Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is becoming increasingly important for small firms, inventors and universities seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights against major corporations.

According to an article in Bloomberg, funding arrangements enable plaintiffs with viable claims—but limited resources—to access litigation and expert fees that would otherwise be prohibitive. In the complex IP space, cost and risk often preclude smaller rights holders from doing anything meaningful when a financially strong infringer acts. In effect, the commentary argues, litigation finance helps tilt the playing field back toward fairness and innovation rather than letting size alone determine outcomes.

The piece also observes that public debate has at times mis-characterised litigation funding—especially after efforts to tax funder returns—which it says “shined a spotlight on the solution” rather than creating the problem. The authors stress that the proper policy response is not punitive taxation or sweeping disclosure mandates that risk chilling investment. Instead, they advocate for targeted transparency under court supervision, combined with a recognition that accessible funding is a core part of ensuring just enforcement of IP rights.

For the legal-funding industry, the commentary underlines several take-aways: funders who back IP-rights holders serve a social as well as economic role, helping inventors and smaller entities access justice they could not otherwise afford. The industry should engage proactively in outreach: educating IP counsel and claim-holders about funding, telling success stories of smaller plaintiffs, and working with policymakers and legislators to shape rational regulation. The challenge remains to balance the benefits of funding with ethical, transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards—as discussion in the broader TPLF context shows.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) has issued its first-ever Guideline on Third-Party Funding in arbitration, offering comprehensive direction on how parties, counsel, tribunals, and funders should navigate funded disputes. This milestone guidance is aimed at promoting transparency, consistency, and effective case management in arbitration where third-party funding plays a role.

The guideline addresses two primary areas. First, it outlines the third-party funding process, explaining funding structures, pricing models, and key provisions typically found in funding agreements. It provides a practical overview of the benefits and potential pitfalls of using funding in arbitration proceedings. Second, it tackles arbitration-specific case management issues, such as how funder involvement—though often portrayed as passive—can influence strategic decisions, including arbitrator selection, settlement discussions, and procedural posture. The guideline stresses the need to clearly delineate the scope of the funder's control or influence in any agreement.

CIArb also emphasizes the importance of early disclosure. The existence of funding and the identity of the funder should be revealed at the outset to avoid conflicts of interest and challenges to tribunal impartiality. On confidentiality, the guidance urges parties to reconcile the typically private nature of arbitration with the disclosure obligations inherent in funded cases.

Additionally, the guideline explores three critical cost issues: whether funders may cover arbitrator deposits, the increasing prevalence of security for costs orders targeting funders, and the evolving question of whether tribunals should allow recovery of funding costs.

UK Courts Minister Sarah Sackman has issued a clear call to third-party litigation funders operating in England and Wales: join the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) and commit to self-regulation as the government weighs potential legislative reforms for the industry.

An article in Legal Futures notes that while speaking in Parliament, Sackman underscored the importance of litigation funding in promoting access to justice and enhancing the UK’s global standing as a legal hub. However, she also warned that regulatory uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling in 2023 could drive funders to more predictable jurisdictions such as New York, Paris, or Singapore.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) earlier this year urged Parliament to swiftly pass legislation reversing the PACCAR decision, which cast doubt on the enforceability of many litigation funding agreements by classifying them as damages-based agreements. The CJC also advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach, aiming to preserve funding’s benefits while instituting safeguards.

In the Commons, Conservative MP Sir Julian Smith echoed this sentiment, suggesting that strengthened self-regulation through ALF membership may be sufficient, possibly avoiding the need for more burdensome legislation. Sackman did not commit to a timeline for government action but emphasized that litigation funding’s reputation and long-term viability hinge on transparent practices and adherence to recognized standards.

In a striking development, the Province of Alberta has awarded a CA$95 million (roughly AU$102 million) settlement to the Australian mining entity Montem Resources (now rebranded as Evolve Power Ltd.) to resolve a CA$1.75 billion lawsuit alleging that Alberta’s 2022 reinstatement of its coal-moratorium policy amounted to a de facto expropriation of its coal-licence interests.

According to an analysis in The Tyee, the settlement followed earlier compensation to another Australian-backed miner, Atrum Coal Ltd., which reportedly collected CA$143 million though it declared sunk costs of approximately CA$46 million. For Montem, the article notes its declared investment into the assets was about CA$15 million, yet it received a multiple of that in the final settlement.

The piece further highlights that about one-third (roughly CA$35 million) of the Montem payout will go to an Australian litigation-funding firm, Wahl Citadel, which backed Montem’s suit after providing loans totaling around AU$6 million on conditional terms, effectively “betting” on a successful outcome.

Critics argue Alberta’s government under Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean did not vigorously defend the case through mechanisms provided under the Mines & Minerals Act, and instead opted to settle for large sums—arguably far exceeding what the firms had originally invested.

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.