Almaden Minerals’ billion-dollar arbitration against the Mexican state just cleared a procedural hurdle that could hasten a merits hearing and, by extension, potential recovery for its financing partners.

An article in GlobeNewswire reports that the CPTPP tribunal overseeing Almaden’s claim has rejected Mexico’s attempt to bifurcate the case and litigate jurisdictional objections first. Mexico must now address the merits of the expropriation and fair-and-equitable-treatment allegations tied to the cancelled Ixtaca gold-silver project. Almaden, acting in concert with affiliate Almadex Minerals, argues the revocation of its mineral concessions wiped out a decade of investment and violated treaty protections.

As previously reported in Legal Funding Journal, the company is prosecuting the arbitration with up to $9.5 million in non-recourse finance secured in 2024 from an undisclosed specialist funder. The funding pact—structured to cover counsel from Boies Schiller Flexner and Ríos Ferrer—insulates Almaden’s balance sheet while granting the financier a contingent share of any eventual award.

Today’s procedural win therefore protects not only Almaden’s strategic timeline but also the funder’s upside economics by avoiding a costly detour on jurisdiction. Management expects the tribunal to release a revised schedule in Q4 2025, suggesting a merits hearing could follow in 2026 if no further delays arise.

For the legal-finance market, the decision underscores ISDS funding’s resilience despite geopolitical friction. Investor-state claims often hinge on jurisdictional sparring; forcing a state respondent to confront merits sooner can shorten the investment cycle and enhance IRRs.

A procedural ruling in London has put fresh heat on the brain-injury lawsuits rocking the rugby world. Senior Master Jeremy Cook lambasted solicitor Richard Boardman of Rylands Garth for “serious and widespread failures” in disclosure, finding that more than 90 percent of claimants lacked complete medical records. Crucially, Cook held that the claimants, “backed by a commercial litigation funder,” must pick up the tab for the defendants’ wasted costs—a rare instance of a funder’s involvement directly influencing a costs order.

The Guardian reports that over 1,000 former players allege governing bodies failed to protect them from repeated head trauma. While Cook declined to strike the claims, he warned that continued non-compliance could cull large portions of the roster before trial, now pencilled for 2026. The ruling also exposes tensions between rapid claimant sign-ups—fuelled by aggressive funding and advertising spend—and the evidentiary rigour English courts demand.

The decision is a shot across the bow for mass-tort funders operating in the UK. Expect tougher underwriting of medical-evidence protocols and sharper diligence on claimant-solicitor capacity. If courts keep linking funder money to costs penalties, premium pricing for sports-concussion risks may climb, and portfolio-level insurance such as ATE could become mandatory. The wider question: will stricter case management streamline meritorious claims—or chill capital for socially significant litigation? LFJ will be watching.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has thrown its weight behind two House measures—Rep. Darrell Issa’s Litigation Transparency Act (H.R. 1109) and Rep. Ben Cline’s Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (H.R. 2675). Both bills would force parties in federal civil actions to disclose third-party litigation-funding (TPLF) arrangements, while the latter would outright ban sovereign-wealth and foreign-state backing.

An article in Insurance Business America reports that APCIA’s federal-affairs chief, Sam Whitfield, told lawmakers at last week’s “Foreign Abuse of US Courts” hearing that undisclosed financiers inflate non-economic damages and, by extension, insurance premiums. Whitfield argued that hedge funds, private-equity vehicles and sovereign funds can currently steer litigation strategy from the shadows, possibly compromising national-security interests by harvesting sensitive discovery.

The legislation builds on a drumbeat of recent policy bids: Senate proposals to tax funder profits at 41%, a bipartisan push for MDL disclosure rules, and state-level consumer-funding caps. Unlike prior efforts, the Issa and Cline bills squarely target transparency and foreign capital rather than pricing, a framing likely to resonate with moderates concerned about geostrategic risk.

While passage in the current Congress is far from certain, APCIA’s endorsement amplifies industry pressure on lawmakers—and could spur compromises that impose at least some reporting duty on commercial funders.

Theo Ai has elevated litigation strategist Sarah Johansson to Head of Legal Product, a move the Palo Alto-based start-up says will help turn its AI-driven prediction engine into an everyday tool for Big Law, in-house counsel, and litigation financiers seeking sharper case analytics.

A notice in PR Newswire details how the London-trained attorney—whose résumé spans multimillion-dollar disputes at Rosling King LLP and an LL.M. from Georgetown—has spent the past year embedding with client legal teams to refine Theo Ai’s settlement-value and win-probability models. Her new remit is to scale those insights into a product roadmap that lawyers trust and investors can underwrite against.

Johansson steps into the role as Theo Ai builds traction among capital providers: the company recently closed a $4.2 million seed round and announced a strategic partnership with Mustang Litigation Funding, signaling that funders see AI-assisted diligence as a competitive edge.

Co-founder and CEO Patrick Ip credits Johansson’s skill at “translating legal complexity into product clarity” for bridging the cultural gap between data scientists and courtroom veterans. The platform ingests historical docket data and real-time analytics to forecast outcomes, a workflow analysts say can compress decision cycles for both lawyers and financiers.

With underwriting speed and accuracy now table stakes, Johansson’s charter to align product features with frontline legal workflows could accelerate adoption of predictive analytics across the funding sector. The Mustang tie-up bears watching as a template for deeper, data-sharing collaborations between tech providers and funders eager to price risk in an increasingly crowded market.

Capitol Hill is again zeroing in on litigation finance. During a House Judiciary Sub-committee hearing on “foreign abuse of U.S. courts,” Chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) revived his Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, which would mandate public disclosure of any outside funding in federal civil suits, along with the identity of the backer and the terms of the agreement.

An article in Bloomberg Law notes that Issa framed disclosure as a fairness measure—defendants already turn over insurance information—while hinting that opaque funding may enable “legal warfare” by foreign adversaries. The hearing featured witnesses from the insurance lobby and national-security analysts who linked anonymous capital flows to social-inflation pressures and geopolitical risk.

Although prior attempts at federal transparency rules have stalled, Issa’s bill dovetails with a parallel Senate push and a patchwork of state-level disclosure mandates. Funders argue that blanket reporting would chill investment and expose proprietary strategy; critics counter that sunlight would deter foreign influence and forum shopping. Sub-committee members floated amendments ranging from confidential in-camera filings to a PACER-style public registry.

For litigation financiers, the renewed spotlight could herald a regulatory inflection point: a narrowly tailored disclosure regime might boost legitimacy, but broad public filings could drive capital offshore or into other investment types altogether. Either way, today’s hearing signals that Washington’s debate over balancing access-to-justice benefits with transparency and national-security concerns is far from settled.

A new report catalogues how marquee investments in the £58 million Post Office settlement and the still-pending $15 billion Sabah arbitration have delivered thinner-than-advertised returns for Therium Capital. Add in 2023’s PACCAR ruling, which re-classified many funding contracts as damages-based agreements and capped recoveries, and the firm’s prospects look increasingly fragile.

An article in Boracay Island News recounts how Therium has scaled back new underwriting, shifted several legacy portfolios to Fortress Investment Group, and is now fighting to salvage returns in Therium v Bugsby—a test case on whether “DBA-style” clauses can simply be severed from legacy deals.

The piece underscores three structural stresses: concentration risk when outsized single matters dominate a fund; regulatory uncertainty post-PACCAR; and the reputational hit when claimant recoveries prove modest once funder multiples and lawyer fees are paid. Industry observers worry that if “grand-slam” cases continue to disappoint, limited-partner appetite for blind-pool capital could tighten, forcing funders to rely more heavily on secondary markets or bespoke co-invests.

For the wider legal-funding ecosystem the story is a sobering reminder: transparency, portfolio diversification, and realistic pricing will be increasingly important in a world of tougher judicial scrutiny and return caps.

Third-party funders are once again in the cross-hairs—and one of the sector’s elder statesmen is firing back. In a forthright essay published today, Calunius Capital chairman Leslie Perrin argues that Britain’s collective redress regime “cannot survive” if fresh assaults on funder fees succeed.

In an article in Solicitors Journal, Perrin points to two flashpoints: the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR ruling, which invalidated percentage-based funding agreements, and a new bid in Neill v Sony to outlaw multiples-based returns as well. At the same time, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is facing a judicial-review challenge from funder Innsworth over its decision to slash the funder’s recovery in the landmark £200 million Merricks v Mastercard settlement—an intervention Perrin calls “dangerously simplistic.”

Perrin’s broader thesis is that without well-capitalised funders prepared to shoulder adverse-costs risk, consumers will be left “stranded” against well-resourced corporate defendants and the CAT’s promise of affordable group litigation will wither. Perrin also takes aim at lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he says seeks to “promote opposition to litigation funding” under the guise of economic prudence. In place of curbs, he backs the Civil Justice Council’s recommendation for legislation reversing PACCAR retrospectively and prospectively.

If Westminster heeds those warnings, UK funders could regain certainty and renew their commitment to competition-class actions. But if further fee-caps or invalidations emerge, capital will flee to jurisdictions with clearer rules—leaving an access-to-justice gap just as collective-action appetite is peaking. Whether Innsworth’s challenge succeeds may therefore set the tone for the next chapter of UK litigation finance.

Alarm bells over the economic cost of UK class actions are “simply wrong,” says Anthony Maton, global co-chair of claimant firm Hausfeld, who dismantles a think-tank report suggesting mass litigation could sap £18 billion from the economy.

In The Global Legal Post, Maton traces the deliberate parliamentary design behind the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CAT’s rigorous gatekeeping of collective proceedings. He argues that funders—often caricatured as “ambulance chasers”—perform an essential market-correction role, underwriting meritorious competition claims that regulators or individual consumers lack resources to pursue. The piece notes that voluntary redress schemes built into the Act “have been used precisely zero times,” reinforcing the need for well-financed private enforcement.

Maton also rebuts suggestions that funders extract disproportionate value, pointing to oversight mechanisms and adverse-costs exposure that align investor and claimant interests. He invites sceptics to consider whether ill-gotten profits are better left with infringing corporates or redistributed to harmed consumers and access-to-justice charities.

The commentary offers a timely counter-narrative as Westminster considers PACCAR-related reforms. By reframing funders as pillars of a competitive economy rather than rent-seekers, it may bolster lobbying for statutory clarity on LFAs and head off calls for US-style disclosure mandates. Expect industry groups to amplify this message—and for critics to sharpen economic-impact modeling—in the run-up to any government consultation.

A critical procedural milestone has been set in the high-profile dispute over the $15 billion arbitral award claimed by the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate against Malaysia. A Paris court has scheduled a hearing for December 9, where it will decide whether to annul the partial award issued by a Spanish arbitrator—a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for the legitimacy of third-party funded arbitration in sovereign disputes.

As reported by The Malaysian Reserve, the case stems from a 2022 ruling which found Malaysia liable for ceasing annual payments related to a 19th-century lease of territory now part of Sabah. The award has been described as one of the largest in arbitration history and is backed by Therium, a UK-based litigation funder. Malaysia has consistently challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, resulting in conflicting decisions in courts across Spain, France, and Luxembourg.

The upcoming Paris ruling will not address the full $15 billion award but rather the validity of the partial award that formed the foundation for the final judgment. Malaysia’s legal representatives argue that the arbitration itself is void, citing breaches in due process and the arbitrator's alleged overreach.

The Sulu case has become a lightning rod in debates over state immunity, the enforceability of investor-state arbitration, and the role of third-party funders in politically sensitive disputes. As funders continue to back complex claims against sovereign states, the Paris court’s decision may set a significant precedent for the enforceability—and reversibility—of arbitral awards financed by external capital.