As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.

When it comes to medical and personal injury group claims, the financial resources that litigation funders provide is often a vital component of their potential success. However, a new initiative tackling a specific medical claim in France also demonstrates the importance of funders working with specialist law firms and local associations who have the requisite knowledge and experience to support these patients.

In a post on LinkedIn, litigation funder LitFin announced the launch of an initiative to support women in France who have suffered or are suffering health complications related to the Essure contraceptive implant. 

The Essure implant is a non-surgical, permanent method of contraception which was introduced in 2001, but in the years following its use has seen thousands of women develop serious health complications from the implant. Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure, stopped the sale and distribution of the device in 2018.

The initiative launched by LitFin is in collaboration with RESIST, an independent French association founded in 2016 that has been campaigning for and supporting women who have been affected by issues following the use of the implant. Legal support for the initiative is being provided by JVL & Associés, a French law firm located in Rouen, Normandy, that specialises in health law and has 20 years of experience in medical accident claims and patient law.

More information about the initiative and upcoming public events hosted by RESIST can be found on the Implant Compensation Claim website.

When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct by the law firm entrusted with a funder's financial resources.

An article in Reuters covers the approval of a settlement between MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates) and two litigation funders, which will see the bankrupt law firm sell more than 6,000 cases to repay debts owed to the funders. Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund had sued MMA in Texas state court, and under the new settlement will receive a minimum of $18 million from the sale of the cases. The settlement brings the dispute between the funders and law firm to a close, following years of court battles over MMA’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent.

The settlement, which was approved by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez, requires that 75% of the proceeds from the sales go to the two funders, with the remaining percentage of proceeds distributed to MMA’s other creditors. The $18 million figure set as a minimum return for the funders under the settlement is still significant below the nearly $38 million that they claim to be owed by MMA. The mass tort cases include claims related to pharmaceutical drug, a weed killer, and a baby formula.

The troubles facing MMA go back several years, with LFJ reporting back in 2023 on a petition lodged by the same two funders in a Louisiana court over MMA’s improper filing of claims on behalf of property owners who suffered damage to their properties from hurricanes. The law firm and its founder, Zach Moseley, were reported to be under investigation by the FBI over these filings of claims but there is currently no update as to the status of that investigation. 

The settlement also allows MMA and Moseley to continue working on other cases on its books, on the condition that the latter does not receive any form of salary increase or bonus before the funders have been repaid.

The prolonged duration of investor-state treaty disputes often means that updates on these claims are few and far between. However, the presence of litigation funding allows these claims to proceed at their own pace without the claimant being concerned over the significant financial resources needed to support these disputes. 

In an announcement released today, Panthera Resources Plc provided an update on the arbitration claim being brought by its subsidiary company, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL), against the Republic of India over the Bhukia project. The announcement revealed that IGPL has issued its Memorial to the arbitration tribunal, which includes a claim for damages totalling $1.58 billion. 

The filing of the memorial and statement of claim to the tribunal follows IGPL’s formal issuance of a Notice of Arbitration to India in July 2024, and the tribunal’s later order to file the memorial by 16 May 2025.

As LFJ previously reported in August 2023, Panthera Resources has secured litigation funding through LCM Funding, a subsidiary of Litigation Capital Management. The funding agreement provides for up to $13.6 million in financing to support the dispute through to a conclusion.

The claim being brought by IGPL centres on alleged breaches of the 199 Australia-India Bilateral Investment Treaty, claiming that the Government of Rajasthan ‘denied and frustrated’ IGPL’s right to be granted a prospecting license over the Bhukia mining project. Furthermore, IGPL’s claim alleges that it suffered a total loss of investment following the passing of new legislation in 2021 which amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 2015 and thereby revoked the preferential right to a prospecting license and mining lease.