Trending Now

All Articles

3650 Articles

Apple Denied Access to Litigation Funding Records in Patent Dispute

By John Freund |

In a closely watched decision, a federal judge has denied Apple’s attempt to compel Haptic Inc. to turn over litigation funding records in an ongoing patent infringement case.

According to Bloomberg Law, the dispute centers on Haptic’s claims that Apple’s iPhone “Back Tap” feature infringes on its patented technology. As part of its defense, Apple sought disclosure of communications between Haptic and its third-party funders, arguing the materials could reveal improper influence or strategic coordination.

The court, however, ruled in favor of Haptic, holding that the requested documents are protected under the work-product doctrine. This legal principle shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure, unless the opposing party demonstrates a substantial need. The judge emphasized that Apple had not met that burden, noting that the funder’s role did not compromise the independence of Haptic’s legal counsel or litigation strategy.

This decision is the latest in a series of rulings that underscore courts’ growing acceptance of litigation funding as a legitimate component of the civil litigation system. It also highlights the increasing legal clarity around funder-client relationships, especially regarding privilege and disclosure.

Triple-I Ties Litigation Funding and Legal Ads to Soaring Insurance Costs

By John Freund |

A new report from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) is drawing attention to the growing intersection between third-party litigation funding, mass tort advertising, and rising insurance costs. The report argues that these trends are correlated and may also be fueling a cycle of litigation abuse that places upward pressure on insurance premiums across the country.

According to Insurance Journal, the Triple-I report signals growing concern among insurers about the litigation finance industry’s systemic impact on claim costs and rate-setting. The report claims that attorney advertising—often funded or indirectly supported by litigation financiers—has surged in recent years, particularly in areas like product liability, pharmaceuticals, and toxic exposure. The influx of cases, many involving large aggregations of claims, has increased both the frequency and severity of insurance payouts. Triple-I warns that this dynamic contributes to a “social inflation” effect, where legal costs outpace economic fundamentals.

The report calls for regulatory action and transparency, suggesting that clearer disclosure rules around third-party funding and advertising could help insurers, courts, and the public better assess the risks and incentives involved.

While the litigation finance industry has long argued that its capital helps level the playing field for under-resourced claimants, critics say the unchecked expansion of funding models and advertising tactics may tilt the balance toward profit over merit.

Steward Health Wins Court Approval for $127 Million Loan to Fund Insider Litigation

By John Freund |

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Steward Health Care System’s request to obtain a $127 million loan to fund litigation against its former executives and insiders. The embattled hospital operator, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, is targeting up to $2 billion in potential recoveries through legal action.

The financing arrangement—approved despite objections from several creditors—marks a critical step in Steward’s restructuring strategy, enabling the hospital network to pursue claims of mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and possible fraudulent conveyances by former leadership. The proposed defendants in the litigation include members of Steward’s former executive team and affiliated entities involved in its rapid expansion and subsequent financial unraveling.

The loan is being provided by a group of new money lenders who will receive top-tier repayment priority from any litigation proceeds, a provision that stirred concern among some creditor groups during court proceedings. Critics argued the structure could reduce recovery prospects for unsecured creditors. However, the judge determined that the funding was both necessary and appropriately structured to pursue high-value claims that could ultimately benefit the estate.

Legal analysts note that this type of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing for litigation expenses is becoming more common in large corporate bankruptcies, especially when internal mismanagement or fraud is suspected. For litigation funders and investors in legal finance, the Steward case underscores the growing intersection of bankruptcy proceedings and asset recovery litigation.

Fenchurch Legal Launches Secured Litigation Funding Strategy for Fixed-Income Investors

By Harry Moran |

Fenchurch Legal, a UK-based litigation funding specialist, today announced the launch of a structured secured lending strategy aimed at fixed-income investors seeking stable returns outside of traditional markets. With economic uncertainty challenging conventional income instruments, the firm’s high-volume consumer litigation model offers a predictable, uncorrelated alternative designed to deliver quarterly interest payments through a diversified portfolio of secured law firm loans.

As economic volatility continues to test traditional markets, a growing number of investors are turning to alternative asset classes that promise stable risk-reward profiles. Litigation funding, once considered niche, is now emerging as a mainstream alternative investment, providing secure income generation.

Fenchurch Legal, a UK-based specialist in litigation funding, is among the firms redefining  the landscape of alternative credit strategies by offering a secured, income-generating investment that is predictable and uncorrelated with traditional markets.

A Secured Lending Approach to Litigation Funding

Fenchurch Legal has structured its litigation funding offering through a secured lending model, offering investors a fixed-income product with a unique security structure designed to protect investor capital. Unlike large litigation funders who focus on a few high-value commercial cases, Fenchurch Legal funds a high volume of smaller consumer claims - including those related to financial mis-selling and mis-sold car finance. This high- volume strategy allows for broad diversification across numerous law firms and case types, helping to mitigate concentration risk and deliver consistent returns.

The predictability of this model enables investors to receive fixed, quarterly interest payments, making it an attractive option for those seeking regular income through a disciplined, secured alternative to traditional fixed-income investments.

Delivering Predictability in an Uncertain Environment

One of the most attractive features of litigation funding is its low correlation with traditional markets and macroeconomic cycles, making it particularly appealing in volatile or downturn conditions. Unlike speculative alternative assets, high-volume litigation funding offers a structured and secured approach, ideal for investors prioritizing capital preservation and low volatility. Its predictability and resilience are what set it apart, with performance driven by legal outcomes rather than market sentiment or economic indicators.

From Case Selection to Investor Returns: The Fenchurch Model in Action

Real world case examples, such as PPI or mis-sold car finance, demonstrate how funding supports access to justice while delivering predictable outcomes for investors. These well-established, protocol-driven cases highlight the tangible benefits of Fenchurch Legal’s approach.

Investor capital is pooled and deployed via secured loans to law firms, enabling them to pursue a high volume of these smaller consumer claims. These cases follow established legal protocols and have historically demonstrated repeatable outcomes. The loans are repaid by the law firms over time, with interest, regardless of individual case outcomes, all backed by After-the-Event (ATE) insurance for added downside protection. 

This risk-managed structure has allowed Fenchurch Legal to consistently deliver investors with predictable, quarterly interest payments, ideal for income focused investors. By funding thousands of low-value claims across multiple law firms, the model achieves broad diversification and reduces exposure to any single case or firm. This risk-managed approach has historically delivered competitive returns, typically ranging from 11–13% per annum — making it well-suited to income-focused portfolios.

Louisa Klouda, CEO and Founder of Fenchurch Legal, stated, "At Fenchurch Legal, we’ve designed a litigation funding model that mirrors the features fixed income investors value most — regular income, downside security, and a diversified, risk-managed portfolio."

"In today’s economy, stability is the new growth. Litigation funding provides exactly that — it’s an asset class with low volatility, high transparency, and a compelling risk-adjusted return," she added.

About Fenchurch Legal

Fenchurch Legal is a UK-based specialist litigation financier, providing disbursement funding to small and mid-sized law firms pursuing consumer claims where outcomes are well-established and repeatable, including housing disrepair, financial mis-selling, and undisclosed commission cases. Founded in early 2020, Fenchurch Legal was established in response to growing demand for litigation funding in the smaller consumer claims segment—an underserved area of the UK litigation finance market. In parallel, Fenchurch Legal structures litigation finance investment products designed for investors, providing exposure to a non-correlated, secured investment class.

James “Jim” Batson Joins Siltstone Capital as Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer for Legal Finance

By Harry Moran |

Siltstone Capital, a leading multi-strategy alternative investment firm, is pleased to announce that Jim has joined the firm as a Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer of its legal finance strategy. Jim brings extensive experience in legal finance and strategic investment management, enhancing Siltstone Capital's capabilities in deploying sophisticated, high-value legal investment opportunities globally.

Jim previously served as the Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors and was Co-Chief Investment Officer - US at the global dispute finance company, Omni Bridgeway. In that role, he played a key role in developing the firm's U.S. presence, co-leading its investment strategy, and building out a top-tier legal finance team. At Siltstone, Jim will utilize this extensive experience to guide investment strategy, identify high-quality opportunities, and foster team growth to achieve strong returns for investors.

Robert Le, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Siltstone Capital, stated: "We are delighted to welcome Jim to our leadership team. His deep expertise in legal finance investment strategy, combined with his proven ability to build exceptional teams, positions Siltstone strongly as we launch our next fund. Jim's arrival marks an exciting phase for our firm, enhancing our capacity to execute sophisticated investment strategies and deliver outstanding results for our investors."

Jim commented, "I'm excited to join the Siltstone team and collaborate closely with Robert and the outstanding professionals at Siltstone Capital. Our combined expertise positions us exceptionally well to pursue compelling investment opportunities in the global legal finance market. I look forward to leading our investment strategy and contributing to the growth and success of an excellent team at Siltstone."

For more information about Siltstone Capital and its investment strategies, visit https://siltstonecapital.com.

New Express Legal Funding Portal and App Give Injury Plaintiffs Faster Access to Lawsuit Cash Advances

By Harry Moran |

The below is a sponsored post from Express Legal Funding.

Express Legal Funding, a leader in the pre-settlement funding industry, has officially launched the Express Legal Funding Portal and mobile app suite—now available on iOS, Android, and web. The innovative platform gives plaintiffs real-time access to their funding application status, document uploads, and direct case communication—all from a secure, user-friendly interface.

Since launch, the platform has already seen over 200 app installs across iOS and Android, reflecting strong early adoption and client demand for greater transparency, speed, and convenience in the legal funding process.

"This is the kind of digital leap our industry needed," said Aaron Winston, Phd, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding. "With the Express Legal Funding Portal, clients no longer have to wait days for updates or navigate confusing paperwork. Now they can check their status, send documents, and message us—all in one place, and on their own time, anytime 24,7. Ray Bivona, our Operations Manager, did a great job building out the platform."

Meeting the Demand for Speed, Simplicity, and Security

The Express Legal Funding Portal and apps are designed to meet the evolving expectations of legal consumers, as reports indicate the industry has surpassed $1 billion in annual advances nationwide. Key features include:

  • Live Case Status Tracking: Monitor the full legal funding timeline in real time
  • Secure Document Uploads: Send attorney correspondence and case files instantly
  • In-App Messaging: Communicate directly with case managers—no long hold times or email delays
  • Push Notifications: Get instant alerts for updates, requests, and approvals
  • Funding Calculator: Estimate pre-settlement cash eligibility based on case type
  • Bank-Level Encryption: Ensures client privacy and legal compliance at every step

"Clients tell us this is the best communication experience they've had with a legal funding company," said Shawn Hashmi, Chief Executive Officer at Express Legal Funding. "The high number of downloads in such a short time proves there's a real demand for this kind of tool."

Transforming the Legal Funding Experience for Plaintiffs and Attorneys

The Express Legal Funding Portal improves operational efficiency and transparency on both sides of the process:

  • For Plaintiffs: Offers peace of mind and greater control during a financially vulnerable time
  • For Attorneys: Reduces administrative back-and-forth, freeing up time to focus on litigation

About Express Legal Funding

Express Legal Funding is a trusted national provider of non-recourse pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs access fast, risk-free financial relief while their lawsuits move through the legal system. Repayment is only required if the client wins or settles their case.

The company has served thousands of injured plaintiffs in cases involving car accidents, slip and falls, product liability, and more.

What's Coming Next

In addition to the current features, the platform aims to expand in the coming months with:

  • Attorney Dashboard: Real-time access for law firms to manage client funding
  • In-App Renewals: Easy follow-up funding requests for returning clients
  • Case Management Integrations: Compatibility with popular personal injury law firm software platforms like Clio, Filevine, and SmartAdvocate

Litigation Funder Signal Peak Partners Launches in Texas

By Harry Moran |

Two leading litigation funders and former trial lawyers have joined forces and launched Signal Peak Partners, with a focus on commercial and patent litigation including domestic and international matters. Signal Peak offers customized litigation financing, private credit solutions, and monetization options to plaintiffs and their trial lawyers.

Signal Peak is led by co-founders and managing partners Lauren J. Harrison and Mani S. Walia. They have managed over $500 million in institutional capital, funded some of the largest judgments in the country, and practiced at preeminent law firms. From its network of trial lawyers, Signal Peak will source compelling cases to provide investors uncorrelated returns.

“I’ve had the privilege of working with the Signal Peak team for years,” said Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader for Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance at Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. “They are a rare combination: elite trial lawyers and top-flight litigation funders with an unwavering commitment to delivering efficient and excellent results for their clients. Lauren and Mani are widely recognized as thought leaders, trusted partners, and expert advisors in the litigation finance industry. Signal Peak will be a tremendous asset for attorneys and plaintiffs.”

Ms. Harrison, recognized as one of Lawdragon’s “100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance,” has over 25 years of civil litigation and litigation funding experience. She graduated magna cum laude from both Dartmouth College and Cornell Law School, where she was Articles Editor of the Cornell Law Review, and clerked for judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. She spent decades as a litigation partner at Vinson & Elkins and Jones Walker before focusing on litigation finance and serving as Vice President and Investment Counselor at Law Finance Group.

Mr. Walia has over 20 years of civil litigation and litigation funding experience. He graduated with honors from the University of Texas and with honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was an editor of the Texas Law Review. He clerked for judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before litigating at Susman Godfrey.

Mr. Walia previously founded the litigation finance group at the investment firm Siltstone Capital, where his work earned him Texas Lawbook’s award for Legal Innovation in 2022. Mr. Walia is a co-author of the sixth edition of ALM’s national treatise on litigation funding.

Signal Peak is honored that Hazoor Partners, the largest investor in Mr. Walia’s prior Siltstone fund, has chosen to be an anchor investor of Signal Peak. Prior to launching its first funding strategy, Signal Peak has secured commitments of over $40 million in investment capital, with a hard-cap final close of $125 million, along with a broad investment mandate.

Ms. Harrison said that Signal Peak “will distinguish ourselves as a funder of complex litigation and will empower trial lawyers and their clients through strategic funding.” She noted that Signal Peak takes its name from the highest natural point in Texas. “We aim to bring perspective and to help our partners achieve towering success.” Of Mr. Walia she said, “Mani is a visionary who saw this industry’s potential at an early stage, and he has profound leadership skills.”

Mr. Walia said, “It is a professional dream to partner with Lauren. She’s the person I admire most in the industry. I owe my approach to case selection to my mentor Stephen D. Susman, the country’s best trial lawyer over the last 50 years and the original litigation funder, and we continue his legacy of ensuring access to justice.”

Signal Peak’s management team includes experienced litigation fund specialists Jackson Schaap as Vice President of Finance and Carly Thompson-Peters as Director of Operations. Both were formerly with Siltstone Capital.

“Lauren and I are fortunate to have Jackson and Carly join us as founding members,” Mr. Walia said. “Jackson brings elite finance acumen to valuation and portfolio construction, and Carly, with her paralegal expertise, is the nerve center of our firm.”

Signal Peak’s investment committee includes a retired federal district court judge, one of the country’s leading litigation funding law professors, and the former head of Omni Bridgeway’s Houston office.

Signal Peak invites you to attend LitFinLive, its industry conference, on February 25-26, 2026, at The Post Oak Hotel in Houston.

Beyond the Mastercard Dispute: Why Class Action Funding Needs a Structural Revolution

By Alberto Thomas |

The following is contributed by Alberto Thomas, co-founder and managing partner of Fideres Partners LLP, an economic consulting firm specializing in litigation-related services.

Innsworth Capital's opposition to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's fee award in the Mastercard settlement has dominated headlines, with the litigation funder arguing that inadequate compensation threatens the future of UK class actions. But this dispute misses the fundamental issue. The real threat to collective redress isn't judicial attitudes toward fee awards—it's the structural limitations of how litigation funding operates.

The stakes couldn't be higher. Without structural reform, the UK class action system risks permanent ineffectiveness, leaving millions of consumers without practical access to justice while allowing corporate wrongdoing to continue unchecked. The changes proposed here would dramatically increase the volume of viable class actions, reduce funding costs, and create a genuinely functional collective redress system. Failing to act now means perpetuating a dysfunctional market where only a tiny fraction of meritorious claims ever see the light of day.

Rather than debating whether courts provide adequate compensation to funders, we should ask: why does the success of the entire UK class action regime depend on the economics of individual cases? The current model represents a classic case of capital misallocation, where resources are inefficiently concentrated rather than distributed optimally across the market.

The Flawed Foundation of Current Funding

The current model forces funders to make large, concentrated investments in individual cases while hoping their due diligence can identify certain winners. This approach is fundamentally unsound, regardless of fee awards.

Diversification is essential, but it is often impossible due to capital limitations. The UK market remains fragmented, with small funds lacking sufficient capital for diversification. Many of these funds share common investors, further exacerbating concentration problems and reducing overall market capacity. Individual class actions require millions in upfront investment over the years, so most funds can finance only a handful of class action cases simultaneously. Funders spend vast resources attempting the impossible: predicting with certainty how complex legal proceedings will unfold.

This strategy fails because litigation outcomes depend on uncontrollable variables. The Merricks case illustrates this perfectly—despite being strong on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, Innsworth's £45 million investment produced disappointing results. This isn't a failure of due diligence but the inherent unpredictability of litigation.

The Mathematics of Portfolio Necessity

The solution lies in recognizing that litigation funding should operate like every other investment class: through diversified portfolios designed to achieve consistent returns across aggregate investments, not individual successes.

Successful venture capital funds expect most investments to fail, some to break even, and a small percentage to generate exceptional returns that compensate for losses. The mathematics work because diversification allows the law of large numbers to operate, reducing portfolio risk while maintaining attractive returns.

Litigation funding should follow identical principles, but this requires making tens or hundreds of investments across diverse cases, jurisdictions, and legal theories.

Market Structure as the Primary Constraint

This capital limitation creates a destructive cycle that no fee restructuring can resolve. Limited diversification forces funders to be extremely selective, reducing meritorious cases that receive backing. Meanwhile, defendants observe that only the most obvious cases receive funding, escaping accountability for misconduct below this artificially elevated threshold.

The Mastercard outcome exacerbates these dynamics not because of inadequate fee awards, but because it highlights the vulnerability of concentrated portfolios. When funders experience significant losses on promising investments, rational capital allocation demands that they either exit the market or require substantially higher returns to compensate for concentration risk.

Beyond Traditional Funding Models

Solving this challenge requires moving beyond incremental reforms toward fundamental structural change. The key insight involves separating litigation risk from funding through proven approaches that have already transformed other markets.

The optimal structure would place litigation risk—the possibility that cases fail entirely—in the After-the-Event (ATE) insurance market, where specialized insurers possess deep expertise in risk assessment, diversification, and pricing across large portfolios. A fully insured investment vehicle could then access capital through traditional financial markets: banking facilities, mutual funds, pension funds, and institutional investors.

This separation would transform the economics entirely, using methods already well-established in insurance and capital markets. Insurance companies could price litigation risk using actuarial methods across diversified books of business. Meanwhile, the funding vehicle—protected by comprehensive insurance—could attract liquidity from other investment channels, such as mutual funds and the financial sector, at attractive interest rates. This type of bifurcation of  risk  would likely shorten due diligence times, significantly increase the amount of litigation funding available while simultaneously reduce its cost.

Learning from Financial Evolution

This transformation would mirror the evolution witnessed in credit markets with the development of risk transfer mechanisms like credit default swaps in the 1990s. Prior to these, banks faced severe limitations because they had to hold credit risk on their balance sheets. Risk transfer mechanisms allowed separation of credit origination from risk bearing, dramatically expanding lending capacity.

The parallels to litigation funding are exact. Currently, funders must simultaneously assess legal merit, manage litigation risk, and provide capital—constraining both capacity and efficiency. Separating these functions would deliver identical efficiency gains.

European Market Opportunities

The emergence of collective action regimes across Europe presents a significant opportunity to address these diversification challenges. As markets develop in the Netherlands, Portugal, and potentially Spain, they create additional avenues for portfolio diversification.

Rather than viewing these regimes as facing identical constraints, we should recognize their potential contribution to risk mutualization. A larger, diversified pool of cases across multiple jurisdictions would enable the portfolio approach that current market fragmentation prevents.

Time for Transformation

What's needed is recognition that effective collective redress requires sustainable funding models built on proper risk diversification rather than case-by-case selection. This requires applying established financial approaches that separate litigation risk from funding, enabling access to the vast capital pools necessary for portfolio-scale operations.

The time has come for bold innovation in UK litigation funding—bringing entrepreneurial spirit to what the City of London does best: creating imaginative solutions to complex financial problems. The City's unrivalled expertise in structuring sophisticated financial products and insurance markets makes it perfectly positioned to develop these new models. Such innovation would not only transform access to justice but could create an entirely new growth sector within the UK's service economy, establishing global leadership in a rapidly evolving field.

The transformation in litigation funding won't come from courts awarding higher fees to disappointed funders. It will come from applying the same proven structural approaches that have successfully developed every other sophisticated investment market. The question isn't whether this transformation will occur, but whether the UK will lead it or be forced to follow others who seize this opportunity first.

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.