The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) brought the access-to-justice conversation squarely into the technology arena with its 26th annual Innovations in Technology Conference (ITC), held this week in San Antonio. Drawing nearly 750 registered attendees from across the legal, business, and technology communities, the conference highlighted how thoughtfully deployed technology can expand civil legal assistance for low-income Americans while maintaining ethical and practical guardrails.

Legal Services Corporation reports that this year’s ITC convened attorneys, legal technologists, court staff, pro bono leaders, academics, and students at the Grand Hyatt San Antonio River Walk for three days of programming focused on the future of legal services delivery. The conference featured 56 panels—16 streamed online and freely accessible—covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to court technology, data-driven decision-making, and pro bono innovation.

LSC President Ron Flagg framed the event as a collaborative effort to ensure technology serves people rather than replaces human judgment. Emphasizing that technology is “not the answer by itself,” Flagg underscored its role as a critical tool when grounded in the real needs of communities seeking civil legal help. The conference opened with a keynote from journalist and author David Pogue, setting the tone for candid discussions about both the promise and limitations of emerging technologies.

A notable evolution this year was the introduction of five structured programming tracks—AI beginner, AI advanced, IT operations, client intake, and self-help tools—allowing attendees to tailor their experience based on technical familiarity and organizational needs. The event concluded with hands-on workshops addressing cybersecurity incident response, improving AI accuracy and reliability, change management for staff resilience, and user experience evaluation in legal tech.

Beyond the conference itself, ITC reinforced LSC’s broader leadership in access-to-justice technology, including its Technology Initiative Grants, AI Peer Learning Lab, and its recent report, The Next Frontier: Harnessing Technology to Close the Justice Gap. Senior program officer Jane Ribadeneyra emphasized the dual focus on informed leadership decisions and practical tools that directly support frontline legal services staff handling matters like eviction, domestic violence, and disaster recovery.

For the litigation funding and legal finance community, ITC’s themes highlight a growing intersection between technology, access to justice, and capital deployment—raising questions about how funders may increasingly support tech-enabled legal service models alongside traditional case funding.

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Legal Bay LLC, a leading national pre-settlement funding company, has announced compliance with new regulatory guidelines in California and Georgia effective January 1. The company is now registered and accepting applications in both states as part of its ongoing commitment to transparency, disclosure, and regulatory compliance within the legal funding industry. The announcement comes amid increased scrutiny of lawsuit loans and settlement funding arrangements by courts and lawmakers nationwide.

According to PR Newswire, recent legislation in California and Georgia has highlighted concerns surrounding disclosure practices, contract clarity, and consumer understanding of legal funding agreements. Both states have clarified that litigation finance is not a loan but a non-recourse agreement. Legal Bay maintains internal compliance protocols designed to ensure transparency, consumer protection, and adherence to applicable laws in every state where it operates.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, emphasized that "legal funding is not a one-size-fits-all product," noting that state laws change and compliance expectations shift. He stated that the regulatory activity in 2025 has been the most significant in the industry in quite some time. With New York and California both passing bills enabling legal funding in their states, Janish expects more states to follow this national trend of validating legal funding.

Legal Bay through its funding division, LB Capital, has successfully registered to do business in California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Oklahoma in 2025. The company's compliance team continues to work on registration in additional states in 2026 where state legislation mandates it. Legal Bay provides non-recourse pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs involved in personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful termination, and other cases, with clients repaying funds only if they win their case.

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.

Litigation Lending Services Limited has agreed to fund a large-scale shareholder class action against Woolworths Group Ltd, adding another high-profile Australian securities claim to the growing docket of funded investor litigation. The proceeding has been filed in the Federal Court of Australia by Dutton Law and focuses on Woolworths’ alleged failure to properly disclose the financial impact of widespread employee underpayments over a lengthy period.

Litigation Lending's website notes that the claim covers shareholders who acquired Woolworths shares between 26 February 2010 and 8 September 2025. It alleges that Woolworths did not adequately record and account for employee entitlements owed to salaried staff, resulting in financial statements that understated expenses and overstated profits. According to the pleadings, these accounting issues had the effect of artificially inflating Woolworths’ share price, causing losses to investors once the extent of the underpayments began to emerge through company disclosures.

Woolworths has previously acknowledged underpayment issues across its workforce, announcing remediation programs and provisions running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The class action contends that the company’s disclosures came too late and failed to provide the market with an accurate picture of its true financial position during the relevant period. Investors who purchased shares while the alleged misstatements were in place are now seeking compensation for losses suffered when the share price adjusted.

Participation in the class action is open to eligible shareholders on a no-cost basis, with Litigation Lending covering the legal costs of running the claim. Any funding commission or reimbursement payable to the funder would be subject to approval by the court, consistent with Australia’s regulatory framework for funded class actions.

A new federal bill seeking to restrict foreign investment in U.S. litigation is drawing sharp criticism from international litigation funders who warn the measure could significantly disrupt the industry. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), would prohibit sovereign wealth funds from backing U.S. lawsuits and impose disclosure requirements on overseas investors participating in American litigation.

According to Bloomberg Law, the proposed bill (H.R. 2675) has major implications for prominent funders including Burford Capital, Fortress Investment Group, Omni Bridgeway, Ares Management, and BlackRock. Susan Dunn of UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding characterized the current political climate as increasingly "anti-foreign," suggesting that international funders are now reassessing their U.S. growth strategies in light of the legislative push.

The bill advanced from the House Judiciary Committee with a 15-11 vote in favor of recommending it to the full House. Supporters of the legislation argue that foreign investment in U.S. litigation raises national security concerns and could allow hostile nations to influence American legal proceedings. Critics counter that the measure unfairly targets legitimate business practices and could reduce access to justice by limiting available capital for plaintiffs pursuing meritorious claims.

The legislation represents the latest effort in a years-long campaign by insurance industry groups and business organizations to increase regulation of third-party litigation funding. If enacted, the restrictions on foreign investment could reshape the competitive landscape of the U.S. litigation finance market, where international funders currently play a significant role.

As debate over third-party litigation funding (TPLF) continues to intensify globally, new pressure is being applied at the European level from business and industry groups calling for tighter oversight. A recent submission from a U.S.-based advocacy organization urges EU policymakers to take coordinated action, framing litigation funding as a growing risk to legal certainty and economic competitiveness across the bloc.

An article from Institute for Legal Reform outlines a formal letter sent to senior EU officials calling for harmonized, EU-wide regulation of third-party litigation funding. The Institute argues that the rapid expansion of TPLF—particularly in collective actions and mass claims—has outpaced existing regulatory frameworks, creating what it characterizes as opportunities for abuse. According to the submission, funders’ economic incentives may distort litigation strategy, encourage speculative claims, and exert undue influence over claimants and counsel.

The letter specifically urges institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament to introduce transparency and disclosure requirements around funding arrangements. The Institute also advocates for safeguards addressing funder control, conflicts of interest, and capital adequacy, suggesting that inconsistent national approaches risk regulatory arbitrage. In its view, the EU’s Representative Actions Directive and broader access-to-justice initiatives should not be allowed to become conduits for what it calls “profit-driven litigation.”

The submission reflects a familiar narrative advanced by business groups in the U.S. and Europe, linking litigation funding to rising litigation costs, forum shopping, and pressure on corporate defendants. While the Institute positions its recommendations as pro-consumer and pro-rule-of-law, the letter has already drawn criticism from funding advocates who argue that TPLF improves access to justice and levels the playing field against well-resourced defendants.

Litigation funder Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet “Mani” Walia, have reached a settlement resolving a trade secrets lawsuit that had been pending in Texas state court. The agreement brings an end to a dispute that arose after Walia’s departure from the firm, following allegations that he misused confidential information to establish a competing business in the litigation finance space.

As reported in Law 360, Siltstone filed suit in late 2025, claiming that Walia, who had served as general counsel and was closely involved in the company’s internal operations, improperly accessed and retained proprietary materials after leaving the firm. According to the funder, the information at issue included sensitive business strategies and other confidential data central to Siltstone’s competitive position. The lawsuit asserted claims under Texas trade secrets law, along with allegations of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty tied to confidentiality and restrictive covenant provisions.

Walia disputed the allegations as the case moved forward, setting the stage for what appeared to be a hard-fought legal battle between the former employer and its onetime senior executive. However, before the dispute could be fully litigated, the parties opted to reach a negotiated resolution. Following the settlement, Siltstone moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, signaling that the matter has been conclusively resolved and cannot be refiled.

The specific terms of the settlement have not been made public, which is typical in cases involving alleged trade secret misappropriation. While details remain confidential, such resolutions often include mutual releases of claims and provisions aimed at protecting sensitive information going forward.

Litigation funder Burford Capital is expanding its footprint in Asia with its first senior hire in South Korea, marking a strategic move into a jurisdiction it sees as increasingly important for complex commercial and arbitration disputes. The firm has appointed Elizabeth J. Shin as Senior Vice President and Head of Korea, with responsibility for leading Burford’s activities in the market and developing relationships with Korean corporates and law firms.

Law.com reports that Shin joins Burford from Lee & Ko, where she was a partner in the firm’s international arbitration and global disputes practice. Her background includes advising on high-value cross-border commercial disputes, intellectual property matters, and arbitration proceedings across a range of industries. Burford has positioned her experience as a key asset as it looks to support Korean companies pursuing claims in international forums and managing the cost and risk of major disputes.

The hire reflects Burford’s view that Korea represents a growing opportunity for legal finance, driven by the country’s sophisticated corporate sector and increasing involvement in international arbitration and complex litigation. By establishing a senior presence on the ground in Seoul, Burford aims to provide local market insight alongside its capital and strategic expertise, while also raising awareness of litigation funding as a tool for dispute management.

Korea has traditionally been a more conservative market for third-party funding compared with jurisdictions such as the US, UK, and Australia, but interest in alternative dispute finance has been gradually increasing. Burford’s move signals confidence that demand will continue to grow, particularly as Korean businesses become more active in global disputes and seek flexible ways to finance large claims.

Idea Financial has secured a $20 million corporate term loan from EverBank to support the continued expansion of its small business and legal lending platforms. The financing provides additional balance sheet capital as the company looks to scale originations, enhance product offerings, and extend its reach to underserved borrowers nationwide.

An article in TipRanks notes that Idea Financial was founded in 2017 by attorneys Justin Leto and Larry Bassuk, and operates as a non-bank lender offering flexible capital solutions to small businesses and plaintiff law firms. The company has originated more than $1 billion in total funding since inception, providing lines of credit, term loans, and litigation-focused financing through its LevelEsq platform. The new term loan is expected to increase Idea Financial’s capacity to serve borrowers that often face challenges accessing timely capital from traditional financial institutions.

EverBank, a national specialty bank with an active lender finance platform, structured the facility as part of its broader strategy to support specialty finance companies with customized funding solutions. The transaction reflects ongoing interest from regulated financial institutions in partnering with alternative lenders that operate in niche and underserved markets.

Idea Financial leadership characterized the loan as a validation of the company’s growth strategy and operating model. According to management, the additional capital will allow the firm to invest further in technology, expand its team, and provide greater flexibility to small businesses and plaintiff law firms seeking working capital to manage operations, case expenses, and growth initiatives.

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.

Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.

A new partnership between SIM IP and Tangibly signals a targeted expansion of litigation finance into the trade secret enforcement space, combining capital with technology designed to assess early stage risk. The collaboration reflects growing interest among funders in data driven approaches to underwriting complex intellectual property claims, particularly those that are traditionally viewed as expensive and uncertain.

A press release reports that the two companies have launched a joint offering aimed at financing trade secret litigation while leveraging Tangibly’s technology platform to help identify, value, and monitor trade secret assets. The partnership is positioned around an AI driven model that evaluates the strength of potential claims earlier in the lifecycle, with the goal of reducing uncertainty for both claimholders and funders before significant legal costs are incurred.

According to the announcement, SIM IP will provide litigation financing for qualifying matters, while Tangibly’s platform will support due diligence by mapping trade secret assets, tracking misappropriation risks, and generating data that can inform enforcement strategies. Trade secret claims often present unique challenges compared to patents, including evidentiary complexity and difficulties around valuation. By combining funding with structured analytics, the partners argue that more meritorious claims can move forward that might otherwise stall due to cost or risk concerns.

The launch also comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of litigation funding disclosures in the United States, particularly in intellectual property disputes. While the partnership announcement does not focus on regulatory issues, it highlights how funders are refining their models to emphasize selectivity, transparency, and risk management rather than broad based capital deployment.

For the legal funding industry, the collaboration underscores a broader trend toward specialization and technology integration. As competition among funders increases, partnerships that blend capital with proprietary tools may become more common, especially in niche areas like trade secrets where early insight can materially affect case outcomes and investment performance.

A federal judge has rejected an effort by Apple to force disclosure of litigation funding materials in a patent infringement dispute, reinforcing judicial reluctance to open third-party funding arrangements to routine discovery. The decision comes amid ongoing debates over transparency in litigation finance and marks another instance where courts have declined to equate outside funding with improper influence.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, the dispute arises from Apple’s defense against patent infringement claims tied to its iPhone “Back Tap” functionality. As part of its litigation strategy, Apple argued that communications between the plaintiff and its litigation funders could reveal undue control over the case or otherwise undermine claims of independence by counsel. According to the court, those arguments fell short of the threshold required to justify disclosure.

In denying the request, the judge emphasized that generalized concerns about litigation funding do not override long-standing protections such as the work-product doctrine. Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation remain shielded absent a clear showing of substantial need, and the court found no evidence that the funder’s involvement compromised legal strategy or decision-making. The ruling also rejected the notion that the mere presence of third-party funding creates a presumption of relevance or discoverability.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law in federal courts that treats litigation funding as a legitimate commercial arrangement rather than an automatic basis for expanded discovery. While some judges have ordered limited disclosures in narrow circumstances, particularly in class actions or conflicts analyses, courts have generally resisted defendant attempts to use funding as a backdoor to privileged materials.

The latest attempt to legislate transparency in U.S. litigation funding stalled in the House Judiciary Committee this week when the committee considered the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding From Abuse Act but recessed without ever voting on the measure and did not reconvene to advance it. The bill, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa of California, has now effectively been pulled from further consideration at this stage.

An article in IPWatchdog states that the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding From Abuse Act was debated alongside other measures during a lengthy markup that focused primarily on immigration enforcement issues. The measure closely tracked a previous effort, the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, also spearheaded by Issa, which sought to require parties in civil actions to disclose third party funding sources and related agreements. Like its predecessor, the current bill faced procedural challenges and competing priorities in committee, and did not reach the floor for a vote before lawmakers recessed.

Issa and his co-sponsors have framed the effort as necessary to illuminate so-called abuses in the U.S. litigation system by requiring the identity of third party funders to be disclosed to courts and opposing parties. But the repeated failure of similar bills to gain traction reflects deep partisan and practical concerns. Opponents argue that broad disclosure mandates could chill legitimate funding arrangements and impede access to justice, while supporters insist that transparency is essential to protect defendants and the legal system from hidden financial interests.

The stall of this latest proposal comes amid other congressional efforts on litigation finance, including separate proposals to address foreign funding in U.S. courts, but underscores the political and policy challenges in regulating private capital in civil litigation. With the bill pulled, stakeholders will watch for whether future iterations emerge in committee or form the basis of negotiations in upcoming sessions.

The Malaysian Bar has publicly endorsed Malaysia’s newly implemented legislative framework governing third party funding in arbitration, while cautioning that all stakeholders must remain vigilant as the regime is put into practice. The comments come as Malaysia formally joins a growing group of jurisdictions that have moved to regulate litigation and arbitration funding rather than prohibit it outright.

An article in Business Today Malaysia reports that the Malaysian Bar welcomed the coming into force of the Arbitration Amendment Act 2024 on 1 January 2026, which abolishes the long standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the context of arbitration. The new law expressly permits third party funding for arbitral proceedings and introduces a regulatory structure aimed at balancing access to justice with procedural fairness and independence. According to the Bar, the reforms are a positive and necessary step to ensure Malaysia remains competitive as an international arbitration seat.

The legislation includes requirements for funded parties to disclose the existence and identity of any third party funder, addressing concerns around conflicts of interest and transparency. It also introduces a code of practice for funders, designed to ensure that funding arrangements do not undermine counsel independence, tribunal authority, or the integrity of the arbitral process. The Malaysian Bar emphasised that funders should not exert control over strategic decisions, evidence, or settlement, and that tribunals retain discretion to manage funding related issues, including costs and security for costs applications.

While acknowledging ongoing concerns that third party funding could encourage speculative or unmeritorious claims, the Bar took the position that ethical and well regulated funding should not be viewed as a threat to arbitration. Instead, it framed funding as a legitimate tool that can enhance access to justice for parties who might otherwise be unable to pursue valid claims due to cost constraints. The Bar called on lawyers, arbitrators, institutions, and funders to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the new law as it is implemented.

Global litigation funder Omni Bridgewayhas announced the appointment of Nathan Krapivensky as an Investment Advisor, reinforcing the firm’s ongoing focus on deepening its investment expertise and strengthening origination capabilities across complex disputes.

Omni Bridgeway states that Krapivensky joins the business with extensive experience spanning litigation finance, complex commercial disputes, and investment analysis. In his new role, he will advise on the assessment and structuring of potential investments, working closely with Omni Bridgeway’s global investment teams to evaluate risk, quantum, and strategic considerations across funded matters. The appointment reflects the firm’s continued emphasis on disciplined underwriting and the development of sophisticated funding solutions for corporate clients, law firms, and claimants.

According to the announcement, Krapivensky brings a background that combines legal insight with commercial and financial acumen, positioning him to contribute meaningfully to Omni Bridgeway’s case selection and portfolio construction processes. His experience in analysing disputes at various stages of the litigation lifecycle is expected to support the firm’s efforts to deploy capital efficiently while maintaining rigorous investment standards. Omni Bridgeway highlighted that the role is advisory in nature, underscoring the importance of independent, high-quality judgment in evaluating opportunities across jurisdictions and asset classes.

The hire also aligns with Omni Bridgeway’s broader strategy of investing in talent as competition within the litigation funding market intensifies. As funders increasingly differentiate themselves through expertise rather than capital alone, senior advisory appointments have become a key lever for firms seeking to enhance credibility with sophisticated counterparties. By adding an experienced investment advisor, Omni Bridgeway signals its intention to remain at the forefront of the market for complex, high-value disputes.

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.

Litigation funding in the Middle East and North Africa is expected to move decisively into the mainstream by 2026, as regulatory clarity, arbitration reform, and growing commercial awareness reshape how disputes are financed across the region. What was once viewed as a niche or unfamiliar concept is increasingly being recognized as a practical tool for managing risk, unlocking claims value, and improving access to justice in complex commercial matters.

An article in WinJustice Knowledge Hub outlines how litigation funding is evolving into a recognized asset class within the MENA legal ecosystem. The piece highlights how improved regulatory environments and more sophisticated arbitration frameworks are helping normalize third-party funding, particularly in international arbitration and cross-border disputes. Claims are increasingly assessed not simply as legal battles, but as financial assets that can be monetized and strategically managed. This shift is especially relevant for businesses facing capital constraints or seeking to preserve cash while pursuing high-value disputes.

The article also emphasizes the role of localized expertise in accelerating adoption. WinJustice positions itself as a regional player focused on aligning international funding practices with local legal cultures, court systems, and arbitration centers. By working closely with regional law firms and dispute resolution institutions, funders are helping bridge the gap between global capital and local claimants. Insolvency-related disputes and asset recovery cases are identified as particular areas of growth, reflecting broader economic and restructuring trends across the region.

As litigation funding becomes more familiar to courts, counsel, and corporate clients, the MENA market appears poised for accelerated growth. Increased competition among funders and greater sophistication among claimants may also lead to more standardized pricing and structures.

The debate over whether consumer legal funding should be classified as a loan continues to surface in regulatory and policy circles, but legal doctrine and economic analysis consistently point in the opposite direction. Consumer legal funding is a non-recourse financial transaction tied to the outcome of a legal claim. If the consumer does not recover in their case, they owe nothing. This defining feature alone places the product outside the traditional boundaries of consumer lending, which requires repayment regardless of outcome and typically involves credit underwriting, collateral, and enforceable debt obligations.

An article in the National Law Review explains that courts and legislatures across the United States have repeatedly recognized this distinction. Rather than viewing consumer legal funding as borrowed money, courts have treated these arrangements as the purchase of a contingent interest in a future settlement or judgment. Because repayment is entirely dependent on case success, judges have found that the economic substance of the transaction does not resemble a loan, nor does it fit neatly within existing consumer credit frameworks.

Judicial decisions from multiple jurisdictions underscore this point. Courts have emphasized that consumers face no personal liability, no collection efforts, and no obligation to repay from their own assets. These factors are incompatible with the legal definition of a loan, which presumes a fixed obligation to repay principal and interest. As a result, attempts to recharacterize consumer legal funding as lending have largely failed when scrutinized under established legal standards.

From an economic perspective, consumer legal funding plays a distinct role in the civil justice system. It provides liquidity to plaintiffs who may be facing prolonged litigation and financial pressure, often helping them avoid accepting premature or undervalued settlements. Treating these transactions as loans could impose regulatory requirements that are poorly suited to non-recourse funding and risk limiting consumer access to a product designed to mitigate imbalance between individual plaintiffs and well-resourced defendants.

Pogust Goodhead, the high-profile claimant law firm behind a number of major group actions, has warned of material uncertainty over its ability to continue as a going concern after publishing long-overdue financial accounts. The disclosure adds another layer of scrutiny to a firm that has been at the centre of some of the largest and most complex funded claims currently working their way through the courts.

An article in City A.M. reports that Pogust Goodhead filed its accounts for the year ending December 31, 2022 well past the statutory deadline, with the documents including a statement from directors acknowledging significant financial uncertainty. According to the filing, the firm remains dependent on securing additional funding and successfully progressing large-scale litigation in order to meet its obligations as they fall due.

The accounts show that Pogust Goodhead continues to operate at a loss, reflecting the capital-intensive nature of large group actions that can take years to reach resolution. The firm has been involved in headline cases, including environmental and consumer claims, where substantial upfront legal costs are incurred long before any recovery is realised. Directors noted that delays, adverse rulings, or difficulties in accessing external capital could materially affect the firm’s financial position.

Despite these warnings, the firm stated that it is actively engaged with funders and other stakeholders and believes there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining sufficient support to continue operations. The accounts were prepared on a going concern basis, although auditors highlighted the uncertainty as a key area of emphasis rather than issuing a qualification.

The disclosure comes at a time when claimant firms and their funders are facing heightened scrutiny from regulators, politicians, and critics of litigation finance. Financial transparency, funding arrangements, and risk allocation between law firms and third-party capital providers are increasingly under the spotlight, particularly in the context of large, cross-border group actions.