France has taken a significant step in codifying oversight of third-party financed collective actions with the issuance of Decree No. 2025-1191 on December 10, 2025.

An article in Legifrance outlines the new rules, which establish the procedure for approving entities and associations authorized to lead both domestic and cross-border collective actions—referred to in French as “actions de groupe.” The decree brings long-anticipated regulatory clarity following the April 2025 passage of the DDADUE 5 law, which modernized France’s collective redress framework in line with EU Directive 2020/1828.

The decree grants authority to the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) to process applications for approval. Final approval is issued by ministerial order and is valid for five years, subject to renewal.

Approved organizations must meet specific governance and financial transparency criteria. A central provision of the new rules is a requirement for qualifying entities to publicly disclose any third-party funding arrangements on their websites. This includes naming the financiers and specifying the amounts received, with the goal of safeguarding the independence of collective actions and protecting the rights of represented parties.

Paul de Servigny, Head of litigation funding at French headquartered IVO Capital said: “As part of the transposition of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, the French government announced a decree that sets out the disclosure requirements for the litigation funding industry, paving the way for greater access to justice for consumers in France by providing much welcomed clarity to litigation funders, claimants and law firms.

"This is good news for French consumers seeking justice and we look forward to working with government, the courts, claimants and their representatives and putting this decree into practice by supporting meritorious cases whilst ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected.”

By codifying these requirements, the French government aims to bolster public trust in group litigation and ensure funders do not exert improper influence on the course or outcome of legal actions.

The United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is set to hear a closely watched appeal that could have wide-ranging implications for third-party litigation funding in international arbitration. The case stems from a dispute between OGD Services Holdings, part of the Essar Group, and Norscot Rig Management over the enforcement of a Mauritius-based arbitral award. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had previously upheld the award in favor of Norscot, prompting OGD to seek review from the Privy Council.

An article in Bar & Bench reports that the appeal is scheduled for next year and will feature two prominent Indian senior advocates: Harish Salve KC, representing Norscot, and Nakul Dewan KC, representing OGD. At issue is whether the use of third-party funding in the underlying arbitration renders the enforcement of the award improper under Mauritius law, where third-party litigation funding remains a legally sensitive area.

The case is drawing significant attention because of its potential to shape the international enforceability of funding agreements, particularly in light of the UK Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision. That ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape by classifying many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, thereby subjecting them to stricter statutory controls. The PACCAR decision has already triggered calls for legislative reform in the UK to preserve the viability of litigation funding, especially in the class action and arbitration contexts.

The Privy Council appeal will test the legal boundaries of funder involvement in arbitration and may help clarify whether such arrangements compromise enforceability when judgments cross borders. The outcome could influence how funders structure deals in jurisdictions with differing attitudes toward third-party involvement in legal claims.

Several major global banks, including JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup, Barclays, MUFG, and NatWest, have successfully blocked a £2.7 billion ($3.6 billion) opt-out collective action in the UK’s Supreme Court. The proposed lawsuit, led by Phillip Evans, aimed to represent thousands of investors, pension funds, and institutions impacted by alleged foreign exchange (forex) market manipulation.

An article in Yahoo Finance reports that the case stemmed from earlier European Commission findings that fined multiple banks over €1 billion for operating cartels in forex trading. Evans’ action, filed under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, sought to recover damages on behalf of a wide investor class. However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower tribunal’s decision that the claim could not proceed on an opt-out basis, requiring instead that individual claimants opt in.

The judgment emphasized the insufficient participation rate among potential class members and found that an opt-out mechanism was not appropriate given the specifics of the case. Justice Vivien Rose, delivering the court’s opinion, noted that while individual claims might have merit, the representative structure lacked the cohesion and commitment necessary to justify a mass claim. As a result, the banks have succeeded in halting what would have been one of the largest collective actions in the UK to date.

Fund managers exploring or operating within the litigation finance space face a complex and often underappreciated regulatory landscape. A recent guide from McDermott Will & Emery provides a detailed roadmap for how litigation fund managers can navigate this evolving environment, with a particular focus on securities laws, fiduciary obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The memo serves as a primer on key legal considerations, especially for those managing funds in the United States or marketing to U.S. investors. It emphasizes that litigation finance funds may be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional investment vehicles. Managers must consider registration requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as exemptions, such as those for foreign private advisers or venture capital fund advisers. The authors also explore the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, cautioning that even non-traditional funds can be pulled into regulatory oversight if structured improperly.

Fiduciary duties take center stage in the memo’s discussion of fund governance. Managers are reminded that they owe duties of care and loyalty to their investors, which can become complicated in litigation finance where the fund’s interests may diverge from those of claimholders or legal counsel. Disclosure, consent mechanisms, and robust internal compliance protocols are strongly recommended to mitigate potential conflicts.

The guide also highlights the increasing focus by regulators and policymakers on transparency and ethical boundaries within the litigation finance industry. Fund managers are urged to prepare for heightened scrutiny and evolving disclosure expectations.

A growing chorus of voices is calling for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with a new op-ed warning that opaque capital is compromising the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system.

An opinion piece in The Hill by Lindsay Lewis and Phil Goldberg of the Progressive Policy Institute argues that American courtrooms are being quietly transformed into a financial marketplace, with hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, and other investors channeling billions into U.S. litigation. The authors highlight an alleged lack of disclosure, warning that litigation funders can influence or outright control high-value cases, often without the knowledge of courts, litigants, or the public.

The litigation funding industry has long cited a lack of evidence regarding such accusations, yet the pressure from industry critics persists. The article points to mass torts as a flashpoint for abuse, claiming funders are building lawsuits “too big to fail” by bankrolling advertising campaigns and scientific claims to pressure companies into mass settlements regardless of the merits.

The op-ed also echoes previously-made critiques around national security and economic concerns, citing recent reports of Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and Emirati-backed funds investing in U.S. litigation. These foreign entities, the authors argue, could use lawsuits to access sensitive corporate data or strategically target American companies, all while avoiding U.S. taxes on any litigation proceeds.

Lewis and Goldberg call for reforms mandating disclosure of litigation funders, establishing ethical walls between financiers and legal strategy, and regulating foreign involvement in U.S. lawsuits.

A recent article in the National Law Review by Eric K. Schuller offers a strong endorsement of Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) as a market-driven solution to the financial challenges faced by individuals pursuing legal claims. Schuller, who serves as President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), presents CLF as a voluntary, non-coercive financial tool that allows consumers to maintain stability and independence while waiting for their legal cases to resolve.

In the article, Schuller argues that CLF enables consumers to access much-needed funds on their own terms, without government mandates or subsidies. The availability of CLF helps consumers avoid settling their claims prematurely out of financial desperation. Instead, it gives them the breathing room to hold out for fair outcomes. Schuller emphasizes that the funding process is entirely optional, typically involves attorney consultation, and occurs in a competitive marketplace that encourages innovation in pricing, transparency, and service.

Schuller outlines three key benefits of CLF. First, it helps individuals resist lowball settlement offers by reducing financial pressure. Second, it provides support for essential living expenses such as rent, groceries, and utilities while legal proceedings continue. Third, it preserves consumer autonomy by allowing recipients to use the funds as they see fit, unlike government programs that often come with use restrictions.

The article also makes the case that CLF is faster and more accessible than public assistance programs, which often involve delays and eligibility hurdles. Schuller notes that in states with existing CLF regulations, laws already prohibit funders from influencing legal strategy or interfering with the attorney-client relationship, reinforcing the consumer-focused nature of the product.

He pushes back against critics who claim that CLF inflates litigation costs or interferes with the legal process. Instead, Schuller frames CLF as a form of personal finance, not litigation financing, and stresses that it is provided at no cost to taxpayers.

Ordinary people will have greater access to justice thanks to Government’s plans for legislation to help claimants receive the funding they need to take on powerful organisations in court.    

Since the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in 2023, claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a civil case against a well-resourced opponent.  

Third-party litigation funding allows people to bring complex legal cases against powerful organisations when they cannot afford the costs themselves. Under these arrangements, a funder pays for the legal case in exchange for a share of any compensation won.   

The PACCAR judgment, which classed these funding arrangements as “Damages Based Agreements”, made it harder to access to third-party funding and has resulted in a drop in collective action lawsuits. Today, the government is confirming that it will take action to remove this barrier to justice by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, protecting victims and claimants.   

Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said:  “The Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice. Without litigation funding, the Sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal would never have had their day in court. These are David vs Goliath cases, and this Government will ensure that ordinary people have the support they need to hold rich and powerful organisations to account. Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it."   

David Greene, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) said: “This announcement is good news for ordinary people seeking access to justice. However, whilst the government has recognised the urgent need to reverse PACCAR, the proposal to regulate litigation funding agreements as part of the proposed legislation is likely to add considerable delay. We therefore urge the government to introduce an urgent bill to reverse PACCAR, and that the thornier issue of what light touch regulation of litigation funding might look like be considered separately.”

The UK’s legal services industry is worth £42.6 billion a year to the economy, with a highly skilled workforce of 384,000.  

A new framework will ensure that agreements are fair and transparent, so that third-party litigation funding actually works for all those involved.  These changes follow a comprehensive and wide-ranging review by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), published earlier this year. The government will continue to consider the recommendations set out in the CJC review.  

The UK government has pledged to introduce legislation to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, which has left many litigation funding agreements in legal limbo. The Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to bring forward a bill that will clarify that third party litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages based agreements (DBAs) under existing law, a classification that, since PACCAR, has rendered many LFAs unenforceable and raised deep concerns across the funding market.

An article in The Law Gazette reports that the forthcoming legislation will specifically address the fallout from the 2023 PACCAR decision, which had classed typical litigation funding arrangements where a funder receives a share of damages as DBAs, bringing them within regulatory restrictions and making them invalid unless they met DBA regulatory requirements. This has undermined the clarity and enforceability of funding agreements for collective actions and other high value cases.

Industry sources and legal commentators have long advocated for a statutory fix. Over recent months, funders and claimant groups have pointed to the erosion of access to justice while PACCAR uncertainty persists, given that many have been hesitant to underwrite new claims under a model the courts deemed unenforceable. The government’s proposed change to statute rather than judge made law aims to restore the pre PACCAR position and reaffirm that LFAs do not fall within the DBA regime.

If enacted, the bill is expected to provide greater certainty for both existing and future litigation funding arrangements, reinforce the UK’s position as a leading venue for funded litigation, and encourage finance for complex group and commercial claims. Observers note that while the legislative promise is welcome, its timing and detailed provisions will be closely watched by funders, claimants and legal practitioners alike.