Burford Capital has published a new Burford Quarterly that pitches legal finance as a strategic resource for corporates and law firms confronting increasingly complex, cross-border matters. Vice Chair David Perla frames the theme succinctly: legal finance is no longer merely a tool to pay fees—it’s a way to unlock capital trapped in claims and manage portfolio risk as regulatory scrutiny and multijurisdictional exposure rise.

The issue is built around sector playbooks. A pharma feature addresses how generic and branded drug makers use financing to shoulder costly Hatch-Waxman litigation and development timelines, positioning capital as a buffer where damages are uncertain but speed to market is critical.

A construction-arbitration piece tracks the uptick in global disputes amid supply-chain shocks, decarbonization mandates, and elongated project schedules, with third-party capital smoothing cash flow over multi-year EPC programs and helping parties sustain high-value claims through arbitration.

Two additional components round out the package. A ten-year lookback on the UK’s opt-out competition regime argues funding has been central to the maturing collective-actions market and will remain pivotal as policymakers contemplate broader redress. And a Q&A tied to Burford’s strategic minority investment in Kindleworth explores how alternative capital and law-firm entrepreneurship intersect to seed specialist boutiques and align incentives with client outcomes.

The UK’s fast-evolving funding landscape continues to clarify what works—and what doesn’t—after PACCAR. In July, the Court of Appeal in Sony Interactive v Neill held that LFAs pegging a funder’s return to deployed or committed capital, even when paid from proceeds and subject to a proceeds cap, are not damages-based agreements. That distinction matters: many CAT and other group LFAs were rewritten over the past year to swap percentage-of-recovery models for multiple-based economics, and the ruling indicates those structures remain enforceable when drafted with care.

Quinn Emanuel's Business Litigation Report traces the arc from PACCAR’s treatment of percentage-based LFAs to Sony v Neill’s clarification and the policy response now gathering steam. The analysis underscores that returns keyed to funding outlay—not the quantum of recovery—avoid the DBA regime, reducing the risk that amended post-PACCAR agreements are second-guessed at certification or settlement approval.

The Civil Justice Council’s June Final Report outlines a legislative repair kit: a statutory fix to reverse PACCAR’s impact prospectively and retrospectively; an explicit separation of third-party funding from contingency-fee arrangements; a shift from self-regulation to light-touch statutory oversight; and, in exceptional cases, judicial power to permit recovery of funding costs from losing defendants. The CJC would also keep third-party funding of arbitration outside the formal regime.

For market participants, the immediate implications are contractual. Multiples, proceeds caps, waterfall mechanics, and severability language deserve meticulous treatment; so do disclosure and control provisions, given heightened judicial scrutiny of class representation and adverse costs exposure.

Burford Capital has strengthened its European presence with its first senior hire in Spain, recruiting Teresa Gutiérrez Chacón as Senior Vice President based in Madrid.

According to the press release, Gutiérrez Chacón brings over 16 years of experience in complex dispute resolution, international arbitration, and legal strategy—most recently serving as Chief Legal Counsel for Pavilion Energy’s European trading arm. Her prior roles include positions at Freshfields and Gómez‑Acebo & Pombo, and she has been recognized by Legal 500 as a “Rising Star” in Litigation & Arbitration and named Best Arbitration Lawyer Under 40 by Iberian Lawyer.

In her new role, she will deepen Burford’s relationships with Spanish law firms and corporations, positioning the firm to address the growing demand in Spain for legal finance solutions. Burford emphasized that Spain’s sophisticated legal market presents “significant opportunities,” and that adding on‑the‑ground leadership in Madrid enhances its ability to deliver local insight and cross‑jurisdictional support.

Philipp Leibfried, Burford’s Head of Europe, noted that this hire demonstrates a commitment to expanding in key European jurisdictions and strengthening Burford’s role as a “trusted partner” for law firms and businesses seeking innovative capital solutions.

The UK Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple’s appeal in Apple Inc and others v Gutmann, leaving intact a Court of Appeal decision that significantly strengthens the position of litigation funders in collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

An article in Law Gazette reports that the Supreme Court refused Apple’s petition on the grounds that it did not raise an arguable point of law, effectively endorsing the lower court’s April 2025 decision. That ruling affirmed that litigation funders can be paid directly from damages recovered in a class action before distributions are made to class members. The decision resolved longstanding ambiguity surrounding Sections 47C(3) and (6) of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 93 of the CAT Rules 2015.

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT has wide discretionary authority to order payments to class representatives for costs, fees, and disbursements, provided such allocations are deemed fair and reasonable under the tribunal’s supervisory jurisdiction. This was a pivotal victory for claimant-side funders, who have long warned that being last in line for recovery—after damages are disbursed—posed unacceptable risk in UK opt-out cases.

Law firm Charles Lyndon, counsel for class representative Justin Gutmann, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision not to revisit the matter, stating that it brings “welcome certainty” to the evolving collective proceedings regime and affirms the CAT’s broad discretion in addressing complex, end-of-case allocation scenarios.

This decision is expected to have a profound impact on the UK’s competition class action landscape. Funders now have greater confidence in the recoverability of their investments, potentially spurring more funding activity in CAT proceedings. The ruling may also prompt defendants to reconsider their settlement calculus, knowing that funders now enjoy a more secure repayment pathway.

Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a high-stakes antitrust class action are now targeting the use of third‑party litigation funding by plaintiffs’ counsel in a bid to derail class certification. At issue is whether a lead firm’s reliance on external financing renders it “inadequate” under class action rules — a novel approach that raises fresh procedural and policy questions.

An article in Reuters notes the the suit alleges that Cornell, Penn, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame and others favored wealthy applicants over students needing financial aid, plaintiffs’ counsel (led by Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, or GLC) is facing attacks over transparency and risk allocation. The universities contend that GLC mischaracterized its financial exposure by not fully disclosing its funding arrangements. GLC responds that it only uses outside funding for a portion of its fees (covering 40% of its own, and under 16% of the aggregate) and that no court has previously held that use of funding makes class counsel inadequate. A judge has already found the funding documents “potentially relevant” to the certification motion, underscoring the stakes.

Legal commentators call this a new twist in class litigation — rather than questioning the merits or fairness of funding, defendants are now probing its procedural footprint. The case also dovetails with a broader trend: litigation funders are becoming more visible and controversial, particularly when their support is used by class‑action counsel. Reuters Meanwhile, in adjacent news, law firms are consolidating and AI‑driven tools for plaintiffs’ practices are attracting investor capital — further reshaping the economics of litigation.

This challenge could force courts nationwide to reinterpret adequacy standards in class actions, potentially chilling the use of external funding. It may also provoke funders, defense firms, and plaintiffs to recalibrate disclosure rules and risk-sharing norms across major litigation.

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Despite a government-commissioned independent review recommending priority standalone legislation to reverse PACCAR, the Government has failed to act, the letter to the Lord Chancellor says.

“As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of ‘following the evidence’.

“The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants.

“We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.”

The letter follows earlier calls on the Government from claimants to reverse PACCAR urgently, including from Sir Alan Bates , truck hauliers and the lead claimant in a mass action case against six water suppliers for alleged customer overcharging.

This comes amid a drop off in collective proceeding cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal this year according to Solomonic, as reported in the Financial Times this morning (link). 

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said:

“We’ve been warning successive governments for more than two years about the potential impact this uncertainty will have on consumers and small businesses’ ability to access justice.

“These figures show that stark reality. Meritorious claims are going unfunded, alleged wrongdoers are unchallenged and competition - one of the great drivers of growth - is not being enforced.

“The Government must act before this small trickle of cases dries up altogether.”

Martyn Day, co-founder of Leigh Day and co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) which signed the letter, said: 

“This issue has created a great deal of uncertainty that is blocking access to justice for ordinary people taking on powerful corporations accused of wrongdoing. 

“The system simply cannot work without litigation funding, and this is a timely reminder to government to fix this issue, and urgently.”

In July 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in the PACCAR judgment that litigation finance agreements were unenforceable unless they met the requirements of Damages-Based Agreements, rendering many ongoing cases invalid and causing delays in the pursuit of justice for millions of claimants. 

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) concluded its comprehensive review of the funding sector four months ago, after the Government had promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the review was complete. The CJC’s review urged priority standalone legislation to reverse the damaging effects of PACCAR. Yet, despite earlier promises, the Government has said the review would merely “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”. 

The letter highlights how the Government’s continued inaction contradicts the Prime Minister's own commitment to "following the evidence”.

The signatories, representing firms including Mishcon de Reya, Stewarts, Freeths, and Scott+Scott UK, highlight the “pivotal role” of group actions. They call on the Government to “act swiftly” to adopt the CJC’s recommendation to reverse PACCAR to protect the reputation of the UK’s justice system. The firms also include those who have provided legal representation for Sir Alan Bates, hauliers ripped off by truck manufacturers (link), and leaseholders fighting secret insurance charges (link).

Since the ruling, crucial investment into the UK economy is rapidly being lost. Litigation funders like Burford Capital are taking their funds elsewhere, with CEO Chris Bogart, stating his firm has begun ‘migrating some dispute resolution away from London’, following PACCAR. 

Litigation funding enables claimants with limited means to access justice, enabling landmark cases including those brought by the subpostmasters, retail workers, and small business owners, to hold multinational corporations accused of serious wrongdoing to account, while promoting fair, competitive markets and securing investment into the UK.

--

Below is the letter to the Lord Chancellor, in its entirety:

Rt Hon David Lammy MP
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Dear Lord Chancellor,

Congratulations on your new role as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. While we recognise the many challenges you'll face stepping into this role, we wanted to highlight a critical issue that is undermining access to justice and stifling investment in the UK's legal system. But it's an issue with a quick and simple fix.

Group actions in the UK play a pivotal role in enabling individuals to come together to bring claims against those accused of wrongdoing - often multinational corporations with significant resources. It has helped claimants like the subpostmasters, shopworkers, retail investors, and small business owners access justice.

The regime is underpinned by claimants’ abilities to access finance - often through litigation funding where funders provide financial backing for an agreed return of any settlement. However, as you know, the future of this mechanism and the regime is under threat thanks to the disruptive effects of the 2023 PACCAR judgment, and subsequent challenges to the enforceability of funding arrangements.

Claimants with limited means are struggling to access funding to bring their cases, and investment from funders is draining away from the UK legal system.

The Government promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the Civil Justice Council’s review had concluded. 

The CJC reported back 4 months ago with a thorough and nuanced perspective on the funding sector. As members of the legal community, we are sympathetic to sensible reforms and are reassured that the Government is considering these carefully. 

But one unequivocal and pressing recommendation from the CJC was for urgent standalone legislation to reverse the effects of PACCAR to end the uncertainty damaging access to justice. Disappointingly, the Government has so far failed to hear that call, saying only that the review would “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”, despite its previous promises.

As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of “following the evidence”. The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants. 

We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.

Signed

The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).
Stewarts
Group Actions & Competition, Stephenson Harwood
Scott+Scott UK LLP
Backhouse Jones
Freeths 
Humphries Kerstetter LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Velitor Law
Milberg London LLP
Fladgate LLP
Geradin Partners
Harcus Parker
Tim Constable, Bates Wells
Phi Finney McDonald
Keidan Harrison LLP
Asserson
Leigh Day
Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP
KP Law

After four years helping to build CAC Specialty’s contingent risk insurance practice from the ground up, Shai Silverman is departing the firm to join litigation risk insurer Litica as its Head of Underwriting – U.S.

In a LinkedIn post, Silverman reflected on his time at CAC, where he joined in the early days of the firm’s efforts to turn contingent risk insurance into a mainstream product. Alongside colleagues Andrew Mutter, Michael B. Wakefield, and David Barnes, Silverman helped develop insurance solutions for a wide array of legal risks, crafted bespoke products for hundreds of clients, and played a key role in launching the first-ever contingent risk insurance conference.

Silverman now moves to Litica, a UK-headquartered specialist insurer focused on litigation and contingent risks, to lead its U.S. underwriting function. His move signals not just a personal transition but also the growing transatlantic ambitions of insurers operating in this once-niche corner of legal risk.

Silverman’s departure marks a broader inflection point for contingent risk insurance—a sector now poised for significant expansion. As underwriting talent like Silverman shifts into leadership roles at specialist firms, questions emerge around how traditional insurers will respond, and whether contingent risk insurance will continue its trajectory toward becoming a standard risk-transfer tool for litigation and arbitration.

As third-party litigation finance scales across commercial disputes, courts and policymakers are weighing whether—and how—to require disclosure of funding arrangements.

An article in Bloomberg Law News states that proponents argue that targeted transparency can illuminate potential conflicts, clarify control over litigation decisions, and help judges manage complex dockets without chilling meritorious claims. Opponents warn that blanket disclosure risks revealing strategy, upending privilege, and inviting harassment of funded plaintiffs. The debate, once theoretical, is increasingly practical as capital providers back high-stakes cases, class actions, and MDLs, and as a patchwork of local rules and standing orders nudges the industry toward more consistent practices.

Litigation funding’s growing influence on case dynamics warrants a disclosure rule, emphasizing that transparency can bolster fairness and the integrity of proceedings. The piece notes recurring flashpoints: who controls settlement decisions, whether funders exert improper influence, how agreements intersect with privilege and work product, and what conflicts might arise for counsel or class representatives. It outlines possible frameworks, from limited, court-facing disclosures at filing to in camera review of funding agreements and sworn certifications about control, veto rights, and fee waterfalls. According to the article, calibrated disclosure—rather than broad, party-to-party exposure—could give judges essential visibility while minimizing competitive harm and discouraging fishing expeditions.

If proposals coalesce around narrow, court-directed disclosures, more districts could codify consistent requirements, reducing uncertainty for funders and litigants. Fund managers may respond by standardizing governance, conflict checks, and documentation to support certifications on control and settlement authority.

For complex litigation—especially MDLs and class actions—measured transparency could improve case management and reduce satellite disputes, while preserving confidentiality that enables financing to continue filling access-to-justice gaps.

The Minister for Justice in Ireland has expressed serious reservations about introducing third‑party litigation funding. Speaking at a dispute resolution conference hosted by Mason Hayes & Curran, Jim O’Callaghan emphasized his concern about “commodifying justice” and his reluctance to see lawyers as the principal beneficiaries of funding regimes. He pledged to review the forthcoming report from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) before making any decisions.

An article in Law Society Gazette reports that under current Irish law, third-party litigation funding by parties without a legitimate interest in the dispute is prohibited, though exceptions exist. O’Callaghan acknowledged the potential access‑to‑justice benefits of such funding, but warned that in practice the “big winners” tend to be lawyers. He stated, “I have no interest, in my role as Minister for Justice, in enriching lawyers.”

During the same panel, barrister Emily Egan McGrath SC noted that Irish courts have expressed growing frustration at the absence of legislative reform and have sometimes stretched existing exceptions—for example, in Campbell v O'Doherty, where the High Court rejected a challenge linked to crowdfunding. The panel also discussed evolving developments under EU law—such as the Representative Actions Directive—which may force Ireland’s hand. But speakers cautioned that the high costs of mass actions might discourage parties without funding support.

MHC partner Colin Monaghan observed heightened wariness in the UK about unregulated litigation funders, while Rory Kirrane SC warned of internal conflicts between funders and claimants over litigation proceeds. The panel speculated that any regulatory framework should fall under existing bodies (such as the Central Bank or CCPC) instead of creating a new oversight agency. Former Chief Justice Frank Clarke, president of the LRC, endorsed reform as essential—but insisted it must be accompanied by rigorous regulation.

O’Callaghan’s expressed reluctance signals that any move toward regulated third‑party funding in Ireland will face political and institutional resistance. For the legal funding industry, this cautious posture underscores the importance of demonstrating safeguards, transparency, and proportionality if funding models are to gain traction in conservative jurisdictions.

A litigation funder is driving lawsuits against prediction market platform Kalshi Inc. in six states, using an 18th‑century gambling law in a bid to claw back losses from predictions gone wrong.

An article in Bloomberg Law describes how Veridis Management LLC and its CEO, Maximillian Amster, are behind entities filing suits in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Georgia. The lawsuits invoke state versions of the anti‑illegal gambling “Statute of Anne,” which allows losing parties to sue winners for losses plus fees.

The targeted suits allege that Kalshi—which operates as a platform for trading event contracts—is facilitating illegal, unregulated wagering and violating both state and federal law. The complaint includes examples such as bets on NBA championship scores and whether Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028.

The plaintiffs also name Robinhood and Webull, platforms that host Kalshi’s contracts, as defendants. While Kalshi declined to comment, the article notes that Kalshi’s status as a designated contract market under the CFTC is central to the legal conflict: that designation shields it from state gambling regulation, but its boundaries are under scrutiny. A U.S. court has already weighed in, ruling that prediction of a political election does not qualify as “gaming” under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Veridis is portrayed as a specialist in complex litigation and regulatory claims, investing in high‑stakes, nonrecourse cases. Amster, formerly in real estate and private equity, steers this strategic litigation play. The article frames the Kalshi suits as a bold frontier for litigation funders—leveraging obscure statutes to attack financial innovation.

These developments may push litigation funders further into regulatory and doctrinal controversy. How courts and regulators respond to this stretch of archaic statutes could reshape strategic boundaries in the litigation finance industry.

Recent commentary in Law Gazette examines claims that the growth of collective litigation poses a damaging drag on economic performance. The article notes that the pressure group Fair Civil Justice estimates that unchecked mass claims could cost the UK up to £18 billion, erode £11 billion in market value from innovative firms, and slow the country's economic expansion. The article traces the evolution of these arguments, arguing that some of the most dire projections hinge on models that may overstate systemic risk or underplay countervailing benefits.

An article in Law Gazette highlights critics' concerns that the scale, costs, and complexity of aggregating claims impose administrative burdens, encourage excessive fees, and generate uncertainty—especially for firms facing litigation exposure.

Supporters of collective actions stress the role these mechanisms play in providing access to justice—particularly for dispersed or under-resourced claimants. The commentary suggests the debate often pivots on how to balance deterrence, fairness, cost control, and innovation incentives. Law Gazette ultimately questions whether the worst economic forecasts are empirically grounded or rhetorical excess.

The piece does not settle the question definitively but invites policymakers and industry stakeholders to interrogate the assumptions behind £‑billions‑scale estimates, and to examine whether reforms or guardrails might preserve the virtues of collective redress while limiting speculative or obstructive litigation risk.

If the narrative of mass litigation harming growth gains traction, legal funding and litigation finance will be pushed deeper into regulatory debates. Watching how lawmakers, courts, and economic commentators reconcile access to justice with macroeconomic risk will be critical for the future of third‑party funding.

Shares of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) plunged about 60% after the firm disclosed that a string of case losses has triggered “a material uncertainty in relation to our going concern status.”

According to its results for the year to 30 June, LCM won six and lost six cases, with three further cases currently under appeal (worth ~£22 million). The firm also disclosed a High Court defeat in a commercial matter where it had invested £16 million (its own funds plus managed funds). While it posted net gains of £11 million and a 1.8× multiple on concluded investments, overall it recorded a £41 million loss because of the adverse outcomes.

With debt levels rising and cash realizations weakening, LCM now finds itself increasingly reliant on its credit facility. The company acknowledges that further case losses could breach debt covenants, prompting a strategic review and consideration of a leaner, run‑off model. LCM’s share closed at an all‑time low of 10.75p—down from ~100p a year earlier.

CEO Patrick Moloney attributed the underperformance to the inherently binary nature of litigation funding—and to perceived drift from a formerly “hands‑on” model toward a more passive, lawyer‑led investment approach. To recover, LCM is cutting costs, trimming underperforming investments, reinstating rigorous quantitative due diligence, reducing staffing, and revamping its approach to expert evidence.

LCM currently has 53 active cases on its books with a total balance sheet exposure of ~£85 million.

LCM’s collapse is a cautionary tale for the litigation funding sector: the binary risk profile of legal finance, combined with leverage and reputation shocks, can quickly tip even seasoned players into crisis. If more funders follow this trajectory, we may see heightened demands for transparency, stronger regulatory oversight, or a shake‑out in the publicly traded tier of legal funders.

Eco Buildings Group said it has secured full litigation funding from Atticus Litigation Financing for its €195 million arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration arising out of alleged losses tied to actions by government agencies in Kosovo. In the same disclosure, the company confirmed that BSA Law has been retained on a conditional fee arrangement and noted that tribunal nominations are underway.

The announcement identifies Atticus as adviser-backed by industry veteran Nick Rowles-Davies and indicates the fund is scheduled to commence operations in October 2025.

The interim-results RNS, dated September 30, 2025, upgrades the company’s July communication—which described an “offer of full litigation funding”—to a confirmation that funding is now in place, while also updating expected fund timing. Together with the CFA, the package points to a blended financing structure designed to carry the matter through to award.

For funders and counterparties, the key near-term questions are procedural: how quickly the tribunal is fully constituted; whether early case-management orders shed light on timetable, bifurcation, or disclosure; and the degree to which funding terms (to the extent disclosed) signal stamina through potential post-award phases.

From Eco Buildings’ perspective, securing third-party capital at this stage helps ring-fence legal spend and adverse-costs exposure during the most resource-intensive portions of the case. For Atticus, the mandate offers an inaugural high-profile deployment in commercial arbitration, with advisory pedigree that will be familiar to market participants.

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) said the High Court in London has delivered judgment against its funded party in a commercial claim, marking a setback for the ASX-listed funder. The investment was co-funded with £9.9m from LCM’s balance sheet and £6.1m from Fund I, and the company reiterated that adverse-costs exposure is backed by after-the-event (ATE) insurance. LCM added that it will confer with counsel on next steps, a process that typically encompasses prospects of appeal, costs issues, or settlement positioning.

In the regulatory notice, LCM set out the key economics of the position and clarified the presence of ATE cover—detail that offers unusual transparency around downside risk management. The co-funding split between the corporate balance sheet and the pooled vehicle means any financial impact is dispersed rather than concentrated in a single pocket of capital.

While ATE insurance is not a profit buffer, it is intended to shoulder the counterparty costs risk that can materialize after an adverse outcome, and it can meaningfully limit cash outflow volatility as the matter moves through post-judgment phases.

The disclosure underscores the familiar dynamics of portfolio funding—wins and losses arrive unevenly, but disciplined structuring (co-funding, ATE, and aligned counsel) is designed to keep drawdowns contained. LFJ will track any developments around appeal decisions, cost orders, or portfolio commentary tied to this case as LCM executes its review with counsel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private‑equity firms have long eyed law practices as attractive investments — given their strong margins, recurring cash flows, and a highly fragmented sector. But regulatory restrictions, structural challenges, and misaligned incentives have so far kept large‑scale deals mostly on hold.

An article in The Wall Street Journal highlights the central tension: U.S. rules generally prohibit nonlawyers from owning law firms, limiting PE entry. Only Arizona has loosened this rule, and even there investment is tightly regulated and geographically circumscribed. In response, dealmakers are turning toward an analog from healthcare: management services organizations (MSOs). Under an MSO model, private capital can manage nonlegal, administrative functions (like billing, IT, or back-office operations) for law firms in return for fees — effectively monetizing a financial stake without owning legal practice.

Firms like Burford Capital are signaling intent with minority-stake aspirations, but several structural hurdles remain: U.S. law lacks enforceable non-compete agreements (making key attorneys mobile), and there’s no robust secondary market for legal-practice stakes, making exits very uncertain. Some insiders voice skepticism about whether traditional PE’s deal timeframes and leverage models truly align with the partner-driven, reputation-based nature of law firms.