Trending Now
Commercial

Move Over Carnival: Litigation Funding in Brazil is Heating Up!

Writing for Vannin’s Funding in Focus series, Carolina Ramirez, Managing Director in Vannin’s newly-formed New York office, describes the litigation funding climate in South America’s largest and most populous nation. Ramirez highlights both the perceptions and practical applications of litigation finance in Brazil, as well as the regulatory climate and challenges facing industry growth in the region.

Although third party funding arrived on the Brazilian scene only recently, the practice has been warmly embraced relative to other Latin American markets. That has to do with Brazil’s liquidity crisis following the Great Recession, in addition to fallout in the aftermath of Operation Car Wash, or Operação Lava Jato, and the subsequent reliance on arbitration as a result.

According to Ramirez, Brazilians maintain a perception that litigation funding is utilized solely by impecunious claimants, or those facing liquidity constraints. Although perceptions are gradually changing, she points to one local practitioner who claims that “case law on the matter is scarce and major Brazilian arbitration chambers do not publish their precedents, so parties (be it funders, funded parties or adversaries to a funded party) still have to deal with a reasonable (and potentially damaging) degree of uncertainty.”

Yet despite the uncertainty, the benefits of litigation funding are widely being recognized, with one practitioner going so far as to state that the practice “will evolve to [allow] major companies seeking reasonable financing that allows them to pursue their core business objectives while conducting high level litigation.”

Such is the reality of litigation funding in other major jurisdictions, so why not Brazil?

Major obstacles to the adoption of litigation funding have to do with costs and time constraints — the former containing too few, and the latter containing far too many. The cost of filing a claim (appeal included) in Brazil is extraordinarily low, which of course precludes firms from seeking external funding. Additionally, cases can go through many layers of appeal before reaching conclusion, which means that funders can’t accurately predict the timing of their expected recovery.

Essentially, the barriers to justice that exist in Brazil work against litigation funders, whereas the barriers that exist in the United States, for example (those being high upfront costs and balance sheet exposure), directly play into a litigation funder’s hands.

According to Ramirez, by and large, third party funding is unregulated in Brazil. “Only recently did the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce (“CAM/CCBC”) – one of the most renowned institutions in Brazil – issue a resolution specifically recommending that parties disclose the use of funding at the outset of an arbitration (Administrative Resolution 18/2016).” Practitioners on the ground believe in the likelihood that other arbitral institutions will at some point promulgate further regulations on third party funding in Brazil, though at present, the industry remains unregulated.

So is Brazil on the precipice of future growth in the area of litigation funding? Ramirez seems to think so. “The resounding message,” she writes, “is that Brazil is ripe for third party funding and that the time to enter the market is now. It is also clear that practitioners are enthusiastic about the prospect of having foreign third party funders with significant experience enter the market and level the playing field which has thus far been dominated by a single local Brazilian third party funder.”

To read Ramirez’s article in its entirety, please visit this link. 

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.