Veteran mass tort attorney Harris Pogust is offering a cautionary tale to the litigation finance community, reflecting on the collapse of his former firm, Pogust Goodhead, after an eye-popping $500 million investment from Gramercy Funds Management. Now serving as a senior adviser at Bryant Park Capital, Pogust is urging funders to rethink how capital is deployed—and monitored—when backing law firms.

An article in Bloomberg Law captures Pogust’s retrospective on the 2023 mega-funding round, which at the time marked one of the largest single infusions into a plaintiff-side law firm. Despite the capital, Pogust Goodhead faltered under internal investigations and allegations of lavish spending, ultimately surrendering asset claims to Gramercy tied to the full $617 million value of the funding arrangement. Pogust bluntly warned that, absent proper oversight, handing a large check to a law firm can quickly devolve into what he described as “buy a Maserati and have fun,” with firms burning through capital without accountability.

In his current role, Pogust is advocating for a more hands-on model where funders act more like partners than passive financiers. He supports collaborative budgeting, ongoing financial oversight, and stronger alignment on outcomes between funders and firms. He also pushed back against calls for heightened regulation or taxation of litigation funders, suggesting that current legislative efforts unfairly target the industry.

For litigation funders, Pogust’s experience offers a timely reminder of the risks that accompany rapid deployment of capital without guardrails. As the size and complexity of funding deals continue to grow, the industry may need to adopt stricter governance standards, enhance operational due diligence, and establish frameworks that ensure discipline in how law firms deploy capital. Pogust’s remarks serve as both a warning and a blueprint for what responsible litigation funding should look like going forward.

London-based private credit firm Lyford Partners, founded by industry veterans Matt Meehan and Toby Bundy, has officially launched with equity backing from U.S. alternative investment firm Moody Aldrich Partners (MAP). The new venture aims to provide hard-asset, situation-specific lending across the UK, Europe, and select offshore jurisdictions.

An article in Insider Media outlines Lyford’s lending focus, which includes bridging short-to-medium term liquidity needs of ultra-high net worth individuals, families, and businesses. The firm will also fund special situations such as matrimonial disputes, probate proceedings, and insolvency-related asset financing. Headquartered in London, Lyford also has a presence in the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and Nassau. The firm typically provides loans ranging from £2 million to £20 million, using high-quality assets as underlying collateral.

Matt Meehan serves as Chief Investment Officer, bringing over three decades of experience and more than £3 billion in deployed capital across 200+ companies in the UK, Europe, and the U.S. Toby Bundy adds deep experience in restructuring and special-situations lending. From MAP’s side, Co-CEO and CIO Eli Kent noted that Lyford is already executing deals and has a strong pipeline, stating that MAP is focused on underwriting “world-class niche investment firms.”

From a legal funding industry perspective, Lyford’s launch is notable for its overlap with scenarios often served by litigation funders—particularly in family, estate, and insolvency matters. Its hard-asset-backed approach offers a flexible alternative to traditional legal funding, and the involvement of MAP signals continued U.S. capital interest in niche credit platforms abroad.

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.

Paris‑based litigation funder IVO Capital Partners has launched its fourth vehicle, named IVO Legal Strategies Fund IV, targeting €150 million (approx. US$173 million) to back contested commercial disputes and arbitration claims across continental Europe and beyond.

According to an article in WealthBriefing, the fund will deploy capital primarily within France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and is focused on claim types such as competition law, data protection infringements and collective redress mechanisms. With over 11 years’ experience investing in cases across Europe, the UK and the U.S., IVO says its team is “uniquely positioned to capitalise on the growing need for capital to fund meritorious cases.”

The vehicle is structured as a closed‑ended fund with an 8‑year life, a 3‑year investment period and a target internal rate of return of 14 percent. Typical individual lawsuits range between €500k and €5m; IVO expects to invest in 50‑60 diversified matters for Fund IV, thereby reinforcing the argument that legal finance can serve as an uncorrelated asset class — largely decoupled from macroeconomic trends. The firm emphasises that the European litigation‑funding market remains nascent compared with the U.S., but regulatory changes such as the EU Damages Directive and the Representative Actions Directive are enhancing access to collective actions and follow‑on claims.

Investors in the preceding fund mix included family offices and wealth managers (wealth advisors now form over a third of the investor base), and the minimum entry into Fund IV is €100k for professional and qualified investors. Key risks remain case‑selection, outcome uncertainty and length of duration; IVO says capital‑protection insurance helps mitigate downside.

Environmental suits, increasingly seen as tools to hold governments and corporations accountable for ecosystem destruction and climate risk, often stall or never get filed because of steep costs and limited budgets.

An article in Nature highlights the U.S. commercial TPLF market as managing over US $12.4 billion in assets, showcasing the potential scale of the model for environmental justice. The core argument is that by providing funding to plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford the fight, TPLF can enable lawsuits that address pollution, habitat loss and climate change liability — aligning with broader calls to broaden access to justice in sustainability law. At the same time, the author cautions that TPLF carries risks: it may bring conflicts of interest, shift control of litigation away from claimants, or impose commercial pressures that are misaligned with public-interest goals.

For the legal funding industry this correspondence underscores important dimensions. It signals an expanding frontier: environmental litigation is becoming a viable sector for funders, not just mass-torts or commercial disputes. But it also raises governance questions: funders will need to establish best practices to ensure alignment with public interest, preserve claimant autonomy and guard against criticisms of “outsourcing” justice to commercial actors.

The article suggests that regulators, funders and civil-society actors should collaborate to craft transparent frameworks and guardrails if TPLF is to fulfill its promise in environmental realms.

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.