The High Court has rejected mining giant BHP’s application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) that sought to prevent Pogust Goodhead from pursuing lawful evidence-gathering measures in the United States against the former president of the Brazilian redress scheme foundation set up after the Mariana dam collapse.

The Court found no basis to characterise Pogust Goodhead’s use of Section 1782 to seek a deposition of Mr André de Freitas, former CEO of the Renova Foundation[i] as vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable, as argued by BHP.

In November 2024, Pogust Goodhead filed the §1782 application in the District Court of Arkansas seeking limited testimony from Mr de Freitas in relation to Pogust Goodhead’s claim arguing that BHP unlawfully interfered with Pogust Goodhead’s retainer rights and the compensation due to its Brazilian clients.  The U.S. court granted the subpoenas in January 2025.

Since then, BHP has sought to block the deposition by filing motions to quash the subpoenas in April 2025 and seeking an ASI in the High Court. A ruling from the Arkansas court is pending.

In Wednesday’s judgment, Mr Justice Waksman rejected BHP’s request for an injunction that would have halted the U.S. evidence-gathering process, finding no basis to prevent Pogust Goodhead from continuing with its §1782 discovery efforts.

Justice Waksman wrote in his decision: “I agree with PG that the depositions serve a distinct and legitimate purpose, being to better understand Renova’s role in relation to the various settlements and their form.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead commented: “We welcome the Court’s clear judgment. BHP has repeatedly attempted to obstruct legitimate investigations into its conduct. Mr de Freitas’s testimony is central to understanding how our clients’ rights may have been undermined. It is essential that he gives evidence. Only by hearing directly from those involved can our clients’ rights be properly safeguarded and the full truth established.”

Key Findings

• The court held that English courts do not control how parties lawfully obtain evidence abroad, and that the U.S. court is the appropriate authority to decide the scope and propriety of discovery sought under Section 1782.
• The Court also highlighted BHP’s significant delay in bringing the ASI application — nearly four months after learning of the U.S. subpoenas — which weighed against granting any injunctive relief.
• Any concerns about the scope of the subpoenas, alleged misstatements, or burden on the witness are squarely matters for the U.S. District Court, which has already engaged with the issues in detailed hearings.

As a result, BHP cannot use the English courts to derail the ongoing U.S. process. The parties now await the District Court of Arkansas’s decision on whether BHP’s motions to quash the subpoenas will succeed.

US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.

According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.

The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.

Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.

For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.

A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.

An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.

Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.

This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.

Woolworths Group is facing a new shareholder class action that alleges the company misled investors about the scale and financial impact of underpaying salaried employees. The action, backed by Litigation Lending Services, adds a fresh legal front to the long-running fallout from Woolworths’ wage compliance failures.

According to AFR, at the heart of the claim is the allegation that Woolworths did not adequately inform the market about the risks posed by its reliance on annualised salary structures and set-off clauses. These payment methods averaged compensation over longer periods instead of ensuring employees received correct pay entitlements for each pay period. This included overtime, penalty rates, and other award entitlements.

Recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have clarified that such set-off practices are non-compliant under modern awards. Employers must now ensure all entitlements are met for each pay period and maintain detailed records of employee hours. These rulings significantly raise the compliance bar and have increased financial exposure for large employers like Woolworths, which has tens of thousands of salaried employees.

As a result, Woolworths could face hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation costs. The shareholder class action argues that Woolworths failed to disclose the magnitude of these potential liabilities in a timely or accurate way. Investors claim that this omission amounts to misleading conduct, and that they were not fully informed of the risks when making investment decisions.

Tom Goldstein, the former SCOTUSblog co-founder and prominent appellate advocate, has named Parabellum Capital as the litigation funder at the center of a federal indictment accusing him of misappropriating legal financing to pay off personal debts.

Bloomberg Law reports that in a court filing made last week, Goldstein disclosed that he used advances from Parabellum to cover non-litigation-related expenses, including the purchase of a multimillion-dollar home. The revelation comes amid federal charges alleging that Goldstein misused firm funds to settle gambling losses and personal obligations, then mischaracterized those payments as business expenses. Prosecutors previously referred to an unnamed funder involved in these transactions; Parabellum is now confirmed to be that firm.

Goldstein’s disclosure appears to be part of a strategic legal response to mounting charges of tax evasion and financial misrepresentation. Once a high-profile figure in Supreme Court litigation, Goldstein now faces scrutiny not only for alleged personal financial misconduct but also for the implications his actions may have on the litigation finance ecosystem.

While Parabellum has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the situation highlights a key risk in the litigation funding model: the potential for funds advanced against anticipated case proceeds to be diverted toward unrelated personal uses. Funders traditionally require that capital be deployed for case expenses, legal fees, and expert costs—not real estate acquisitions or debt payments.

This case underscores a growing concern in the legal funding industry: the need for tighter controls, enhanced due diligence, and possibly more explicit regulatory frameworks to ensure that funding agreements are not exploited. As the industry continues to mature, episodes like this could shape how funders vet borrowers and monitor the use of their capital.

At a Fall conference hosted by law firm Brown Rudnick, attendees from across the litigation finance industry voiced growing concern about the sector’s prospects, signaling what may be a turning point for a business long hyped for outsized returns.

According to Yahoo Finance, many in attendance described a drain in new investment and increasing skepticism that big wins, once seen as routine, will materialize. In recent years, funders have aggressively financed high-stakes lawsuits with the expectation that a handful of big verdicts or settlements would deliver significant payouts. But now, as legal outcomes remain unpredictable and returns disappoint, investors appear to be pulling back. Some funders are reportedly limiting new deals, tightening criteria for which cases to support, or reevaluating their business models altogether.

For smaller plaintiffs and everyday plaintiffs’ firms, the contraction in funding availability could prove especially painful. The ripple effects may leave many without access to third-party capital needed to bridge the lengthy wait until verdict. And for funders, the shrinking appetite for risk could mean narrower portfolios and potentially lower returns overall.

The industry’s recalibration may also carry broader implications. Fewer fundings could slow litigation overall. Plaintiffs may see reduced leverage while funders may prioritize lower-risk, smaller-return cases. The shift could further concentrate power among a shrinking number of large, well-capitalized funders.

As the post-conference murmur becomes a chorus, the once-booming litigation finance sector may be entering a more sober phase — where hope for home-run returns gives way to caution, discipline, and perhaps a redefinition of what success looks like.

Litigation funders scored a major win in Europe this week as the European Commission confirmed it will not pursue new regulations targeting third-party funding. In a decision delivered at the final session of the Commission's High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth, Commissioner Michael McGrath announced that the EU executive will instead focus its efforts on implementing the recently adopted Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which governs collective redress actions brought by consumers and investors.

An article in Law.com notes that the move is being hailed as a significant victory by litigation funders, particularly Omni Bridgeway. Kees de Visser, the firm's Chair of the EMEA Investment Committee, described the decision as a clear endorsement of the litigation funding model and a green light for continued expansion across European jurisdictions. Funders had grown increasingly concerned over the past year that the EU might impose strict rules or licensing requirements, following persistent lobbying by industry critics and certain member states.

Supporters of the Commission’s stance, including the International Legal Finance Association, argue that additional regulation would have harmed access to justice. They contend that third-party funding helps balance the playing field, especially in complex or high-cost litigation, by enabling smaller claimants to pursue valid claims that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

Although concerns around transparency and influence remain part of the wider policy debate, the EU’s current position sends a strong signal that existing legal tools and the RAD framework are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. For funders like Omni Bridgeway, this regulatory reprieve opens the door to deeper engagement in consumer and mass claims across the bloc.