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.

Rockhopper Exploration’s half-year results confirm that the prior Ombrina Mare ICSID award has been fully annulled, but the company has already re-filed and says a “new funder” has joined it in submitting a fresh request for arbitration. Rockhopper also reports receipt of €31 million in insurance proceeds tied to the annulment outcome, and notes that any recovery from the new arbitration, net of reasonable costs and expenses, will be used to reimburse insurers for those proceeds.

In a post by Rockhopper Exploration, the company frames the litigation posture alongside a strengthened balance sheet and a separate project financing plan for Sea Lion. The litigation-specific disclosures are notable on two fronts: first, they confirm that funding remains in place for the renewed claim process; second, they set expectations that insurance backers are first in line from any eventual recovery, a structure that can influence both settlement dynamics and timing.

Additional disclosures in recent months have detailed the mechanics around the insurance and Italian asset disposal, including confirmation in late August that the full €31 million entitlement under the policy had been received. For the funding market, Ombrina Mare remains a high-profile test of post-annulment strategy: availability of capital from a “new funder,” together with insurance protection, can preserve claimant optionality despite procedural reset, while also layering senior repayment obligations that will sit ahead of equity-holder recoveries.

Emmerson PLC’s interim results update keeps the focus on its ICSID arbitration against Morocco over the expropriated Khemisset potash project and how it’s being financed. The company confirms a litigation funding facility of up to $11 million, and notes that $0.8 million was drawn during the half.

In a release on Investegate, Emmerson reiterates that it is seeking “full compensation” for the loss of the project, which the company previously valued internally at about $2.2 billion, and says it expects the arbitral tribunal to be constituted around October 2025.

Emmerson adds that is subsidiaries filed the request for arbitration on April 30, ICSID registered the case on May 23, and party-appointed arbitrators have accepted their appointments. The company anticipates filing its memorial around Q1 2026. The funding disclosure—paired with a modest cash balance—underlines Emmerson’s reliance on third-party capital to carry the claim through early milestones without continual equity raises.

The $11 million commitment tracks with Emmerson’s earlier announcement that it had signed a capital provision agreement with a specialist funder at the start of the year; sector reporting at the time flagged that the facility would also defray a “significant portion” of corporate overhead tied to the dispute.

For funders, sovereign disputes can be attractive where treaty protections and damages frameworks are clear; for claimants, they de-risk long timetables and procedural costs, especially when liquidity is tight.

A broad coalition of business, insurance, and tech interests delivered a letter today backing H.R. 2675, the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025, citing alleged national‑security and legal integrity risks tied to foreign third‑party litigation funding (TPLF).

The letter, published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argues that foreign entities—including sovereign wealth funds and foreign states—are increasingly using TPLF to quietly advance strategic, political, or economic agendas in U.S. courts. Because these arrangements often lack transparency, they can be used to influence litigation strategy, access sensitive discovery, impose burdensome costs, or undermine U.S. companies.

Under H.R. 2675, parties must disclose any foreign person, state, or fund with a contingent financial interest in litigation. The bill also compels the production of funding agreements for review by courts, opposing parties, and the Department of Justice. Notably, it bans third‑party litigation funding from foreign states and sovereign wealth funds entirely. The coalition argues that these measures are necessary to close “dangerous loopholes” through which foreign actors may weaponize U.S. courts. Of course, no specific examples of foreign influence have been given, leading many industry proponents to deride such arguments as mere scare tactics.

Signatories to the letter represent a wide cross section of sectors—insurance giants, pharmaceutical makers, tech companies, trade associations, and state chambers—in an attempt to underscore broad industry concern about hidden foreign influence in U.S. litigation.

As the bill advances, funders need to assess how best to counteract these industry broadsides with a more proactive PR push of their own.

An explosive new analysis argues that third‑party litigation funding has severely degraded the integrity of trucking crash litigation, turning what should be routine settlement flows into a combustible battleground. The article contends that private equity and hedge funds now actively bankroll plaintiff cases, driving up pressure on defendants and distorting settlement incentives.

An article in Yahoo Finance notes that proponents of reform are pointing to the recently introduced FAIR Trucking Act, which would grant federal courts original jurisdiction over interstate trucking crash matters in an effort to normalize forum selection, rein in opportunistic lawsuits, and reduce the leverage that funders and plaintiff firms have secured through orchestration. Critics counter that the legislation may overcorrect, diminishing plaintiffs’ access to justice and shifting the balance too heavily toward carriers.

The article describes a stacking effect: funders seed high-volume litigation, plaintiff attorneys cultivate collateral claims, and once litigation proceeds, pressure compels outsized settlements—often before merits are vetted. It suggests the practice has become systemic, not just episodic. The author warns that such funding schemes may be undermining the legitimacy of mass‑tort and claimant-driven liability industries more broadly.

For legal funders, the stakes are especially high. If the FAIR Trucking Act or similar reforms gain traction, they could sharply limit the types of cases funders can support, particularly in high-liability tort sectors. We may see increased scrutiny on capital deployment, more selective underwriting, and renewed debate over legislators’ role in reshaping the funding landscape.