Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.

A new partnership between SIM IP and Tangibly signals a targeted expansion of litigation finance into the trade secret enforcement space, combining capital with technology designed to assess early stage risk. The collaboration reflects growing interest among funders in data driven approaches to underwriting complex intellectual property claims, particularly those that are traditionally viewed as expensive and uncertain.

A press release reports that the two companies have launched a joint offering aimed at financing trade secret litigation while leveraging Tangibly’s technology platform to help identify, value, and monitor trade secret assets. The partnership is positioned around an AI driven model that evaluates the strength of potential claims earlier in the lifecycle, with the goal of reducing uncertainty for both claimholders and funders before significant legal costs are incurred.

According to the announcement, SIM IP will provide litigation financing for qualifying matters, while Tangibly’s platform will support due diligence by mapping trade secret assets, tracking misappropriation risks, and generating data that can inform enforcement strategies. Trade secret claims often present unique challenges compared to patents, including evidentiary complexity and difficulties around valuation. By combining funding with structured analytics, the partners argue that more meritorious claims can move forward that might otherwise stall due to cost or risk concerns.

The launch also comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of litigation funding disclosures in the United States, particularly in intellectual property disputes. While the partnership announcement does not focus on regulatory issues, it highlights how funders are refining their models to emphasize selectivity, transparency, and risk management rather than broad based capital deployment.

For the legal funding industry, the collaboration underscores a broader trend toward specialization and technology integration. As competition among funders increases, partnerships that blend capital with proprietary tools may become more common, especially in niche areas like trade secrets where early insight can materially affect case outcomes and investment performance.

A federal judge has rejected an effort by Apple to force disclosure of litigation funding materials in a patent infringement dispute, reinforcing judicial reluctance to open third-party funding arrangements to routine discovery. The decision comes amid ongoing debates over transparency in litigation finance and marks another instance where courts have declined to equate outside funding with improper influence.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, the dispute arises from Apple’s defense against patent infringement claims tied to its iPhone “Back Tap” functionality. As part of its litigation strategy, Apple argued that communications between the plaintiff and its litigation funders could reveal undue control over the case or otherwise undermine claims of independence by counsel. According to the court, those arguments fell short of the threshold required to justify disclosure.

In denying the request, the judge emphasized that generalized concerns about litigation funding do not override long-standing protections such as the work-product doctrine. Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation remain shielded absent a clear showing of substantial need, and the court found no evidence that the funder’s involvement compromised legal strategy or decision-making. The ruling also rejected the notion that the mere presence of third-party funding creates a presumption of relevance or discoverability.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law in federal courts that treats litigation funding as a legitimate commercial arrangement rather than an automatic basis for expanded discovery. While some judges have ordered limited disclosures in narrow circumstances, particularly in class actions or conflicts analyses, courts have generally resisted defendant attempts to use funding as a backdoor to privileged materials.

The latest attempt to legislate transparency in U.S. litigation funding stalled in the House Judiciary Committee this week when the committee considered the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding From Abuse Act but recessed without ever voting on the measure and did not reconvene to advance it. The bill, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa of California, has now effectively been pulled from further consideration at this stage.

An article in IPWatchdog states that the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding From Abuse Act was debated alongside other measures during a lengthy markup that focused primarily on immigration enforcement issues. The measure closely tracked a previous effort, the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, also spearheaded by Issa, which sought to require parties in civil actions to disclose third party funding sources and related agreements. Like its predecessor, the current bill faced procedural challenges and competing priorities in committee, and did not reach the floor for a vote before lawmakers recessed.

Issa and his co-sponsors have framed the effort as necessary to illuminate so-called abuses in the U.S. litigation system by requiring the identity of third party funders to be disclosed to courts and opposing parties. But the repeated failure of similar bills to gain traction reflects deep partisan and practical concerns. Opponents argue that broad disclosure mandates could chill legitimate funding arrangements and impede access to justice, while supporters insist that transparency is essential to protect defendants and the legal system from hidden financial interests.

The stall of this latest proposal comes amid other congressional efforts on litigation finance, including separate proposals to address foreign funding in U.S. courts, but underscores the political and policy challenges in regulating private capital in civil litigation. With the bill pulled, stakeholders will watch for whether future iterations emerge in committee or form the basis of negotiations in upcoming sessions.

The Malaysian Bar has publicly endorsed Malaysia’s newly implemented legislative framework governing third party funding in arbitration, while cautioning that all stakeholders must remain vigilant as the regime is put into practice. The comments come as Malaysia formally joins a growing group of jurisdictions that have moved to regulate litigation and arbitration funding rather than prohibit it outright.

An article in Business Today Malaysia reports that the Malaysian Bar welcomed the coming into force of the Arbitration Amendment Act 2024 on 1 January 2026, which abolishes the long standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the context of arbitration. The new law expressly permits third party funding for arbitral proceedings and introduces a regulatory structure aimed at balancing access to justice with procedural fairness and independence. According to the Bar, the reforms are a positive and necessary step to ensure Malaysia remains competitive as an international arbitration seat.

The legislation includes requirements for funded parties to disclose the existence and identity of any third party funder, addressing concerns around conflicts of interest and transparency. It also introduces a code of practice for funders, designed to ensure that funding arrangements do not undermine counsel independence, tribunal authority, or the integrity of the arbitral process. The Malaysian Bar emphasised that funders should not exert control over strategic decisions, evidence, or settlement, and that tribunals retain discretion to manage funding related issues, including costs and security for costs applications.

While acknowledging ongoing concerns that third party funding could encourage speculative or unmeritorious claims, the Bar took the position that ethical and well regulated funding should not be viewed as a threat to arbitration. Instead, it framed funding as a legitimate tool that can enhance access to justice for parties who might otherwise be unable to pursue valid claims due to cost constraints. The Bar called on lawyers, arbitrators, institutions, and funders to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the new law as it is implemented.

Global litigation funder Omni Bridgewayhas announced the appointment of Nathan Krapivensky as an Investment Advisor, reinforcing the firm’s ongoing focus on deepening its investment expertise and strengthening origination capabilities across complex disputes.

Omni Bridgeway states that Krapivensky joins the business with extensive experience spanning litigation finance, complex commercial disputes, and investment analysis. In his new role, he will advise on the assessment and structuring of potential investments, working closely with Omni Bridgeway’s global investment teams to evaluate risk, quantum, and strategic considerations across funded matters. The appointment reflects the firm’s continued emphasis on disciplined underwriting and the development of sophisticated funding solutions for corporate clients, law firms, and claimants.

According to the announcement, Krapivensky brings a background that combines legal insight with commercial and financial acumen, positioning him to contribute meaningfully to Omni Bridgeway’s case selection and portfolio construction processes. His experience in analysing disputes at various stages of the litigation lifecycle is expected to support the firm’s efforts to deploy capital efficiently while maintaining rigorous investment standards. Omni Bridgeway highlighted that the role is advisory in nature, underscoring the importance of independent, high-quality judgment in evaluating opportunities across jurisdictions and asset classes.

The hire also aligns with Omni Bridgeway’s broader strategy of investing in talent as competition within the litigation funding market intensifies. As funders increasingly differentiate themselves through expertise rather than capital alone, senior advisory appointments have become a key lever for firms seeking to enhance credibility with sophisticated counterparties. By adding an experienced investment advisor, Omni Bridgeway signals its intention to remain at the forefront of the market for complex, high-value disputes.

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.