of damages paid eventually flowed to funders and lawyers rather than victims—an outcome he says “cannot be right.” He also cites the collapse of a cavity insulation claim and management upheavals in a multi-billion-pound class action against BHP as examples of how funder-centric incentives can undermine claimant outcomes and system integrity.

Rather than calling for an end to litigation funding, Ryan urges reforms centered on capping excessive funder returns, enforcing capital adequacy protections for claimants, tightening marketing oversight, and rebalancing incentives so victims—not investors—are the primary beneficiaries of successful claims.

An investigation reveals that private investors are positioning themselves to profit from the enormous pool of money flowing from Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse litigation. The county has already agreed to spend nearly $5 billion this year resolving thousands of claims related to alleged sexual abuse in its juvenile detention and foster care systems, including a $4 billion settlement—the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

An article in the Los Angeles Times explains that proponents of this investor involvement argue such financing gives plaintiffs’ attorneys the capital they need to take on deep-pocketed defendants and helps victims who lack resources access justice. Records reviewed by the Times show that several law firms bringing these claims receive financial backing from private investors, often through opaque out-of-state entities and Delaware-based companies.

Backers contend the arrangement can level the legal playing field and expedite case filings and settlements. However, public officials and critics express alarm over the lack of transparency surrounding these investments and the possibility that significant portions of settlement money intended for survivors could instead flow to private financiers. Some county supervisors reported being contacted by investors asking about the potential profitability of the sex abuse suits, raising ethical concerns about treating human trauma as an “evergreen” revenue stream.

The backdrop to this investor interest is a surge in litigation following changes in California law that revived long-dormant abuse claims and spurred widespread advertising by plaintiff firms seeking new clients. Government scrutiny has heightened amid reports of questionable recruitment practices and potential fraud in some claims, and the county’s district attorney has launched an investigation into parts of the settlement process.

Litigation finance is entering a new strategic chapter as innovators seek to bridge legal funding with broader capital markets and institutional investment. At the forefront of this evolution is James Koutoulas, co-founder of JurisTrade, who draws on his unique blend of hedge fund management and securities law experience to rethink how legal claims can be structured as investable assets for large pools of capital.

An article in Lehigh Valley Business explains that JurisTrade has built the first institutional marketplace for litigation finance, where legal claims are converted into structured financial products like insured bonds, litigation index funds, and private credit vehicles—mechanisms designed to attract pension funds, hedge funds, and other institutional investors traditionally absent from the space. Koutoulas, noted for leading pro bono recovery of $6.7 billion for MF Global customers, argues that litigation finance can offer compelling risk-adjusted returns—sometimes in excess of traditional private credit yields—especially when backed by insurance or securitization features that mitigate downside risk.

The piece also highlights how managed service organizations (MSOs) could reshape law firm economics by outsourcing non-core functions—bringing a level of operational efficiency and capital-raising sophistication more typical of private equity into legal practice. Koutoulas emphasizes the impact of regulatory changes in jurisdictions like Arizona and Washington, D.C., where alternative business structures now allow non-lawyers to hold ownership stakes in law firms, further blurring lines between legal services and traditional business models. He also connects the boom in LegalTech to broader FinTech dynamics, pointing to venture capital interest and technological innovations as catalysts in transforming how legal assets are financed.

Koutoulas recognizes transparency and risk management as ongoing industry challenges, advocating for disclosure standards to protect both claimants and investors.