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.

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has unveiled a new consumer‑protection initiative to address mounting concerns in the UK legal market linked to volume litigation, law‑firm consolidators and unregulated service providers. An article in Legal Futures reports that the regulator cited “clear evidence” of risks to consumers arising from the dramatic growth of volume litigation, pointing in particular to the collapse of firms such as SSB Law.

Legal Futures reports that under the programme, the LSB will explore whether the current regulatory framework adequately protects consumers from harm in mass‑litigation contexts. That includes examining: whether all litigation funding – especially portfolio funding models – should fall under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); whether co‑regulation arrangements should be established between the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); and whether the list of reserved legal activities needs revision to account for the rise of unregulated providers and AI‑enabled legal services.

On the law‑firm side the initiative spotlights the consolidation trend — especially accumulator or “consolidator” firms backed by private equity and acquiring large numbers of clients. The LSB flagged risks around viability, quality of client care and short‑term investor‑driven growth at the expense of compliance and long‑term service stability.

For the litigation‑funding sector, the message is unmistakable: the regulator will be more active in mapping the relationships between funders, law firms and client outcomes. It intends to use its market‑intelligence function to monitor whether misaligned incentives in the funding‑chain may harm consumers, and to obtain data from frontline regulators where necessary.

Veteran solicitor-campaigner Walter Merricks is poised to assume the role of class representative in a major collective action against rail operator Govia Thameslink Railway, following the death of the previous lead claimant. The case — brought under the opt-out regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) — alleges anticompetitive fare charging that harmed passengers traveling without a London Travelcard.

An article in the Law Society Gazette states that Merricks has formally applied to take over from former class representative David Boyle, who passed away earlier this year. The transition raises “a number of complex and difficult issues,” given the opt-out nature of the proceeding and the procedural demands of the UK’s evolving collective redress framework.

The move comes amid broader tensions between Merricks and his former litigation funder, Innsworth Capital. That dispute centers on the earlier £200 million settlement of Merricks’ landmark claim against Mastercard. Though the CAT approved the settlement, Innsworth launched a judicial review and initiated arbitration proceedings to challenge the allocation of proceeds, arguing its entitlement to a larger portion of the award. Merricks has been openly critical of the funder’s conduct, calling its approach an “embarrassment” and warning it could undermine public trust in third-party funding.

For the rail case, Merricks has retained Wilkie Farr & Gallagher as counsel. His application to replace Boyle as class representative is currently before the tribunal and will be considered at a hearing in January 2026.

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.

Rightmove is facing a landmark £1 billion collective action in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, targeting the online property platform’s fee structure and alleged abuse of market dominance. The case is being brought on behalf of thousands of estate agents, who claim Rightmove’s listing fees were “excessive and unfair,” potentially violating UK competition law.

An article in Reuters outlines the case, which is being spearheaded by Jeremy Newman, a former panel member of the UK’s competition regulator. The legal action is structured as an opt-out class-style suit, meaning any eligible estate agent in the UK is automatically included unless they choose otherwise. The claim is being funded by Innsworth Capital, one of Europe’s largest litigation funders, and the legal team includes Scott + Scott UK and Kieron Beal KC of Blackstone Chambers.

Rightmove has responded to the legal filing by stating it believes the claim is “without merit” and emphasized the “value we provide to our partners.” However, news of the action caused a sharp drop in its share price, falling as much as 3.4% on the day of the announcement. The suit comes at a sensitive time for Rightmove, which has already warned of slower profit growth ahead due to increased investment spending and a softening housing market.

The case underscores the potential of collective actions to challenge entrenched market practices, particularly in digital platform sectors where power imbalances with small business users are pronounced. For litigation funders, this marks another high-profile entry into platform-related disputes, with significant financial upside if successful. It may also signal a growing appetite for funding large opt-out claims targeting dominant firms in other concentrated markets.

Dublin-based litigation funder Nera Capital has unveiled a new $50 million fund aimed squarely at secondary market transactions, signaling the firm’s strategic expansion beyond primary litigation funding. With more than $160 million already returned to investors over its 15-year track record, Nera’s latest move underscores its ambition to capitalize on the growing appetite for mature legal assets.

A press release from Nera Capital details how the fund will be used to acquire and sell existing funded positions, enabling Nera to work closely with other funders, claimants, and institutional investors across the U.S. and Europe. This formal entry into the secondary market marks a significant milestone in Nera’s evolution, with the firm positioning itself as both a buyer and seller of litigation claims—leveraging its underwriting expertise to identify opportunities for swift resolution and collaborative portfolio growth.

Director Aisling Byrne noted that the shift reflects not only the increasing sophistication of the litigation finance space, but also a desire to inject flexibility and value into the ecosystem. The secondary market, she said, complements Nera’s core business by allowing strategic co-investment and fostering greater efficiency among experienced funders. Importantly, the fund also opens the door for outside investors seeking litigation finance exposure without the complexities of case origination.

Backed by what the firm describes as “sophisticated investors,” the fund will support ongoing transactions and new deals throughout the UK and Europe over the next 12 months.

The move highlights an emerging trend in litigation finance: the maturation of the secondary market as a credible, liquid, and increasingly vital component of the funding landscape. As more funders diversify into this space, questions remain about valuation methodologies, transparency, and the long-term implications of a robust secondary trading environment.

In a move poised to reshape dispute financing in the Nordic region, Morris Law has entered into a collaboration agreement with Stockholm-based funder Litigium Capital. The deal will see Litigium Capital finance a portfolio of disputes handled by Morris Law under full or partial contingency fee arrangements. The strategic partnership marks a significant step toward broader adoption of success-based billing in the region, while also easing litigation cost pressures for clients.

A press release from Morris Law confirms that the agreement, effective immediately, enables Morris Law clients to share the financial risks of litigation with both their counsel and the funder. Under the terms, Litigium Capital receives a portion of Morris Law’s success fees upon favorable case outcomes.

Notably, the agreement includes strong safeguards. with no client information will be disclosed to Litigium without explicit consent, and control over litigation strategy remains solely with the client. Both parties also adhere to strict codes of conduct. Morris Law follows AGRD Partners’ guidelines, while Litigium Capital is governed by the European Litigation Funder’s Association (ELFA), which sets confidentiality and conflict management standards.

Morris Law CEO Martin Taranger, who leads the first AGRD firm to embrace this model, underscored the alignment of interests that fee-sharing creates. Litigium Capital’s CEO, Thony Lindström Härdin, called the partnership a milestone in the region’s shift from traditional billing to more flexible, client-friendly funding models.

This partnership raises compelling questions for legal funders eyeing the Nordic market. As client demand for alternative billing rises, will other regional firms adopt similar models? With Morris Law and Litigium Capital setting a precedent, the Nordics could emerge as a new frontier for portfolio litigation funding.

Veteran mass tort attorney Harris Pogust is offering a cautionary tale to the litigation finance community, reflecting on the collapse of his former firm, Pogust Goodhead, after an eye-popping $500 million investment from Gramercy Funds Management. Now serving as a senior adviser at Bryant Park Capital, Pogust is urging funders to rethink how capital is deployed—and monitored—when backing law firms.

An article in Bloomberg Law captures Pogust’s retrospective on the 2023 mega-funding round, which at the time marked one of the largest single infusions into a plaintiff-side law firm. Despite the capital, Pogust Goodhead faltered under internal investigations and allegations of lavish spending, ultimately surrendering asset claims to Gramercy tied to the full $617 million value of the funding arrangement. Pogust bluntly warned that, absent proper oversight, handing a large check to a law firm can quickly devolve into what he described as “buy a Maserati and have fun,” with firms burning through capital without accountability.

In his current role, Pogust is advocating for a more hands-on model where funders act more like partners than passive financiers. He supports collaborative budgeting, ongoing financial oversight, and stronger alignment on outcomes between funders and firms. He also pushed back against calls for heightened regulation or taxation of litigation funders, suggesting that current legislative efforts unfairly target the industry.

For litigation funders, Pogust’s experience offers a timely reminder of the risks that accompany rapid deployment of capital without guardrails. As the size and complexity of funding deals continue to grow, the industry may need to adopt stricter governance standards, enhance operational due diligence, and establish frameworks that ensure discipline in how law firms deploy capital. Pogust’s remarks serve as both a warning and a blueprint for what responsible litigation funding should look like going forward.

London-based private credit firm Lyford Partners, founded by industry veterans Matt Meehan and Toby Bundy, has officially launched with equity backing from U.S. alternative investment firm Moody Aldrich Partners (MAP). The new venture aims to provide hard-asset, situation-specific lending across the UK, Europe, and select offshore jurisdictions.

An article in Insider Media outlines Lyford’s lending focus, which includes bridging short-to-medium term liquidity needs of ultra-high net worth individuals, families, and businesses. The firm will also fund special situations such as matrimonial disputes, probate proceedings, and insolvency-related asset financing. Headquartered in London, Lyford also has a presence in the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and Nassau. The firm typically provides loans ranging from £2 million to £20 million, using high-quality assets as underlying collateral.

Matt Meehan serves as Chief Investment Officer, bringing over three decades of experience and more than £3 billion in deployed capital across 200+ companies in the UK, Europe, and the U.S. Toby Bundy adds deep experience in restructuring and special-situations lending. From MAP’s side, Co-CEO and CIO Eli Kent noted that Lyford is already executing deals and has a strong pipeline, stating that MAP is focused on underwriting “world-class niche investment firms.”

From a legal funding industry perspective, Lyford’s launch is notable for its overlap with scenarios often served by litigation funders—particularly in family, estate, and insolvency matters. Its hard-asset-backed approach offers a flexible alternative to traditional legal funding, and the involvement of MAP signals continued U.S. capital interest in niche credit platforms abroad.

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.

Paris‑based litigation funder IVO Capital Partners has launched its fourth vehicle, named IVO Legal Strategies Fund IV, targeting €150 million (approx. US$173 million) to back contested commercial disputes and arbitration claims across continental Europe and beyond.

According to an article in WealthBriefing, the fund will deploy capital primarily within France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and is focused on claim types such as competition law, data protection infringements and collective redress mechanisms. With over 11 years’ experience investing in cases across Europe, the UK and the U.S., IVO says its team is “uniquely positioned to capitalise on the growing need for capital to fund meritorious cases.”

The vehicle is structured as a closed‑ended fund with an 8‑year life, a 3‑year investment period and a target internal rate of return of 14 percent. Typical individual lawsuits range between €500k and €5m; IVO expects to invest in 50‑60 diversified matters for Fund IV, thereby reinforcing the argument that legal finance can serve as an uncorrelated asset class — largely decoupled from macroeconomic trends. The firm emphasises that the European litigation‑funding market remains nascent compared with the U.S., but regulatory changes such as the EU Damages Directive and the Representative Actions Directive are enhancing access to collective actions and follow‑on claims.

Investors in the preceding fund mix included family offices and wealth managers (wealth advisors now form over a third of the investor base), and the minimum entry into Fund IV is €100k for professional and qualified investors. Key risks remain case‑selection, outcome uncertainty and length of duration; IVO says capital‑protection insurance helps mitigate downside.

Environmental suits, increasingly seen as tools to hold governments and corporations accountable for ecosystem destruction and climate risk, often stall or never get filed because of steep costs and limited budgets.

An article in Nature highlights the U.S. commercial TPLF market as managing over US $12.4 billion in assets, showcasing the potential scale of the model for environmental justice. The core argument is that by providing funding to plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford the fight, TPLF can enable lawsuits that address pollution, habitat loss and climate change liability — aligning with broader calls to broaden access to justice in sustainability law. At the same time, the author cautions that TPLF carries risks: it may bring conflicts of interest, shift control of litigation away from claimants, or impose commercial pressures that are misaligned with public-interest goals.

For the legal funding industry this correspondence underscores important dimensions. It signals an expanding frontier: environmental litigation is becoming a viable sector for funders, not just mass-torts or commercial disputes. But it also raises governance questions: funders will need to establish best practices to ensure alignment with public interest, preserve claimant autonomy and guard against criticisms of “outsourcing” justice to commercial actors.

The article suggests that regulators, funders and civil-society actors should collaborate to craft transparent frameworks and guardrails if TPLF is to fulfill its promise in environmental realms.

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is becoming increasingly important for small firms, inventors and universities seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights against major corporations.

According to an article in Bloomberg, funding arrangements enable plaintiffs with viable claims—but limited resources—to access litigation and expert fees that would otherwise be prohibitive. In the complex IP space, cost and risk often preclude smaller rights holders from doing anything meaningful when a financially strong infringer acts. In effect, the commentary argues, litigation finance helps tilt the playing field back toward fairness and innovation rather than letting size alone determine outcomes.

The piece also observes that public debate has at times mis-characterised litigation funding—especially after efforts to tax funder returns—which it says “shined a spotlight on the solution” rather than creating the problem. The authors stress that the proper policy response is not punitive taxation or sweeping disclosure mandates that risk chilling investment. Instead, they advocate for targeted transparency under court supervision, combined with a recognition that accessible funding is a core part of ensuring just enforcement of IP rights.

For the legal-funding industry, the commentary underlines several take-aways: funders who back IP-rights holders serve a social as well as economic role, helping inventors and smaller entities access justice they could not otherwise afford. The industry should engage proactively in outreach: educating IP counsel and claim-holders about funding, telling success stories of smaller plaintiffs, and working with policymakers and legislators to shape rational regulation. The challenge remains to balance the benefits of funding with ethical, transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards—as discussion in the broader TPLF context shows.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) has issued its first-ever Guideline on Third-Party Funding in arbitration, offering comprehensive direction on how parties, counsel, tribunals, and funders should navigate funded disputes. This milestone guidance is aimed at promoting transparency, consistency, and effective case management in arbitration where third-party funding plays a role.

The guideline addresses two primary areas. First, it outlines the third-party funding process, explaining funding structures, pricing models, and key provisions typically found in funding agreements. It provides a practical overview of the benefits and potential pitfalls of using funding in arbitration proceedings. Second, it tackles arbitration-specific case management issues, such as how funder involvement—though often portrayed as passive—can influence strategic decisions, including arbitrator selection, settlement discussions, and procedural posture. The guideline stresses the need to clearly delineate the scope of the funder's control or influence in any agreement.

CIArb also emphasizes the importance of early disclosure. The existence of funding and the identity of the funder should be revealed at the outset to avoid conflicts of interest and challenges to tribunal impartiality. On confidentiality, the guidance urges parties to reconcile the typically private nature of arbitration with the disclosure obligations inherent in funded cases.

Additionally, the guideline explores three critical cost issues: whether funders may cover arbitrator deposits, the increasing prevalence of security for costs orders targeting funders, and the evolving question of whether tribunals should allow recovery of funding costs.

UK Courts Minister Sarah Sackman has issued a clear call to third-party litigation funders operating in England and Wales: join the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) and commit to self-regulation as the government weighs potential legislative reforms for the industry.

An article in Legal Futures notes that while speaking in Parliament, Sackman underscored the importance of litigation funding in promoting access to justice and enhancing the UK’s global standing as a legal hub. However, she also warned that regulatory uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling in 2023 could drive funders to more predictable jurisdictions such as New York, Paris, or Singapore.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) earlier this year urged Parliament to swiftly pass legislation reversing the PACCAR decision, which cast doubt on the enforceability of many litigation funding agreements by classifying them as damages-based agreements. The CJC also advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach, aiming to preserve funding’s benefits while instituting safeguards.

In the Commons, Conservative MP Sir Julian Smith echoed this sentiment, suggesting that strengthened self-regulation through ALF membership may be sufficient, possibly avoiding the need for more burdensome legislation. Sackman did not commit to a timeline for government action but emphasized that litigation funding’s reputation and long-term viability hinge on transparent practices and adherence to recognized standards.

In a striking development, the Province of Alberta has awarded a CA$95 million (roughly AU$102 million) settlement to the Australian mining entity Montem Resources (now rebranded as Evolve Power Ltd.) to resolve a CA$1.75 billion lawsuit alleging that Alberta’s 2022 reinstatement of its coal-moratorium policy amounted to a de facto expropriation of its coal-licence interests.

According to an analysis in The Tyee, the settlement followed earlier compensation to another Australian-backed miner, Atrum Coal Ltd., which reportedly collected CA$143 million though it declared sunk costs of approximately CA$46 million. For Montem, the article notes its declared investment into the assets was about CA$15 million, yet it received a multiple of that in the final settlement.

The piece further highlights that about one-third (roughly CA$35 million) of the Montem payout will go to an Australian litigation-funding firm, Wahl Citadel, which backed Montem’s suit after providing loans totaling around AU$6 million on conditional terms, effectively “betting” on a successful outcome.

Critics argue Alberta’s government under Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean did not vigorously defend the case through mechanisms provided under the Mines & Minerals Act, and instead opted to settle for large sums—arguably far exceeding what the firms had originally invested.