Burford Capital and Solomonic explore how seasoned funders and advisers can bring precision to the settlement table in high‑stakes disputes.

An article on Burford’s website states that the joint webinar, hosted by James MacKinnon (Burford) and Edward Bird (Solomonic), featured experts from Herbert  Smith  Freehills  Kramer, Pallas  Partners and Dectech to discuss how analytics can reshape settlement strategy. The piece highlights that large‑value disputes often take far longer and face steeper odds of success — not because high‑value claims are inherently weaker, but because risk‑seeking behaviour tends to dominate when the stakes rise.

Burford explains its method of translating a multi‑headed claim into a “weighted average damages outcome,” then discounting for trial risk, appellate risk, enforcement risk and cost of capital to arrive at a present‑day valuation. In one example, a claim with a theoretical maximum of US$500 million was valued at just under US$76 million after risk‑adjustment — meaning a settlement at or above that number would objectively represent success given the circumstances.

The article also reflects on the evolving role of AI and analytics. While data models are improving, Burford cautions that predictive systems remain dependent on data quality and expert inputs — underscoring that modelling alone is not a substitute for judgment and experience.

A new legislative push to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has ignited concern over the potential erosion of individual privacy rights, especially for plaintiffs involved in sensitive litigation. While the bill aims to shed light on opaque funding arrangements, critics warn that it could open the door to broad and unnecessary disclosures of personal data.

An article in The Hill notes that among the more controversial aspects of the proposed bill is its requirement that plaintiffs and their attorneys disclose the details of any litigation funding agreements. These disclosures could go far beyond identifying funders, potentially revealing case-specific facts, medical or financial histories, and other personally identifiable information. There is no clear guidance on how such disclosures would be protected, raising the specter of public filings that expose vulnerable claimants to undue scrutiny or retaliation.

The breadth of the bill has drawn particular criticism. While aimed at foreign or undisclosed financial backers, its language is sweeping enough to encompass nearly any financial relationship, including arrangements with U.S.-based funders operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Legal observers worry that plaintiffs—especially those with lower means—may be discouraged from pursuing meritorious claims due to the fear of invasive data exposure.

Privacy advocates argue that without significant revisions, the bill risks creating a litigation environment in which strategic intelligence gathering by adversaries, funder interference, and reputational harms become routine. Several industry experts are calling for narrowly tailored disclosures limited to material funding terms, coupled with robust confidentiality protections and strict limits on public access.

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has unveiled a new consumer‑protection initiative to address mounting concerns in the UK legal market linked to volume litigation, law‑firm consolidators and unregulated service providers. An article in Legal Futures reports that the regulator cited “clear evidence” of risks to consumers arising from the dramatic growth of volume litigation, pointing in particular to the collapse of firms such as SSB Law.

Legal Futures reports that under the programme, the LSB will explore whether the current regulatory framework adequately protects consumers from harm in mass‑litigation contexts. That includes examining: whether all litigation funding – especially portfolio funding models – should fall under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); whether co‑regulation arrangements should be established between the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); and whether the list of reserved legal activities needs revision to account for the rise of unregulated providers and AI‑enabled legal services.

On the law‑firm side the initiative spotlights the consolidation trend — especially accumulator or “consolidator” firms backed by private equity and acquiring large numbers of clients. The LSB flagged risks around viability, quality of client care and short‑term investor‑driven growth at the expense of compliance and long‑term service stability.

For the litigation‑funding sector, the message is unmistakable: the regulator will be more active in mapping the relationships between funders, law firms and client outcomes. It intends to use its market‑intelligence function to monitor whether misaligned incentives in the funding‑chain may harm consumers, and to obtain data from frontline regulators where necessary.

Veteran solicitor-campaigner Walter Merricks is poised to assume the role of class representative in a major collective action against rail operator Govia Thameslink Railway, following the death of the previous lead claimant. The case — brought under the opt-out regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) — alleges anticompetitive fare charging that harmed passengers traveling without a London Travelcard.

An article in the Law Society Gazette states that Merricks has formally applied to take over from former class representative David Boyle, who passed away earlier this year. The transition raises “a number of complex and difficult issues,” given the opt-out nature of the proceeding and the procedural demands of the UK’s evolving collective redress framework.

The move comes amid broader tensions between Merricks and his former litigation funder, Innsworth Capital. That dispute centers on the earlier £200 million settlement of Merricks’ landmark claim against Mastercard. Though the CAT approved the settlement, Innsworth launched a judicial review and initiated arbitration proceedings to challenge the allocation of proceeds, arguing its entitlement to a larger portion of the award. Merricks has been openly critical of the funder’s conduct, calling its approach an “embarrassment” and warning it could undermine public trust in third-party funding.

For the rail case, Merricks has retained Wilkie Farr & Gallagher as counsel. His application to replace Boyle as class representative is currently before the tribunal and will be considered at a hearing in January 2026.

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.