The Minister for Justice in Ireland has expressed serious reservations about introducing third‑party litigation funding. Speaking at a dispute resolution conference hosted by Mason Hayes & Curran, Jim O’Callaghan emphasized his concern about “commodifying justice” and his reluctance to see lawyers as the principal beneficiaries of funding regimes. He pledged to review the forthcoming report from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) before making any decisions.

An article in Law Society Gazette reports that under current Irish law, third-party litigation funding by parties without a legitimate interest in the dispute is prohibited, though exceptions exist. O’Callaghan acknowledged the potential access‑to‑justice benefits of such funding, but warned that in practice the “big winners” tend to be lawyers. He stated, “I have no interest, in my role as Minister for Justice, in enriching lawyers.”

During the same panel, barrister Emily Egan McGrath SC noted that Irish courts have expressed growing frustration at the absence of legislative reform and have sometimes stretched existing exceptions—for example, in Campbell v O'Doherty, where the High Court rejected a challenge linked to crowdfunding. The panel also discussed evolving developments under EU law—such as the Representative Actions Directive—which may force Ireland’s hand. But speakers cautioned that the high costs of mass actions might discourage parties without funding support.

MHC partner Colin Monaghan observed heightened wariness in the UK about unregulated litigation funders, while Rory Kirrane SC warned of internal conflicts between funders and claimants over litigation proceeds. The panel speculated that any regulatory framework should fall under existing bodies (such as the Central Bank or CCPC) instead of creating a new oversight agency. Former Chief Justice Frank Clarke, president of the LRC, endorsed reform as essential—but insisted it must be accompanied by rigorous regulation.

O’Callaghan’s expressed reluctance signals that any move toward regulated third‑party funding in Ireland will face political and institutional resistance. For the legal funding industry, this cautious posture underscores the importance of demonstrating safeguards, transparency, and proportionality if funding models are to gain traction in conservative jurisdictions.

A litigation funder is driving lawsuits against prediction market platform Kalshi Inc. in six states, using an 18th‑century gambling law in a bid to claw back losses from predictions gone wrong.

An article in Bloomberg Law describes how Veridis Management LLC and its CEO, Maximillian Amster, are behind entities filing suits in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Georgia. The lawsuits invoke state versions of the anti‑illegal gambling “Statute of Anne,” which allows losing parties to sue winners for losses plus fees.

The targeted suits allege that Kalshi—which operates as a platform for trading event contracts—is facilitating illegal, unregulated wagering and violating both state and federal law. The complaint includes examples such as bets on NBA championship scores and whether Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028.

The plaintiffs also name Robinhood and Webull, platforms that host Kalshi’s contracts, as defendants. While Kalshi declined to comment, the article notes that Kalshi’s status as a designated contract market under the CFTC is central to the legal conflict: that designation shields it from state gambling regulation, but its boundaries are under scrutiny. A U.S. court has already weighed in, ruling that prediction of a political election does not qualify as “gaming” under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Veridis is portrayed as a specialist in complex litigation and regulatory claims, investing in high‑stakes, nonrecourse cases. Amster, formerly in real estate and private equity, steers this strategic litigation play. The article frames the Kalshi suits as a bold frontier for litigation funders—leveraging obscure statutes to attack financial innovation.

These developments may push litigation funders further into regulatory and doctrinal controversy. How courts and regulators respond to this stretch of archaic statutes could reshape strategic boundaries in the litigation finance industry.

Recent commentary in Law Gazette examines claims that the growth of collective litigation poses a damaging drag on economic performance. The article notes that the pressure group Fair Civil Justice estimates that unchecked mass claims could cost the UK up to £18 billion, erode £11 billion in market value from innovative firms, and slow the country's economic expansion. The article traces the evolution of these arguments, arguing that some of the most dire projections hinge on models that may overstate systemic risk or underplay countervailing benefits.

An article in Law Gazette highlights critics' concerns that the scale, costs, and complexity of aggregating claims impose administrative burdens, encourage excessive fees, and generate uncertainty—especially for firms facing litigation exposure.

Supporters of collective actions stress the role these mechanisms play in providing access to justice—particularly for dispersed or under-resourced claimants. The commentary suggests the debate often pivots on how to balance deterrence, fairness, cost control, and innovation incentives. Law Gazette ultimately questions whether the worst economic forecasts are empirically grounded or rhetorical excess.

The piece does not settle the question definitively but invites policymakers and industry stakeholders to interrogate the assumptions behind £‑billions‑scale estimates, and to examine whether reforms or guardrails might preserve the virtues of collective redress while limiting speculative or obstructive litigation risk.

If the narrative of mass litigation harming growth gains traction, legal funding and litigation finance will be pushed deeper into regulatory debates. Watching how lawmakers, courts, and economic commentators reconcile access to justice with macroeconomic risk will be critical for the future of third‑party funding.

Shares of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) plunged about 60% after the firm disclosed that a string of case losses has triggered “a material uncertainty in relation to our going concern status.”

According to its results for the year to 30 June, LCM won six and lost six cases, with three further cases currently under appeal (worth ~£22 million). The firm also disclosed a High Court defeat in a commercial matter where it had invested £16 million (its own funds plus managed funds). While it posted net gains of £11 million and a 1.8× multiple on concluded investments, overall it recorded a £41 million loss because of the adverse outcomes.

With debt levels rising and cash realizations weakening, LCM now finds itself increasingly reliant on its credit facility. The company acknowledges that further case losses could breach debt covenants, prompting a strategic review and consideration of a leaner, run‑off model. LCM’s share closed at an all‑time low of 10.75p—down from ~100p a year earlier.

CEO Patrick Moloney attributed the underperformance to the inherently binary nature of litigation funding—and to perceived drift from a formerly “hands‑on” model toward a more passive, lawyer‑led investment approach. To recover, LCM is cutting costs, trimming underperforming investments, reinstating rigorous quantitative due diligence, reducing staffing, and revamping its approach to expert evidence.

LCM currently has 53 active cases on its books with a total balance sheet exposure of ~£85 million.

LCM’s collapse is a cautionary tale for the litigation funding sector: the binary risk profile of legal finance, combined with leverage and reputation shocks, can quickly tip even seasoned players into crisis. If more funders follow this trajectory, we may see heightened demands for transparency, stronger regulatory oversight, or a shake‑out in the publicly traded tier of legal funders.

Eco Buildings Group said it has secured full litigation funding from Atticus Litigation Financing for its €195 million arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration arising out of alleged losses tied to actions by government agencies in Kosovo. In the same disclosure, the company confirmed that BSA Law has been retained on a conditional fee arrangement and noted that tribunal nominations are underway.

The announcement identifies Atticus as adviser-backed by industry veteran Nick Rowles-Davies and indicates the fund is scheduled to commence operations in October 2025.

The interim-results RNS, dated September 30, 2025, upgrades the company’s July communication—which described an “offer of full litigation funding”—to a confirmation that funding is now in place, while also updating expected fund timing. Together with the CFA, the package points to a blended financing structure designed to carry the matter through to award.

For funders and counterparties, the key near-term questions are procedural: how quickly the tribunal is fully constituted; whether early case-management orders shed light on timetable, bifurcation, or disclosure; and the degree to which funding terms (to the extent disclosed) signal stamina through potential post-award phases.

From Eco Buildings’ perspective, securing third-party capital at this stage helps ring-fence legal spend and adverse-costs exposure during the most resource-intensive portions of the case. For Atticus, the mandate offers an inaugural high-profile deployment in commercial arbitration, with advisory pedigree that will be familiar to market participants.

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) said the High Court in London has delivered judgment against its funded party in a commercial claim, marking a setback for the ASX-listed funder. The investment was co-funded with £9.9m from LCM’s balance sheet and £6.1m from Fund I, and the company reiterated that adverse-costs exposure is backed by after-the-event (ATE) insurance. LCM added that it will confer with counsel on next steps, a process that typically encompasses prospects of appeal, costs issues, or settlement positioning.

In the regulatory notice, LCM set out the key economics of the position and clarified the presence of ATE cover—detail that offers unusual transparency around downside risk management. The co-funding split between the corporate balance sheet and the pooled vehicle means any financial impact is dispersed rather than concentrated in a single pocket of capital.

While ATE insurance is not a profit buffer, it is intended to shoulder the counterparty costs risk that can materialize after an adverse outcome, and it can meaningfully limit cash outflow volatility as the matter moves through post-judgment phases.

The disclosure underscores the familiar dynamics of portfolio funding—wins and losses arrive unevenly, but disciplined structuring (co-funding, ATE, and aligned counsel) is designed to keep drawdowns contained. LFJ will track any developments around appeal decisions, cost orders, or portfolio commentary tied to this case as LCM executes its review with counsel.