Katch Fund Solutions, one of the most prominent players in consumer litigation funding, has placed its consumer claims fund into liquidation.

According to Legal Futures, the move comes in response to mounting liquidity pressures caused by prolonged delays in resolving motor-finance claims and increased uncertainty surrounding major group litigation efforts. The Luxembourg-based fund confirmed it is winding down the portfolio and returning capital to investors on a pro-rata basis.

Katch had been a key backer of large-scale consumer legal claims in the UK, supporting firms such as SSB Law and McDermott Smith Law. Both firms ultimately collapsed, with SSB Law owing £63 million including £16 million in interest, and McDermott Smith Law owing £7 million. Katch’s portfolio also included a substantial stake in the ongoing “Plevin” litigation, a group of cases alleging unfair undisclosed commissions tied to the sale of payment protection insurance. That litigation, initially estimated at £18 billion in value, suffered a blow earlier this year when the High Court declined to grant a group litigation order, further delaying resolution timelines.

The firm’s consumer claims fund held over £400 million in assets as of mid-2025, but was hit hard by increasing investor redemption requests. Katch’s team cited concerns that payouts from major motor-finance cases could be delayed until 2026 or later due to regulatory and judicial developments. With limited short-term liquidity options, the fund concluded that an orderly wind-down was the only viable path forward.

Omni Bridgeway is backing a newly launched class action in New Zealand targeting Transpower New Zealand Limited and its contractor Omexom, following a major regional blackout that occurred in June 2024.

According to Omni's website, the outage, which affected approximately 180,000 residents and 20,000 businesses across Northland, was triggered by the collapse of a transmission tower near Glorit during maintenance activity conducted by Omexom.

Filed in the High Court in Wellington by law firms LeeSalmonLong and Piper Alderman, the case alleges negligence on the part of both defendants. The plaintiffs claim that Transpower failed to adequately oversee the maintenance, and that Omexom mishandled the work that led to the tower’s collapse.

The class action is proceeding on an opt-out basis, meaning all impacted Northland businesses are automatically included unless they choose otherwise. Under Omni Bridgeway’s funding model, there are no upfront costs to class members, and fees are contingent on a successful outcome.

The economic impact of the outage has been pegged between NZ$60 million and NZ$80 million, according to various estimates, with businesses reporting power losses lasting up to three days and in some cases longer. In the aftermath of the blackout, Transpower and Omexom jointly contributed NZ$1 million to a resilience fund for affected communities, a figure the plaintiffs argue is woefully inadequate compared to the losses incurred.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) has added Loopa Finance to its membership, marking another step in the trade association’s strategic expansion across Latin America and continental Europe. The announcement highlights ILFA’s continued efforts to support the growth of responsible legal finance and its positioning as the leading global voice for commercial litigation funders.

According to a press release issued by ILFA, the addition of Loopa Finance — formerly known as Qanlex — is seen as a major milestone in expanding the organization’s presence in key regional markets. Founded in 2020, Loopa operates across Latin America and Europe and specializes in litigation and arbitration funding, with a focus on innovative, risk-sharing funding models that utilize analytics and technology. The company’s inclusion brings further regional expertise to ILFA’s growing international network.

ILFA’s Director of Growth and Membership Engagement, Rupert Cunningham, emphasized the importance of Latin America’s rapidly evolving legal finance landscape, noting that Loopa’s entry will help enhance advocacy efforts with national governments and the European Union. Juliana Giorgi, General Counsel for Latin America at Loopa, echoed the sentiment, stating that joining ILFA reflects the company’s commitment to professionalism, transparency, and the development of a responsible funding ecosystem.

This move comes at a time when legal finance continues to professionalize globally, with trade associations like ILFA playing a crucial role in shaping regulatory conversations and establishing best practices. The addition of a cross-border funder like Loopa underscores the increasing global alignment within the commercial legal finance sector and raises questions about how funders will navigate differing regulatory environments while pursuing expansion.

Certum Group, the Texas-based litigation funder known for its mix of funding and risk-transfer tools, has entered the managed services space with the acquisition of a legal support business tailored to mass tort and personal injury firms. The new operation, Certum Legal Solutions, is already providing back-office and pre-litigation support to a number of law firms under a fee-for-service model.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Certum acquired the MSO in October and has since begun offering services including case intake, document management, and discovery support. The platform utilizes both legal and non-legal personnel and incorporates proprietary tools designed to automate medical-records integration and client communication.

The MSO originated from Sbaiti & Company, a New Jersey-based mass tort firm. While it continues to service Sbaiti, the business is expanding to support other firms as well. Certum has indicated that it may eventually pursue equity stakes in client firms, in addition to traditional fee-for-service arrangements.

This development reflects a broader industry trend where litigation funders are exploring alternative vehicles like MSOs to support or invest in law firms while staying within the bounds of legal ethics rules that restrict non-lawyer ownership and profit-sharing. Advisors say funders are diversifying from traditional debt financing toward more integrated operational models that can offer both financial returns and strategic access.

With Certum stepping into the MSO arena, the line between funder and service provider continues to blur. The model could reshape how funders work with firms, particularly in high-volume, complex areas like mass torts. As more funders evaluate similar moves, the legal funding industry may see deeper operational entanglements and longer-term alliances.

The High Court has rejected mining giant BHP’s application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) that sought to prevent Pogust Goodhead from pursuing lawful evidence-gathering measures in the United States against the former president of the Brazilian redress scheme foundation set up after the Mariana dam collapse.

The Court found no basis to characterise Pogust Goodhead’s use of Section 1782 to seek a deposition of Mr André de Freitas, former CEO of the Renova Foundation[i] as vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable, as argued by BHP.

In November 2024, Pogust Goodhead filed the §1782 application in the District Court of Arkansas seeking limited testimony from Mr de Freitas in relation to Pogust Goodhead’s claim arguing that BHP unlawfully interfered with Pogust Goodhead’s retainer rights and the compensation due to its Brazilian clients.  The U.S. court granted the subpoenas in January 2025.

Since then, BHP has sought to block the deposition by filing motions to quash the subpoenas in April 2025 and seeking an ASI in the High Court. A ruling from the Arkansas court is pending.

In Wednesday’s judgment, Mr Justice Waksman rejected BHP’s request for an injunction that would have halted the U.S. evidence-gathering process, finding no basis to prevent Pogust Goodhead from continuing with its §1782 discovery efforts.

Justice Waksman wrote in his decision: “I agree with PG that the depositions serve a distinct and legitimate purpose, being to better understand Renova’s role in relation to the various settlements and their form.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead commented: “We welcome the Court’s clear judgment. BHP has repeatedly attempted to obstruct legitimate investigations into its conduct. Mr de Freitas’s testimony is central to understanding how our clients’ rights may have been undermined. It is essential that he gives evidence. Only by hearing directly from those involved can our clients’ rights be properly safeguarded and the full truth established.”

Key Findings

• The court held that English courts do not control how parties lawfully obtain evidence abroad, and that the U.S. court is the appropriate authority to decide the scope and propriety of discovery sought under Section 1782.
• The Court also highlighted BHP’s significant delay in bringing the ASI application — nearly four months after learning of the U.S. subpoenas — which weighed against granting any injunctive relief.
• Any concerns about the scope of the subpoenas, alleged misstatements, or burden on the witness are squarely matters for the U.S. District Court, which has already engaged with the issues in detailed hearings.

As a result, BHP cannot use the English courts to derail the ongoing U.S. process. The parties now await the District Court of Arkansas’s decision on whether BHP’s motions to quash the subpoenas will succeed.

US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.

According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.

The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.

Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.

For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.

A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.

An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.

Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.

This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.

Woolworths Group is facing a new shareholder class action that alleges the company misled investors about the scale and financial impact of underpaying salaried employees. The action, backed by Litigation Lending Services, adds a fresh legal front to the long-running fallout from Woolworths’ wage compliance failures.

According to AFR, at the heart of the claim is the allegation that Woolworths did not adequately inform the market about the risks posed by its reliance on annualised salary structures and set-off clauses. These payment methods averaged compensation over longer periods instead of ensuring employees received correct pay entitlements for each pay period. This included overtime, penalty rates, and other award entitlements.

Recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have clarified that such set-off practices are non-compliant under modern awards. Employers must now ensure all entitlements are met for each pay period and maintain detailed records of employee hours. These rulings significantly raise the compliance bar and have increased financial exposure for large employers like Woolworths, which has tens of thousands of salaried employees.

As a result, Woolworths could face hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation costs. The shareholder class action argues that Woolworths failed to disclose the magnitude of these potential liabilities in a timely or accurate way. Investors claim that this omission amounts to misleading conduct, and that they were not fully informed of the risks when making investment decisions.

Tom Goldstein, the former SCOTUSblog co-founder and prominent appellate advocate, has named Parabellum Capital as the litigation funder at the center of a federal indictment accusing him of misappropriating legal financing to pay off personal debts.

Bloomberg Law reports that in a court filing made last week, Goldstein disclosed that he used advances from Parabellum to cover non-litigation-related expenses, including the purchase of a multimillion-dollar home. The revelation comes amid federal charges alleging that Goldstein misused firm funds to settle gambling losses and personal obligations, then mischaracterized those payments as business expenses. Prosecutors previously referred to an unnamed funder involved in these transactions; Parabellum is now confirmed to be that firm.

Goldstein’s disclosure appears to be part of a strategic legal response to mounting charges of tax evasion and financial misrepresentation. Once a high-profile figure in Supreme Court litigation, Goldstein now faces scrutiny not only for alleged personal financial misconduct but also for the implications his actions may have on the litigation finance ecosystem.

While Parabellum has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the situation highlights a key risk in the litigation funding model: the potential for funds advanced against anticipated case proceeds to be diverted toward unrelated personal uses. Funders traditionally require that capital be deployed for case expenses, legal fees, and expert costs—not real estate acquisitions or debt payments.

This case underscores a growing concern in the legal funding industry: the need for tighter controls, enhanced due diligence, and possibly more explicit regulatory frameworks to ensure that funding agreements are not exploited. As the industry continues to mature, episodes like this could shape how funders vet borrowers and monitor the use of their capital.

At a Fall conference hosted by law firm Brown Rudnick, attendees from across the litigation finance industry voiced growing concern about the sector’s prospects, signaling what may be a turning point for a business long hyped for outsized returns.

According to Yahoo Finance, many in attendance described a drain in new investment and increasing skepticism that big wins, once seen as routine, will materialize. In recent years, funders have aggressively financed high-stakes lawsuits with the expectation that a handful of big verdicts or settlements would deliver significant payouts. But now, as legal outcomes remain unpredictable and returns disappoint, investors appear to be pulling back. Some funders are reportedly limiting new deals, tightening criteria for which cases to support, or reevaluating their business models altogether.

For smaller plaintiffs and everyday plaintiffs’ firms, the contraction in funding availability could prove especially painful. The ripple effects may leave many without access to third-party capital needed to bridge the lengthy wait until verdict. And for funders, the shrinking appetite for risk could mean narrower portfolios and potentially lower returns overall.

The industry’s recalibration may also carry broader implications. Fewer fundings could slow litigation overall. Plaintiffs may see reduced leverage while funders may prioritize lower-risk, smaller-return cases. The shift could further concentrate power among a shrinking number of large, well-capitalized funders.

As the post-conference murmur becomes a chorus, the once-booming litigation finance sector may be entering a more sober phase — where hope for home-run returns gives way to caution, discipline, and perhaps a redefinition of what success looks like.

Litigation funders scored a major win in Europe this week as the European Commission confirmed it will not pursue new regulations targeting third-party funding. In a decision delivered at the final session of the Commission's High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth, Commissioner Michael McGrath announced that the EU executive will instead focus its efforts on implementing the recently adopted Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which governs collective redress actions brought by consumers and investors.

An article in Law.com notes that the move is being hailed as a significant victory by litigation funders, particularly Omni Bridgeway. Kees de Visser, the firm's Chair of the EMEA Investment Committee, described the decision as a clear endorsement of the litigation funding model and a green light for continued expansion across European jurisdictions. Funders had grown increasingly concerned over the past year that the EU might impose strict rules or licensing requirements, following persistent lobbying by industry critics and certain member states.

Supporters of the Commission’s stance, including the International Legal Finance Association, argue that additional regulation would have harmed access to justice. They contend that third-party funding helps balance the playing field, especially in complex or high-cost litigation, by enabling smaller claimants to pursue valid claims that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

Although concerns around transparency and influence remain part of the wider policy debate, the EU’s current position sends a strong signal that existing legal tools and the RAD framework are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. For funders like Omni Bridgeway, this regulatory reprieve opens the door to deeper engagement in consumer and mass claims across the bloc.

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.

The global litigation funding market is experiencing strong growth, yet lingering regulatory uncertainties continue to shadow its trajectory. According to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, the market was valued at approximately US $17.5 billion (AUD $26.9 billion) in March 2025 and is projected to surge to US $67.2 billion (AUD $103 billion) by 2037.

An article in LSJ states that major drivers of this expansion include rising legal costs, complex cross-border commercial litigation, and increased demand from small and mid-sized law firms seeking external funding to build out specialist teams. While funders embrace the growth opportunity, critics raise concerns around transparency, claimant autonomy, and potential conflicts of interest.

In Australia, a notable development occurred on 6 August 2025 when the High Court of Australia in Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd clarified that federal courts may make common fund or funding equalisation orders for the benefit of third-party funders (but not for solicitors) in class actions—except in Victoria, which still allows contingency fees. This decision is seen as a win for litigation funders, providing greater clarity across most Australian jurisdictions. Australia also saw regulatory reform in December 2022 when the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations came into force, exempting litigation funding schemes from the MIS/AFSL regime under specific conditions and emphasising the mitigation of conflicts of interest as a compliance feature.

On the regulatory front, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is considering extending relief instruments that exempt certain litigation funding arrangements from the National Credit Code and financial services licensing until March 2030. Meanwhile in the UK, the proposed Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 seeks to remove the classification of third-party funding agreements as “damages-based agreements” under the Courts & Legal Services Act – a move which proponents say will enable greater access to justice and clear the path for global funders.

U.S. lawmakers are intensifying their efforts to regulate third-party litigation funding, with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introducing the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. This bill mirrors H.R. 2675, which is already progressing through the House, and targets alleged foreign influence in U.S. litigation, particularly from state-owned entities and sovereign wealth funds.

Insurance Journal reports that the proposed legislation would prohibit foreign governments and their affiliated investment arms from financing litigation in U.S. courts. It would also introduce mandatory disclosure requirements, compelling funders to report their arrangements to both the courts and the Department of Justice. Additionally, the bill empowers the DOJ’s National Security Division to review and monitor foreign litigation investments as a matter of national interest.

Supporters of the bill, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), argue that litigation funding sourced from foreign entities presents a tangible threat to national security and economic resilience. APCIA’s senior leadership described it as a “clear and present risk” that could influence legal outcomes and distort the civil justice system.

For the legal funding industry, the implications are significant. If enacted, the law would alter the landscape for funders operating in the U.S. market, especially those reliant on foreign capital. It raises pressing questions about how funders are going to combat this continued assault on the very existence of the industry.

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

The UK‑listed litigation funder Manolete Partners PLC has released its interim financial results for the half‑year ended 30 September 2025, revealing a stable but subdued performance amid an expanding insolvency funding opportunity.

According to the company announcement, total revenue fell to £12.7 million (down 12 % from £14.4 million a year earlier), while realised revenue slipped to £14.0 million (down 7 % from £15.0 million). Operating profit dropped sharply to £0.1 million, compared to £0.7 million in the prior period—though excluding fair value write‑downs tied to the company’s truck‑cartel portfolio, underlying profit stood at £2.0 million.

The business completed 146 cases during the period (up 7 % year‑on‑year) and signed 146 new case investments (up nearly 16 %). Live cases rose to 446 from 413 a year earlier, and the total estimated settlement value of new cases signed in the period was claimed to be 31 % ahead of the prior year. Cash receipts were flat at about £14.5 million, while net debt improved to £10.8 million (down from £11.9 million). The company’s cash balance nearly doubled to £1.1 million.

In its commentary, Manolete emphasises the buoyant UK insolvency backdrop — particularly the rise of Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations and HMRC‑driven petitions — as a tailwind for growth. However, the board notes the first half was impacted by a lower‑than‑average settlement value and a “quiet summer”, though trading picked up in September and October. The firm remains confident of stronger average settlement values and a weighting of realised revenues toward the second half of the year.

The European Commission has stepped back from plans to impose EU‑wide regulation on third‑party litigation funding. At the closing of its “Justice for Growth” forum this week, Commissioner Michael McGrath bluntly stated that stakeholders reported “no need to regulate third‑party litigation funding at EU level”. Instead, the Commission will shift focus toward monitoring how the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) is being implemented across member states.

An article in Law 360 notes that the decision comes after a consultative process and stakeholder feedback via the Commission’s high‑level forum, which included representatives from business, consumer interest groups, and member‑state institutions.

Industry reaction was swift and positive. The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) welcomed the announcement, noting that potential new regulation had created “considerable uncertainty for the sector.” ILFA expressed relief that the “talk of the need for new regulation … appears to be closed.”

Nevertheless, the decision comes at a complex moment. Earlier this year, the Commission published a detailed study on mapping third‑party litigation funding in the European Union, which had outlined three options for regulatory intervention: no regulation, light‑touch regulation, or full regulation. While the choice of “no new legislation” appears to align with the industry’s preference, the heightened scrutiny of the RAD’s implementation could signal more targeted oversight of how funders participate in consumer collective redress actions.

Implications for the legal funding industry: With the Commission refraining from new legislation, funders operating across the EU now have greater regulatory clarity, at least for the near term. But the decision also places the spotlight on national implementation of the RAD and raises questions about whether member states might adopt their own regulatory responses instead.

In a provocative new white paper, WilmerHale attorneys argue that venture capital–style strategies applied to patent litigation funding are fueling a wave of meritless lawsuits and stifling innovation in the U.S. tech economy.

An article in JD Supra outlines the firm's concerns about how litigation funders increasingly adopt a venture capital mindset when backing large portfolios of patent suits with the expectation that one or two major wins will offset the losses.

The paper contends that this model encourages the pursuit of weak or overbroad claims by non-practicing entities (NPEs), often through shell companies that obscure the funders' identities and incentives. In one example cited, a single defendant was forced to defend against dozens of claims, most of which were later dropped or invalidated, resulting in significant financial and operational burdens.

The authors also raise national security concerns, pointing to the lack of transparency around foreign investors that may leverage U.S. litigation as a strategic tool. In response, WilmerHale recommends mandating up-front disclosure of litigation funders, expanding fee-shifting mechanisms under laws such as 35 U.S.C. § 285, and amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve accountability.

These calls for reform arrive at a moment of increased scrutiny on third-party litigation finance, particularly in the intellectual property space. With transparency and disclosure at the center of WilmerHale’s proposed solutions, the paper adds to a growing chorus of voices calling for more regulatory oversight in the litigation finance ecosystem.

A new report projects that the global litigation-funding investment market will reach approximately USD 53.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 13.84 percent. This robust growth forecast is driven by increasing demand for third-party financing in commercial litigation, arbitration, and high-stakes legal disputes. Investors are seeking exposure to legal-asset strategies as an uncorrelated return stream, while funders are scaling up to handle more complex, higher-value outcomes.

According to the article in Yahoo News, the market’s expansion is fueled by several structural shifts: more claimants are accessing capital through non-traditional financing models, law firms are leaning more on outside capital to manage cost and risk, and funders are expanding their product offerings beyond single-case funding. While the base market size was not specified in the summary, earlier industry data suggests significant growth from previous levels, with the current projection indicating a several-fold increase.

Still, the path forward is not without challenges. Macroeconomic factors, regulatory ambiguity, and constraints within the legal services ecosystem could affect the pace and scale of growth. Funders will need to maintain disciplined underwriting standards and carefully manage portfolio risks—especially as the sector becomes increasingly mainstream and competitive.

For the legal funding industry, this forecast reinforces the asset class's ongoing maturation. It signals a shift toward greater institutionalization and scale, with potential implications for pricing, transparency, and regulatory scrutiny. Whether funders can balance growth with rigor will be central to the market’s trajectory over the coming decade.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is renewing its call for Congress to advance two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF). According to a recent article in Insurance Journal, APCIA is backing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 1109) and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 (H.R. 2675) as key reforms for federal civil litigation.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up both bills, which would require disclosure of TPLF in federal cases, and in the case of H.R. 2675, bar foreign governments and sovereign-wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. APCIA’s senior vice president for federal government relations described the measures as bringing “needed transparency for one of the largest cost drivers of insurance premiums — third-party litigation funding.”

In support of its advocacy, APCIA cited research from the consulting firm The Perryman Group, which estimated that excess tort costs in the U.S. amount to $368 billion annually — with each household absorbing roughly $2,437 in additional costs per year across items such as home and auto insurance and prescriptions.

While tax reform efforts once included proposals targeting funder profits, budget-rule constraints prevented those from advancing.

Burford Capital and Solomonic explore how seasoned funders and advisers can bring precision to the settlement table in high‑stakes disputes.

An article on Burford’s website states that the joint webinar, hosted by James MacKinnon (Burford) and Edward Bird (Solomonic), featured experts from Herbert  Smith  Freehills  Kramer, Pallas  Partners and Dectech to discuss how analytics can reshape settlement strategy. The piece highlights that large‑value disputes often take far longer and face steeper odds of success — not because high‑value claims are inherently weaker, but because risk‑seeking behaviour tends to dominate when the stakes rise.

Burford explains its method of translating a multi‑headed claim into a “weighted average damages outcome,” then discounting for trial risk, appellate risk, enforcement risk and cost of capital to arrive at a present‑day valuation. In one example, a claim with a theoretical maximum of US$500 million was valued at just under US$76 million after risk‑adjustment — meaning a settlement at or above that number would objectively represent success given the circumstances.

The article also reflects on the evolving role of AI and analytics. While data models are improving, Burford cautions that predictive systems remain dependent on data quality and expert inputs — underscoring that modelling alone is not a substitute for judgment and experience.

A new legislative push to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has ignited concern over the potential erosion of individual privacy rights, especially for plaintiffs involved in sensitive litigation. While the bill aims to shed light on opaque funding arrangements, critics warn that it could open the door to broad and unnecessary disclosures of personal data.

An article in The Hill notes that among the more controversial aspects of the proposed bill is its requirement that plaintiffs and their attorneys disclose the details of any litigation funding agreements. These disclosures could go far beyond identifying funders, potentially revealing case-specific facts, medical or financial histories, and other personally identifiable information. There is no clear guidance on how such disclosures would be protected, raising the specter of public filings that expose vulnerable claimants to undue scrutiny or retaliation.

The breadth of the bill has drawn particular criticism. While aimed at foreign or undisclosed financial backers, its language is sweeping enough to encompass nearly any financial relationship, including arrangements with U.S.-based funders operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Legal observers worry that plaintiffs—especially those with lower means—may be discouraged from pursuing meritorious claims due to the fear of invasive data exposure.

Privacy advocates argue that without significant revisions, the bill risks creating a litigation environment in which strategic intelligence gathering by adversaries, funder interference, and reputational harms become routine. Several industry experts are calling for narrowly tailored disclosures limited to material funding terms, coupled with robust confidentiality protections and strict limits on public access.

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.