The New Jersey General Assembly has passed legislation requiring the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements, advancing the state toward becoming the latest to impose transparency obligations on the funding industry. The bill cleared the Assembly by an overwhelming margin, even as companion legislation in the state Senate has drawn pushback from trial lawyers and litigation finance representatives.

As reported by Law360, the measure requires parties to disclose the existence of third-party litigation funding arrangements and establishes a set of responsibilities for funders. Notably, the bill is framed as protecting plaintiffs as much as defendants: it requires funders to act in the best interests of the funded party, prohibits them from interfering with litigation decisions, and ensures that plaintiffs retain control over their own cases.

Supporters, including the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, argue that disclosure is essential because undisclosed funding can create conflicts of interest, complicate judicial administration, and allow funders to exert hidden influence over litigation. Opponents counter that mandatory disclosure risks exposing strategic information and chilling legitimate access to capital.

New Jersey's move reflects a broader national trend, with a growing number of states and federal proposals seeking to bring third-party funding arrangements into the open. With the Assembly bill now passed, attention turns to the Senate, where the industry's resistance may shape whether — and in what form — the disclosure regime ultimately becomes law. For funders operating in the state, the vote is a signal that transparency requirements are gaining legislative momentum.

Nine of Britain's biggest housebuilders are facing a collective action at the Competition Appeal Tribunal alleging they unlawfully shared competitively sensitive information that inflated the price of new-build homes. The claim, valued at between £2.2 billion and £4.5 billion, is backed by Burford Capital and stands as one of the most significant funded consumer competition cases to reach the CAT this year.

As reported by PropertyWire, the action is brought by class representative Mark McLaren on behalf of more than 700,000 people who purchased a new-build home in Great Britain between October 2015 and June 24, 2026. The defendants include Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Vistry Group, The Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, and Countryside Partnerships. Court documents allege the builders exchanged information on prices, buyer incentives, and sales activity, reducing competition and leaving buyers paying more than they should have.

Burford Capital has committed up to £29 million to the proceedings, meaning class members bear no financial risk and pay nothing if the claim fails. Estimated compensation ranges from £3,100 to £6,200 per affected homeowner.

The case underscores the central role litigation finance now plays in enabling large-scale UK collective actions, where the cost and complexity of pursuing hundreds of thousands of claims would be prohibitive without third-party capital. It also places one of the world's largest funders behind a high-profile consumer claim against a politically sensitive industry, ensuring the proceedings will be closely watched as they advance.

Litigation Capital Management has won another short extension of the covenant waiver on its debt facility, buying the funder additional time to resolve its capital structure while it pursues a strategic review. The AIM-listed funder paired the announcement with a warning of fresh write-downs on two case investments, sending its shares sharply lower.

As reported by Proactive Investors, lender Northleaf agreed to extend the covenant waiver by one month, to June 30, with the loan's interest margin remaining two percentage points higher than its standard rate but without an additional waiver fee. The extension follows earlier waivers granted in December 2025 and January 2026, underscoring the prolonged nature of LCM's efforts to stabilize its balance sheet.

Alongside the waiver, LCM disclosed adverse developments in two case investments carrying roughly A$9 million of deployed capital, which are expected to produce material write-downs in its next set of financial statements. Investors reacted by sending the stock down around 13%.

The update lands as LCM continues a strategic review aimed at addressing the mismatch between its funding commitments and available capital — a challenge that has weighed on several listed funders as longer case durations and adverse outcomes test the patience of lenders and shareholders alike. How LCM resolves its covenant position in the coming weeks will be closely watched as a barometer for the listed litigation finance sector.

New Zealand family law practices are increasingly treating third-party funding as a core part of their business model rather than a last resort, as firms look to convert uncertain and delayed fee recovery into secured, predictable revenue. The shift reflects a broader migration of litigation finance into the consumer and family-law space, where client liquidity — not the merits of a matter — often dictates whether a case proceeds.

As reported by LawFuel, Australian-based family law funder JustFund, which launched in New Zealand last year, has now approved close to NZ$5 million in funding across 92 accredited firms, with its loan book growing 36% in the most recent quarter. Once funding is approved, invoices are paid within 24 hours, shifting the financial risk of delayed settlements away from the firm.

The model assesses funding against expected property settlements, a structure suited to family disputes where assets exist but remain locked up until resolution. New Zealand recorded 7,887 divorces in 2025, up 5% on the prior year, underscoring steady demand.

Lauren Milne, JustFund's Director of Family Law, said firms are increasingly "bringing funding into matters earlier, embedding it into client onboarding rather than waiting for payment issues to emerge." The trend points to a maturing market in which funding is positioned not as a rescue mechanism for distressed matters but as standard infrastructure for managing a practice's cashflow — even among clients whose income belies their short-term capacity to pay.

The English High Court has ruled that communications generated to secure third-party funding are not shielded by litigation privilege, a decision that sharpens the disclosure risks facing funded claimants and the funders who back them. The ruling came in the long-running £300 million-plus claim brought by some 13,000 black-cab drivers against Uber, which alleges the company misrepresented its business model to Transport for London.

As reported by Legal Futures, Mr Justice Birt rejected arguments that documents passing between the claimants' solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, their litigation funder, and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association were covered by litigation privilege. Uber had sought disclosure of materials created between late 2017 and October 2018 — before the claimants had formally instructed solicitors — and the court agreed they were disclosable.

Central to the judgment was a distinction the court drew between a party assessing its own potential claim, which attracts privilege, and a funder evaluating whether to support someone else's litigation, which does not. The documents' dominant purpose, the judge found, was to enable a funding decision rather than to conduct litigation. As one firm observing the case put it, "the decision to fund litigation is not itself conduct of litigation."

The practical implications are significant. Defendants in group actions may now gain access to early communications that reveal what claimants knew, and when, while prospective litigants are being urged to weigh carefully what information they share with funders before a claim is formally underway.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that major corporate class members in the £13.6 billion Ad Tech Collective Action against Google can be compelled to participate actively in the litigation, a decision that reshapes expectations about what "passive" membership in a funded class action entails. The funded claim alleges that Google abused its dominance across the advertising-technology supply chain to the detriment of online publishers.

As reported by Tech Times, the Tribunal drew a deliberate line between small, genuinely passive beneficiaries and large institutional publishers with the resources and organizational capacity to produce relevant documents. For the latter group, the ruling holds, class membership is not a shield against disclosure obligations — they may be required to contribute to the evidentiary record despite not being named claimants.

The action is brought by Ad Tech Collective Action LLP, led by former Ofcom director Claudio Pollack, and is backed by a subsidiary of litigation funder Fortress, meaning class members bear no direct financial risk. The claim is represented by Hausfeld, Humphries Kerstetter, and Geradin Partners.

The decision matters for the economics of large funded opt-out claims: greater disclosure burdens on sizeable class members could affect case management, cost, and participation incentives in future collective actions. The Tribunal has listed the trial for September 2028, with a hearing expected to run twelve weeks.

Manolete Partners, the AIM-listed specialist in insolvency litigation finance, has reported a record year across several operational metrics for the twelve months ended March 31, 2026, even as realised revenue dipped and its share price slid. The funder, which finances claims pursued by insolvency practitioners in exchange for a share of recoveries, framed the results as the foundation for an ambitious next phase of growth.

As reported by Legal Futures, Manolete logged an all-time high of 1,027 case referrals, up 15%, and ended the year with 446 live cases and a forward book valued at £67 million — a 37% increase year-on-year. The proportion of larger claims grew, with cases expected to generate £500,000 or more accounting for £32 million of the forward book, up from £21 million. Average claim value rose to £158,000 from £124,000.

Realised revenue fell 6.5% to £28 million, but gross margin improved five percentage points to 37%, and a single truck-cartel settlement returned £3.2 million — a 560% return on the cash invested. Profit before tax margin remained thin at 0.4%.

Chief Executive Mena Halton, who took the role in August 2025, said the company "strengthened our team and new business development function to support the next phase of growth." Manolete set medium-term targets including realised revenue of £42 million and a 12% profit-before-tax margin, signaling confidence in the depth of the UK insolvency litigation market despite the stock's decline to 36p.

Australian companies face a class action landscape increasingly shaped by events beyond their borders, according to new analysis warning that overseas litigation, foreign regulatory activity, and global litigation funding flows now operate as leading indicators of claims that later emerge at home. For boards and executives, the message is that domestic precedent alone no longer defines exposure.

As reported by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, plaintiff firms are explicitly modeling Australian claims on foreign proceedings — in one instance announcing it was "investigating how an Australian claim could be run" following a U.S. technology ruling. The pattern spans medical products, automotive, and technology, with expansion anticipated into privacy, data, cyber, and climate-related disputes.

Foreign regulatory enforcement frequently acts as the catalyst. When overseas regulators scrutinize issues such as PFAS contamination or particular medications, Australian plaintiff firms often follow, leveraging the country's flexible consumer protection framework to build comparable claims.

Litigation funding plays a central role in this dynamic, with capital moving across jurisdictions to balance risk and return. The analysis notes that recent Australian court decisions — including rulings on common fund orders and confirmation of soft class closure — are expected to attract greater global funding capacity, potentially increasing both the volume and the resourcing of claims.

The practical takeaway for senior decision-makers is to monitor international developments proactively. Understanding overseas litigation strategies, regulatory priorities, and funding trends has become essential to anticipating exposure before Australian proceedings materialize.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified a £3 billion collective claim against Apple, allowing one of the country's largest consumer actions to proceed toward trial. The case, brought by consumer group Which?, alleges that Apple abused its dominant position in the iOS ecosystem by unlawfully favoring its own iCloud service over competing cloud storage providers.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, the tribunal certified the proceeding on June 25, 2026, sweeping in roughly 39 million UK consumers who used iCloud between November 2018 and June 2026. The opt-out structure means eligible UK residents are automatically included, while non-UK residents from the relevant period may opt in by October 8, 2026. Successful class members could recover up to £77 each, with trial scheduled for October 2028.

Which?, acting as class representative, has the backing of Litigation Capital Management's UK subsidiary, which is funding the claim. Notably, the tribunal dismissed Apple's objections to that funding arrangement — a point of continued significance as UK courts refine the rules governing third-party finance in the wake of the PACCAR decision.

Apple rejected the allegations, stating that it "rejected any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive" and pointing to "plenty of alternatives to choose from." The certification marks another milestone for funder-backed collective actions in the UK, where well-capitalized consumer claims against major technology platforms continue to test the limits of competition law.