One of the key issues raised around third-party litigation funding for patent disputes, is the level of involvement and control a funder may exert on proceedings, and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise from this involvement.

A blog post from Faegre Drinker highlights a patent dispute case in the District of New Jersey, where a magistrate judge disqualified two law firms from representing defendants due to the defense being funded by a non-party who had an interest in the patent. 

In the case of Harish v. Arbit et al, US Magistrate Judge André M Espinosa had allowed the plaintiff to raise a motion to disqualify counsel for the defendants, with the plaintiff alleging that there was a conflict of interest with the lawyers representing both the defendants and Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc, the company that the defendants had sold and assigned the patent rights to. The plaintiff therefore argued that the defense counsel had broken the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(f).

Applying the six-part test governed by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re State Grand Jury Investigation, 200 N.J. 481 (2009), the court found that there was evidence that Lincoln “is directing, regulating, and interfering with Defense Counsel’s professional judgment in its representation of Defendants.” Furthermore, the court found that there was an attorney-client relationship between the defendants’ counsel and Lincoln as a non-party, with a representative from Lincoln also participating in the settlement conference.

Despite objections from the defendants over the timeliness of having to bring in new counsel at this stage of the case, the ruling definitively stated that “Defendants and Lincoln, not Plaintiff, are responsible for creating the conflict of interest.” The decision concludes that “the severity of the conflict here is greater than the potential for hardship or prejudice to Defendants and warrants disqualification of Defense Counsel”

The full written decision handed down by the magistrate judge can be read here.

With the incredibly large sums of money at stake in class actions around the world, it is no surprise that funders and law firms alike are keen to keep a close eye on the trends and developments in these large group actions. 

Broadridge has recently released its 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, examining the common challenges and trends in this area of litigation across the past 12 months. The report draws upon analysis of 135 global cases involving securities and/or financial products with a claim filing deadline in 2024.

Broadridge’s deep-dive into the data behind these class actions also revealed valuable insights into certain aspects of this litigation landscape. For example, whilst class actions with institutional investors as plaintiffs accounted for only 36% of all case settlements, the average settlement in those lawsuits was 565% higher than those class actions in which individuals acted as lead plaintiffs.

Another interesting data point identified by the report is the average time it takes for these class actions to settle, divided by the type of litigation as well as the size of the eventual settlement. Broadridge found that  U.S. antitrust class actions typically take the longest to settle, with an average timeline of over 100 months, whilst the timeline to settlement in securities class actions across all jurisdictions averaged out at 45.4 months.

As part of its report, Broadridge also listed its top ten class action cases for 2024, which included two cases that could be publicly identified as having used third-party litigation funding.  At No.3 on the list is the European Government Bonds Antitrust Settlements and Opt-in Litigations, with the latter opt-in claims having received funding from Deminor. At No.2, Broadridge selected the Mesoblast Securities Litigation in Australia, which saw funding provided by Omni Bridgeway and ICP Funding Pty Ltd, with the end result being a A$26.5 million settlement.

More detailed insights into class action developments and trends can be found in the full Broadridge 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, which can be read here.

As the future of litigation funding regulation continues to be a hot topic across many jurisdictions, it is worth considering the level of influence litigation funders have at the highest echelons of government. A new report suggests that in the US, one litigation funder’s founder has a role in Elon Musk’s new organization targeting government efficiency.

An article in Pro Publica highlights the role of prominent lawyers who have been appointed to positions within the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the temporary organization created by President Trump via executive order on January 20. The three lawyers, who have been identified by Pro Publica through a review of records that list DOGE email addresses at the Executive Office of the President, are Keenan Kmiec, Jacob Altik and James Burnham.

Burnham stands out among these three names, as in addition to his new role as general counsel at DOGE, he is also the President and founder of litigation funder Vallecito Capital. According to a Bloomberg Law article, Burnham launched Vallecito Capital in July 2023 with a $50 million fund, with the aim to fund lawsuits against companies that are engaged in “unambiguously bad behaviour.” The size of the $50 million fund and Burnham’s ownership, largely through a company called Deep Creek LLC, is confirmed in an application for investment adviser registration filed with the SEC.

Burnham has an extensive legal background that includes time as a litigation partner at Jones Day, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice, and a Senior Associate Counsel to the President. In addition to these roles, Burnham has also clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As well as founding his own litigation funding business, Burnham is also listed as the founder of boutique law firm, King Street Legal.

Whilst litigation funders often dominate the conversation in the legal funding space, the role and influence of litigation insurers has only grown in recent years as they have expanded their provision of litigation risk solutions to claimants, funders, law firms, and in-house counsel.

An announcement from Litica revealed that Lloyd’s has extended its Coverholder approval to include Europe, thereby approving Litica Europe to underwrite commercial litigation insurance on behalf of certain Lloyd’s Syndicates. This latest extension from Lloyd’s follows on from its existing Coverholder approval for Litica in both the United Kingdom and Asia-Pacific.

In the announcement, Litica explained that this approval authorises Litica Europe to underwrite insurance for policies with adverse cost limits of up to €15 million, which it says is “one of the most substantial and material levels of authority granted by Lloyd’s Syndicates in the commercial litigation insurance space.” This extension will also allow Litica to offer bespoke solutions to the European market, allowing for tailored products that are more suited to Europe than the UK.

Litica also highlighted that it has now underwritten over €2.2bn of risk to date, with cases spanning a range of litigation and arbitration.

More information about the approval and Litica’s ongoing work can be found in the full announcement here.

In the ongoing struggle to carve out opportunities within the competitive legal funding market, smaller regional funders are increasingly looking to technology-oriented strategies to try to grow their operations and compete with the established market leading companies.

An article in Insider Media covers an announcement from litigation funder IQuote Limited, who are expanding their operations with the opening of a new office in Dubai. IQuote, which was founded in Manchester in 2016, sees the Dubai office as a major step in its strategy to strengthen its technology capabilities, with plans to embark on a recruitment drive to staff this new office.

Along with this expansion to a new region, IQuote is also working on bolstering its Manchester office with new hires to build on its existing strength in the European market. IQuote is looking to recruit for several positions, including a Head of European Opportunities, Data and Risk Analysts to enhance financial forecasting, and auditors for account management and reporting. 

Craig Cornick, CEO of IQuote, highlighted Dubai’s place as “a global innovation hub”, with the new local footprint allowing the company to “tap into a wealth of talent and technological resources.” Explaining IQuote’s unified approach across these different regions, Cornick said, “By strengthening both our Manchester and Dubai teams, we’re ensuring that we have the resources and expertise needed to meet the increasing demand for our services across Europe and beyond.” 

When it comes to discovery requests over third-party funding in US lawsuits, we are accustomed to seeing these issues arise most commonly in intellectual property and patent litigation. However, a recent petition has shined the spotlight on a funded cases that is notable for its connections to the country’s political and media landscape.

An article in Bloomberg Law reveals that Fox Corp. has filed a petition in California Superior Court to compel discovery against the funder of the defamation case brought against Fox by Smartmatic USA Corp. Smartmatic’s claim for $2.7 billion in damages is being funded by Reid Hoffman, co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, as disclosed by Hoffman himself in July of last year. Smartmatic’s case was first brought in February 2021, focusing on allegations that Fox defamed the voting technology company in its coverage of conspiracies about the 2020 US presidential election.

Fox’s petition was filed on January 29 following Hoffman objections to subpoenas, with counsel for Fox requesting that Hoffman and his aide Dmitri Mehlhorn be deposed, and handover documents relating to his funding of Smartmatic’s case and the validity of those claims. The central issue that Fox’s petition raises is the valuation of damages that Smartmatic is claiming, referencing comments in the media from Mehlhorn who suggested that without the alleged defamation, Smartmatic “could be a $400 million company.” 

Furthermore, Fox’s petition aims to support its anti-SLAPP counterclaim against Smartmatic, as the requested documents and testimony may provide evidence that the defamation lawsuit was ideologically motivated. Fox’s counsel stated that “if this lawsuit is motivated not by the facts but by some political agenda against Fox News or its perceived political views, that is evidence Fox must obtain in connection with its counterclaim.”