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.

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.