Australia’s long-running investigative program, Four Corners, has turned its lens on the country’s booming class-action market— and on the third-party funders who bankroll it.

ABC News’ 47-minute report, The Price of Justice, chronicles how class actions once hailed as David-versus-Goliath tools have evolved into profit engines for litigation investors and plaintiff firms alike. Viewers are walked through three marquee matters: the $272 million Uber settlement backed by Harbour Litigation Funding, Indigenous “Stolen Wages” cases funded by Litigation Lending Services, and the notorious Banksia Securities collapse that saw lawyers doubling as funders and later embroiled in fraud.

Critics interviewed argue that minimal regulation—offshore funders can reap 250% returns—has turned Australia into a “honeypot.” Pro-funding voices counter that without outside capital many mass-harm cases would never reach court. The broadcast lands as Canberra again mulls caps on commissions and mandatory licensing for funders—measures shelved last Parliament.

The programme’s searing anecdotes are likely to re-energise calls for tighter disclosure around fee-sharing and a statutory floor for claimant recoveries. Funders operating in Australia may soon face a two-front challenge: reputational scrutiny in the media and renewed legislative momentum in Parliament.

New survey data of 765 UK business leaders finds overwhelming support for third-party litigation funding as a catalyst for growth rather than mere cost-containment. Asked to weigh the mechanism’s risks and rewards, 68% said funding is good for the business environment against just 7% who view it negatively—a ten-to-one margin. Nearly four in five executives would consider using a funder themselves, and a plurality would plough the freed-up capital into technology upgrades (49%), followed by new products or services (44%) and market-expansion campaigns (38%).

An article in Law Gazette reports that consumer attitudes track the corporate sentiment, with 76% of the 1,501 adults polled willing to rely on funding to pursue claims and 87% stressing the importance of access to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for anti-competitive matters. Critically, only 43% feel confident taking on large companies unaided, a “justice gap” that Dr Rachael Kent—lead representative in the £1.5 billion collective action accusing Apple of App Store abuses—says funders are uniquely positioned to close. “It’s only through litigation funding that we can create a more competitive market,” she noted, with support strongest among Labour voters.

International Legal Finance Association chair Neil Purslow added that a swift legislative fix to reverse the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision would let funders redeploy capital into the UK and, by extension, allow claimant companies to redirect savings toward digital transformation and other growth projects.

For funders, the message is unmistakable: mainstream businesses now view legal finance as a strategic enabler, while public willingness to use funding bolsters collective-action pipelines. If Westminster moves quickly on PACCAR, the industry could see an infusion of demand and capital that reshapes Britain’s litigation landscape in the coming quarters.

International plaintiffs’ firm Pogust Goodhead has opened a fresh front in the marathon litigation over the 2015 Fundão dam collapse, dispatching a pre-action letter that accuses BHP, Vale and their joint-venture Samarco of orchestrating an unlawful plot to sabotage the English proceedings.

Acting through U.S. counsel Orrick, the firm says the miners induced claimants to sign cut-price settlements in Brazil, interfered with existing retainers and weaponised redress programmes run by the Renova Foundation to starve the London group action of participants. Pogust Goodhead pegs its damages at more than £1.3 billion—roughly the fees and uplifts it stands to lose if the 620,000-strong claimant cohort is picked off piecemeal.

An article in Reuters says the firm will argue three causes of action—unlawful means conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract and enforcement of its equitable lien—and blames the defendants’ constitutional challenge in Brazil (ADPF 1178) and the proposed “Repactuação” mega-settlement for the intensified pressure campaign.

The pre-action salvo lands just months after the close of a 13-week liability trial against BHP in London; judgment is due later this year, with a quantum phase already on the docket for 2026. Separately, Vale and BHP confront contempt allegations for allegedly funding satellite litigation to derail municipal claims. Should the new claim proceed, the miners could face parallel exposure not only for compensatory payouts—estimated at up to £36 billion—but also for the law firm’s lost fees and financing costs, which Pogust Goodhead says now exceed $1 billion.

A new entrant has jumped into the U.S. legal-finance arena.

National Law Review reports that Uncorrelated Capital has closed a $53 million seed round, backed by a private-credit fund and a leading plaintiffs’ law firm. Founder Miles Cole—a two-time tech entrepreneur—says the firm will “invest alongside law firms as partners” rather than lend against fees, aligning incentives to “drive better outcomes for plaintiffs.” The firm has already deployed “tens of millions” across thousands of claims, including high-profile mass-tort dockets such as Camp Lejeune.

Uncorrelated’s thesis is to marry software and data analytics with long-duration capital, targeting “uncorrelated” return streams that behave independently of broader markets. Cole argues that litigation finance remains “underserved by technology” and plans to build proprietary tooling to vet cases, monitor portfolios and streamline reporting. The launch comes as institutional money continues to flow into alternative credit strategies and amid renewed regulatory scrutiny of third-party funding structures on Capitol Hill.

For the legal-funding industry, Uncorrelated’s arrival underscores two trends: first, that smaller, tech-forward managers can still raise meaningful capital despite the dominance of well-funded incumbent players; second, that plaintiff-side firms remain eager for non-recourse capital partners who can shoulder risk without dictating strategy. Whether Uncorrelated’s data-centric model will gain traction—or push incumbents to up their own tech game—bears watching. Future fundraising rounds and case wins will reveal if the firm’s “software-first” pitch delivers outsized returns or simply adds another niche player to an increasingly crowded field.

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.

Johnson & Johnson’s quest to unmask the financial backers behind the avalanche of talc-cancer claims just hit another wall. A special master overseeing the federal multidistrict litigation has rejected the company’s demand that plaintiffs’ firm Beasley Allen disclose its third-party funding agreements and related communications. The ruling affirms that the materials are protected attorney work product and that J&J failed to show any “substantial need” that would override that privilege.

Law360 reports that J&J argued funders might be steering litigation strategy or settlement positions, threatening fairness to the defendants. The special master disagreed, noting Beasley Allen’s lawyers, not its financiers, control the case and that J&J offered no concrete evidence of undue influence.

The decision aligns with a growing body of federal authority allowing discovery only when a defendant can articulate specific, non-speculative concerns. For funders, the order underscores that carefully structured agreements—and disciplined funder conduct—can withstand aggressive discovery campaigns even in headline-grabbing mass-torts.

The outcome is another tactical setback for J&J as it defends more than 60,000 ovarian- and mesothelioma-related suits while pursuing parallel bankruptcy maneuvers through subsidiary Red River Talc. For the legal-finance community, the ruling reinforces work-product boundaries and signals that courts remain wary of turning funding discovery into a fishing expedition.

Manolete Partners has announced a £3.2 million payout from the settlement of one of its truck cartel claims, marking a rare but highly profitable detour from its usual insolvency-focused litigation funding strategy.

A company release confirms that the settlement will generate a money multiple of approximately 6.6x and a cash ROI of 560% on Manolete’s £483,000 investment in the case. The settlement proceeds are expected to be received in full by 1 August 2025, and will be used to reduce indebtedness under its revolving credit facility with HSBC UK. Although the agreement’s terms are confidential, Manolete emphasized the significant cash return while noting that a non-cash fair value write-down of £836,000 will be applied to reflect the net asset value recorded in its March 2025 financials.

This settlement is part of a broader portfolio of truck cartel claims that Manolete has consistently labeled as a one-off deviation from its core business in insolvency litigation. The company stressed that while it is pleased with this result and optimistic about further progress on outstanding claims, it is “very unlikely” to pursue future competition law claims.

In preparation for its interim accounts ending September 30, 2025, the company anticipates a further £1.1 million non-cash write-down on the remaining unsettled truck cartel matters. With the settlement proceeds and combined £1.9 million in write-downs, Manolete expects the net asset value of the outstanding truck cartel claims to stand at approximately £10.3 million.

Manolete’s foray into competition claims raises compelling questions about the risk/reward calculus in diversifying beyond core litigation strategies. Even as the firm signals a retreat from this space, the outsized return could spark interest among funders considering similarly calculated bets outside their main verticals.