Pine Valley Capital Partners is carving out a distinctive niche in the litigation‑finance market by providing post‑settlement capital to contingency‑fee law firms.

According to an article in LawDragon, Pine Valley funds law firms after a settlement agreement has been reached but before the distribution of settlement proceeds. This strategy responds to a critical pain point: the gap between case conclusion and payout. Managing partners and co‑founders Ryan Stephen and Sam Vinson explain that for contingent‑fee practices — especially in high‑volume mass‑tort scenarios — cash flow can stagnate for years once a settlement is secured. Pine Valley’s solution unlocks that “trapped” value, enabling firms to meet operating expenses, payroll, vendor invoices, and growth needs.

Stephen’s background in private credit and Vinson’s experience in receivables‑factoring underpin the firm’s structure: lending against “ascertainable value” in settlements rather than speculative pre‑settlement outcomes. Pine Valley emphasizes transparency, partnership and sustainable fundamentals, distinguishing itself from players whose terms may favor funder returns at the expense of firm sustainability.

As of late last year, Pine Valley’s assets under management reportedly stood at about $535 million, with the firm targeting nearing $1 billion in AUM. The firm highlights its role in enabling access to justice: by supporting plaintiff‑firms financially, they help ensure that clients—often without other routes to legal redress—receive high‑quality representation.

For the legal funding industry, this development signals a growing sophistication: as pre‑settlement litigation funding becomes more mature and crowded, funders are innovating toward post‑settlement solutions, blending private‑credit discipline with legal‑funding frameworks.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is weighing whether the case involving the Argentine nationalisation of oil company YPF should have been litigated in the U.S. in the first place. The original ruling awarded approximately $16.1 billion to minority shareholders.

An article in Finance News highlights that Burford Capital—which provided substantial litigation finance support for the plaintiffs—is now under scrutiny, and the uncertainty has already knocked more than 10 % off Burford’s share price.

According to the report, two of the appellate judges expressed scepticism about whether U.S. jurisdiction was appropriate, signalling a possible shift in the case’s trajectory. The funding provided by Burford makes this more than a corporate dispute—it's a pivotal moment for litigation funders backing claims of this magnitude. The article underscores that if the award is overturned or diminished on jurisdictional grounds, the returns to Burford and similar funders could shrink dramatically.

Looking ahead, this case raises critical questions: Will funders rethink backing multi‑billion‑dollar sovereign claims? Will lawyers and funders factor in jurisdictional risk more aggressively? And how will capital providers price that risk? The outcome could influence how global litigation finance portfolios are structured—and the appetite for large‑ticket sovereign cases.

A recent industry move sees the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury warning that the growth of third‑party litigation funding is putting fresh stress on the U.S. property‑casualty insurance sector. The FIO’s 2025 Annual Report on the Insurance Industry highlights the so‑called “tort tax” as a new burden, with insurers and consumers increasingly feeling the cost.

An article in Insurance Business explains that third‑party litigation funding—in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of potential settlements—is now viewed by federal regulators as a significant factor driving up claims costs for insurers.

The report quantifies the burden, pointing to an average annual cost exceeding $5,000 per household. In response, insurance trade groups like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) are throwing their weight behind federal bills such as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025, both of which aim to bring greater scrutiny and disclosure to litigation funding practices.

The report also draws on lessons from state-level reforms. In Florida, new legislation that slashed legal filings by over 30% has already helped insurers reduce premiums and issue customer refunds—offering a case study in how tort reform can yield near-term results. While the report also examines the insurance industry’s evolving role in climate resilience and loss mitigation, it makes clear that rising legal system costs remain an urgent and unresolved challenge.

For the legal funding sector, the report underscores a shifting regulatory landscape. With calls for federal oversight gaining traction, funders may soon face new transparency requirements, rate limitations, or reporting obligations. The FIO’s framing of litigation finance as a systemic cost driver is likely to spark renewed debate over how to balance consumer protection, insurer stability, and access to justice.

The plaintiff‑funding marketplace ClaimAngel announced it has surpassed 18,000 individual fundings—a milestone signaling its growing influence in the legal funding arena. The platform, founded in 2022 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, positions itself as a disruptor to traditional litigation finance models.

An release in PR Newswire outlines how ClaimAngel offers a single standardized rate of 27.8% simple annual interest and caps repayment at two‑times the amount funded after 46 months—significantly lower and more predictable than many legacy funders. The platform also claims to bring efficiency and transparency to the market by hosting a marketplace of over 25 vetted funders, allowing competing offers, and integrating directly into law‑firm workflows.

How claimants benefit: The core value proposition is to give plaintiffs “breathing room” when insurers use time as a weapon, enabling lawyers and clients to press for better settlement outcomes rather than settling prematurely under financial pressure. With over 500 plaintiff‑side law firms now using the platform, ClaimAngel is positioning itself as a credible alternative to more opaque “Wild West” funding practices—where a $5,000 advance could balloon into a $30,000 repayment by settlement.

ClaimAngel is striking at the heart of two key pain points: (1) lack of standardized pricing and (2) lack of transparency in funding terms. By offering a fixed rate and capped repayment in a marketplace format, it may prompt other players to rethink fee structures and disclosure practices. The milestone of 18,000 fundings also signals broader acceptance of tech‑driven innovation in a space often slow to modernize.

The Law Society of England and Wales has sounded the alarm that scrapping the UK’s opt‑out collective actions regime would invite a surge in unchecked anti‑competitive conduct by multinational firms.

An article in the Law Society Gazette explains that the UK government is reviewing its collective redress regime—introduced in 2015 under the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) framework—to determine whether it remains appropriate for businesses and consumers alike. Above all, the bar warns that eliminating or substantially reducing the ability of groups of consumers to act together would remove a key check on large firms’ power.

According to the bar’s statement, collective actions provide a vital counterbalance: they allow individuals with smaller claims (often against powerful enterprise defendants) to combine resources, reduce costs, and obtain meaningful relief. Without that mechanism, the risk is that dominant players may routinely engage in cartel‑type behaviour, abuse market position or otherwise infringe competition law with little fear of private litigation.

The review highlights that the regime has evolved faster than anticipated: the original design assumed most cases would follow a finding by the competition authority, but in practice around 90% are now “stand‑alone” claims brought without a prior regulatory decision.

For the legal funding and litigation finance sector, this development is especially consequential. Were collective actions to be scaled back or abolished, the landscape for financing competition‑law claims would shift markedly: fewer aggregated opportunities, higher individual‑case risk, and potentially lower investor appetite. It raises key questions about the future viability of funding models that rely on class‑style litigation in the UK market.

A healthcare‑turned‑litigation investor has taken legal action against Lake Law Firm and its partner Ed Lake, alleging a sweeping investment failure in the mass‑tort financing space. According to the complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court on October 22, the investor pumped around $5.3 million into programs tied to hernia‑mesh, Bayer AG’s RoundUp, 3M Co., and Johnson & Johnson talcum‑powder claims — only to find that fewer than the promised number of cases ever materialized.

An article in Bloomberg notes that per the suit, the law firm had committed to signing up 113 hernia‑mesh cases, 100 3M cases, and 50 RoundUp matters, but delivered only 15, 40, and 8 respectively. Separately, Lake Law pledged submission of 8,000 applications under the federal Covid‑era Employee Retention Credit program, yet managed only 2,655. The complaint characterizes the structure as “more akin to a Ponzi scheme than a legitimate litigation‐finance program.”

The investor also alleges that the law firm defaulted on a “case‑replacement agreement,” and is now demanding $6.2 million in damages, plus rights to any mass‑tort profits and tax‑credit claims that “rightfully belong” to him. According to the filing, his wife had separately invested $2.5 million and likewise filed suit last week claiming non‑repayment.

The latest chapter of the Global Legal Group’s Class and Group Actions Laws & Regulations 2026 report titled “In Case of Any Doubt – The Group and Collective Action Market is Here to Stay” provides a clear signal: the group and collective litigation landscape across the UK and Europe is evolving, and legal funders should take notice.

An article in ICLG highlights several key moves in the UK: the Civil Justice Council (CJC) issued its final report in June 2025 on private litigation funding, recommending “light‑touch” regulation of third‑party litigation funding and reiterating support for funding as a tool of access to justice. It follows the PACCAR Ltd v Green & others decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which classified certain litigation funding agreements as damages‑based agreements (DBAs), raising regulatory scrutiny on opt‑out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The CJC recommends reversing that classification via legislation, permitting DBAs in opt‑out class actions, and regulating funders’ capital and AML compliance.

Meanwhile, the UK’s opt‑out collective action model under competition law is under review. The government’s call for evidence flagged the high costs and shifting case mix as areas of concern.

On the European front, the Representative Actions Directive has spurred changes in France and Germany. France’s new law allows third‑party funding of group actions and broadens access and scope. Germany’s implementation enables qualified consumer associations to bring collective redress for both injunctive and monetary relief across a wide range of sectors including ESG, data‑protection and tort.

For legal funders, these developments signal both opportunity and risk. On one hand, enhanced regulatory clarity and expanded access points strengthen the business case for collective‑action funding. On the other, increasing scrutiny over funding arrangements, roles of funders, and capital adequacy impose compliance burdens.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) said he’s not backing down in his push to impose a special tax on litigation‑finance investors, signalling a new legislative attempt after an initial setback.

According to a report in Bloomberg Law, Tillis introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act earlier this year, which would levy a 41 % tax on profits earned by third‑party funders of civil lawsuits (37 % top individual rate plus 3.8 % net investment income tax). While the bill was included in the Senate Republicans’ version of the tax reconciliation package, the tax provision was ultimately removed by the Senate parliamentarian during the June process.

Tillis argues this is about fairness: he says that litigation‑finance investors enjoy more favourable tax treatment than the victims who receive legal awards, a situation he calls “silly.” He acknowledged the industry’s strong push‑back, noting a high level of lobbying from entities such as the International Legal Finance Association and other funders. “You couldn’t throw a rock and not hit a contract lobbyist who hadn’t been engaged to fight this … equitable tax treatment bill,” he said.

Though Tillis is not seeking re‑election and will leave office next year, he remains committed to using his remaining time to keep the tax issue alive. His remarks suggest this debate is far from over and could resurface in future legislation.

Hausfeld has achieved a major breakthrough in the UK’s collective‑action landscape by securing a trial victory against Apple Inc. in a case seeking up to £1.5 billion in damages. The case, brought on behalf of roughly 36 million iPhone and iPad users, challenged Apple’s App Store fees and policies under the UK collective action regime.

According to the article in The Global Legal Post, the action was filed by Dr Rachael Kent (King’s College London) and backed by litigation funder Vannin Capital. Over a 10‑year span, the tribunal found that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing “exclusionary practices” and charging “excessive and unfair” fees on app purchases and in‑app subscriptions.

The judgement, delivered by the ­Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 23 October 2025, marks the first collective action under the UK regime to reach a successful trial‐level resolution. The CAT held that Apple’s 30 % fee on these transactions breached UK and EU competition laws and that the restrictions were disproportionate and unnecessary in delivering claimed benefits.

Apple has stated it will appeal the ruling, arguing the decision takes a “flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy.” Meanwhile, the result is viewed as a significant vindication for collective claimants, with Dr Kent describing it as “a landmark victory … for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant.”