The Heartland Institute has published a series of commentaries opposing proposed third-party litigation funding restrictions in four U.S. states, arguing the measures would limit access to the courts.

As reported by The Heartland Institute, legislatures in New Hampshire, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and South Carolina are each considering new restrictions on plaintiffs who use outside funding to pursue civil lawsuits. New Hampshire's House Bill 1384, the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act, would require plaintiffs to disclose the identity of anyone receiving a financial benefit from their case to both defendants and the court.

The commentaries argue that third-party funding democratizes access to litigation by enabling plaintiffs who cannot afford procedural delays and discovery costs to pursue their claims. They cite a 2022 Government Accountability Office report finding that funders tend to select the most meritorious cases because they only receive returns when cases succeed. The Institute also raises privacy concerns, contending that mandatory disclosure could expose funders to harassment and public pressure.

The wave of state-level proposals reflects a broader national debate over transparency and regulation in the litigation funding industry, with proponents of restrictions arguing they are needed to curb funder influence over litigation strategy.

Courts and legislatures across the United States are rewriting the rules on third-party litigation funding disclosure, signaling a notable shift from the traditional confidentiality that has long shielded these arrangements.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, partners at King & Spalding argue that the era of blanket privilege protection for funding agreements may be ending. Georgia's 2025 Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act now mandates disclosure of funding arrangements exceeding $25,000 and requires funders to register with state banking authorities, with violations carrying potential felony charges. West Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, Indiana, and Louisiana have enacted similar requirements with varying approaches.

Federal courts are also moving in this direction. The Northern District of Illinois ruled in *Miller UK Ltd. v. Caterpillar, Inc.* that sharing documents with funders does not preserve privilege when parties lack common legal interests, while the District of Delaware has issued standing orders requiring litigation funding disclosure in patent cases.

The authors recommend that litigants incorporate funding discovery into standard litigation strategy in jurisdictions with disclosure statutes and audit existing arrangements for compliance with registration obligations. The trend reflects a broader push for transparency in an industry that has grown into a multibillion-dollar market backed by hedge funds, private equity firms, and sovereign wealth funds.

Burford Capital issued a follow-up statement on March 30 addressing the financial fallout from the Second Circuit's reversal of the $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina in the long-running YPF nationalization dispute.

As reported by PR Newswire, the litigation funder emphasized that the ruling has no cash impact on its operations, pointing to more than $700 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities on hand. The company said its diversified portfolio routinely delivers cash proceeds independent of the YPF asset and reaffirmed plans to double its portfolio by 2030 without additional borrowing.

Burford expects a substantial GAAP write-down of the YPF asset as of March 31, with full details to be disclosed in its first-quarter results in the first half of May. Management noted the write-down is a non-cash accounting adjustment that does not affect operational cash flow.

Looking ahead, Burford signaled it may pursue arbitration through the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes under bilateral investment treaties. The company argued Argentina breached investment protections during the 2012 expropriation, though it acknowledged any ICSID proceeding would be a multi-year process.

The statement comes days after Burford shares cratered more than 45% following the Second Circuit's March 27 decision, which found Argentina's nationalization of YPF was governed by public law rather than private corporate bylaws, rendering the breach-of-contract claims non-cognizable.

Cadence Minerals has obtained third-party litigation funding to pursue an international arbitration claim against Mexico following the cancellation of its mining concessions during the country's lithium sector nationalization.

As reported by Investing.com via bilaterals.org, LCM Funding SG Pty Ltd has approved financing for the arbitration on a non-recourse basis, meaning Cadence and its subsidiary REM Mexico Limited have no obligation to repay if the claims are unsuccessful. The funding arrangement is designed to allow the company to pursue the case while preserving its balance sheet flexibility.

Cadence and REM Mexico allege that Mexico violated the UK-Mexico bilateral investment treaty by canceling concessions tied to the Sonora Lithium Project. The claims include unlawful expropriation and failure to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investors.

CEO Kiran Morzaria said the funding "materially strengthens our ability to pursue the arbitration in an appropriately resourced manner." The company indicated it remains open to negotiated settlement discussions with the Mexican government.

The case highlights the growing role of litigation funding in investor-state dispute settlement, where resource companies increasingly turn to third-party funders to pursue treaty-based claims against sovereign governments over nationalization and regulatory actions.

JPMorgan Asset Management has made its entry into the litigation finance sector by advancing funds to two major mass tort law firms, marking a significant milestone as one of the world's largest financial institutions moves into the legal funding space.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the investments were made through JPMorgan's Lynstone Special Situations Fund II, a $2.4 billion fund closed in June 2022. The deals involve post-settlement arrangements with Seeger Weiss and Simmons Hanly Conroy, two prominent plaintiffs' firms.

The structure allows law firms to receive accelerated payments for attorneys' fees that have already been earned but not yet collected. Investors profit when final fee payments exceed their initial advances, with returns typically falling in the low double digits. Because the deals are completed after settlements have been reached, they carry significantly less risk than traditional litigation funding tied to case outcomes.

Seeger Weiss serves as lead counsel in Ozempic and Depo-Provera litigation and played a key role in opioid settlements. Simmons Hanly Conroy received 11.4% of a $2.14 billion opioid litigation fee fund and led Norfolk Southern derailment litigation.

JPMorgan's move follows a broader trend of institutional investors entering litigation finance. Fortress Investment Group, BlackRock, and Davidson Kempner Capital Management are among the major firms increasingly active in legal asset investments, drawn by returns that are uncorrelated with equity markets. Commercial litigation funders deployed $2.8 billion in new commitments last year across 346 deals.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a landmark $16.1 billion judgment against the Republic of Argentina over its 2012 nationalization of oil giant YPF, sending shockwaves through the litigation finance industry.

As reported by The Times, the 2-1 ruling dismantled what had been one of the largest litigation finance investments in history. Burford Capital, which bankrolled the case on behalf of former YPF minority shareholders Petersen Energia and Eton Park, saw its share price plunge more than 45% following the decision.

The majority held that the shareholders' breach of contract claims failed as a matter of Argentine law, concluding that Argentina's commitment to tender for minority shares was not directly enforceable. The court said the claims should have been pursued through Argentina's expropriation compensation process rather than in U.S. courts. Judge José Cabranes dissented, siding with the original judgment.

Despite the reversal, the majority acknowledged what it called Argentina's "knowing and flagrant violation" of promises made to foreign investors. Burford said it plans to petition for rehearing by the full Second Circuit within 14 days and may ultimately seek Supreme Court review. The funder is also pursuing investment treaty arbitration against Argentina with King & Spalding as counsel.

Burford warned it expects a material non-cash write-down of its YPF asset when reporting first-quarter results in May, a development that could affect its debt covenants and capital structure. Argentine President Javier Milei called the ruling a "historic victory for the people."

Back-to-back jury verdicts finding Meta and Google liable for harms caused by their social media platforms are teeing up an appeals battle that could reshape how U.S. law shields tech companies from lawsuits — with significant implications for litigation funders eyeing the space.

As reported by Reuters, a Los Angeles jury found both companies liable for a young woman's depression and suicidal ideation linked to Instagram and YouTube addiction, awarding $6 million in damages. Separately, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading users about product safety and enabling child exploitation on its platforms.

Both verdicts represent a strategic breakthrough for plaintiffs' attorneys, who framed their claims around platform design choices rather than user-generated content. Features like infinite scroll, constant notifications, autoplaying videos, and beauty filters were characterized as making apps like Instagram and YouTube equivalent to a "digital casino." By targeting design rather than speech, the lawyers circumvented the traditional protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The cases are part of a massive wave of litigation, with more than 2,400 cases consolidated before a single California federal judge and thousands more in state courts. Both Meta and Google plan to appeal, and legal experts say the resulting appellate rulings could be pivotal. Courts have increasingly been willing to distinguish claims about platform functionality from those targeting third-party speech, but no appellate court has yet weighed in definitively on the question.