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.

Pine Valley Capital Partners is carving out a distinctive niche in the litigation‑finance market by providing post‑settlement capital to contingency‑fee law firms.

According to an article in LawDragon, Pine Valley funds law firms after a settlement agreement has been reached but before the distribution of settlement proceeds. This strategy responds to a critical pain point: the gap between case conclusion and payout. Managing partners and co‑founders Ryan Stephen and Sam Vinson explain that for contingent‑fee practices — especially in high‑volume mass‑tort scenarios — cash flow can stagnate for years once a settlement is secured. Pine Valley’s solution unlocks that “trapped” value, enabling firms to meet operating expenses, payroll, vendor invoices, and growth needs.

Stephen’s background in private credit and Vinson’s experience in receivables‑factoring underpin the firm’s structure: lending against “ascertainable value” in settlements rather than speculative pre‑settlement outcomes. Pine Valley emphasizes transparency, partnership and sustainable fundamentals, distinguishing itself from players whose terms may favor funder returns at the expense of firm sustainability.

As of late last year, Pine Valley’s assets under management reportedly stood at about $535 million, with the firm targeting nearing $1 billion in AUM. The firm highlights its role in enabling access to justice: by supporting plaintiff‑firms financially, they help ensure that clients—often without other routes to legal redress—receive high‑quality representation.

For the legal funding industry, this development signals a growing sophistication: as pre‑settlement litigation funding becomes more mature and crowded, funders are innovating toward post‑settlement solutions, blending private‑credit discipline with legal‑funding frameworks.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is weighing whether the case involving the Argentine nationalisation of oil company YPF should have been litigated in the U.S. in the first place. The original ruling awarded approximately $16.1 billion to minority shareholders.

An article in Finance News highlights that Burford Capital—which provided substantial litigation finance support for the plaintiffs—is now under scrutiny, and the uncertainty has already knocked more than 10 % off Burford’s share price.

According to the report, two of the appellate judges expressed scepticism about whether U.S. jurisdiction was appropriate, signalling a possible shift in the case’s trajectory. The funding provided by Burford makes this more than a corporate dispute—it's a pivotal moment for litigation funders backing claims of this magnitude. The article underscores that if the award is overturned or diminished on jurisdictional grounds, the returns to Burford and similar funders could shrink dramatically.

Looking ahead, this case raises critical questions: Will funders rethink backing multi‑billion‑dollar sovereign claims? Will lawyers and funders factor in jurisdictional risk more aggressively? And how will capital providers price that risk? The outcome could influence how global litigation finance portfolios are structured—and the appetite for large‑ticket sovereign cases.

A recent industry move sees the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury warning that the growth of third‑party litigation funding is putting fresh stress on the U.S. property‑casualty insurance sector. The FIO’s 2025 Annual Report on the Insurance Industry highlights the so‑called “tort tax” as a new burden, with insurers and consumers increasingly feeling the cost.

An article in Insurance Business explains that third‑party litigation funding—in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of potential settlements—is now viewed by federal regulators as a significant factor driving up claims costs for insurers.

The report quantifies the burden, pointing to an average annual cost exceeding $5,000 per household. In response, insurance trade groups like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) are throwing their weight behind federal bills such as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025, both of which aim to bring greater scrutiny and disclosure to litigation funding practices.

The report also draws on lessons from state-level reforms. In Florida, new legislation that slashed legal filings by over 30% has already helped insurers reduce premiums and issue customer refunds—offering a case study in how tort reform can yield near-term results. While the report also examines the insurance industry’s evolving role in climate resilience and loss mitigation, it makes clear that rising legal system costs remain an urgent and unresolved challenge.

For the legal funding sector, the report underscores a shifting regulatory landscape. With calls for federal oversight gaining traction, funders may soon face new transparency requirements, rate limitations, or reporting obligations. The FIO’s framing of litigation finance as a systemic cost driver is likely to spark renewed debate over how to balance consumer protection, insurer stability, and access to justice.

The plaintiff‑funding marketplace ClaimAngel announced it has surpassed 18,000 individual fundings—a milestone signaling its growing influence in the legal funding arena. The platform, founded in 2022 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, positions itself as a disruptor to traditional litigation finance models.

An release in PR Newswire outlines how ClaimAngel offers a single standardized rate of 27.8% simple annual interest and caps repayment at two‑times the amount funded after 46 months—significantly lower and more predictable than many legacy funders. The platform also claims to bring efficiency and transparency to the market by hosting a marketplace of over 25 vetted funders, allowing competing offers, and integrating directly into law‑firm workflows.

How claimants benefit: The core value proposition is to give plaintiffs “breathing room” when insurers use time as a weapon, enabling lawyers and clients to press for better settlement outcomes rather than settling prematurely under financial pressure. With over 500 plaintiff‑side law firms now using the platform, ClaimAngel is positioning itself as a credible alternative to more opaque “Wild West” funding practices—where a $5,000 advance could balloon into a $30,000 repayment by settlement.

ClaimAngel is striking at the heart of two key pain points: (1) lack of standardized pricing and (2) lack of transparency in funding terms. By offering a fixed rate and capped repayment in a marketplace format, it may prompt other players to rethink fee structures and disclosure practices. The milestone of 18,000 fundings also signals broader acceptance of tech‑driven innovation in a space often slow to modernize.

The Law Society of England and Wales has sounded the alarm that scrapping the UK’s opt‑out collective actions regime would invite a surge in unchecked anti‑competitive conduct by multinational firms.

An article in the Law Society Gazette explains that the UK government is reviewing its collective redress regime—introduced in 2015 under the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) framework—to determine whether it remains appropriate for businesses and consumers alike. Above all, the bar warns that eliminating or substantially reducing the ability of groups of consumers to act together would remove a key check on large firms’ power.

According to the bar’s statement, collective actions provide a vital counterbalance: they allow individuals with smaller claims (often against powerful enterprise defendants) to combine resources, reduce costs, and obtain meaningful relief. Without that mechanism, the risk is that dominant players may routinely engage in cartel‑type behaviour, abuse market position or otherwise infringe competition law with little fear of private litigation.

The review highlights that the regime has evolved faster than anticipated: the original design assumed most cases would follow a finding by the competition authority, but in practice around 90% are now “stand‑alone” claims brought without a prior regulatory decision.

For the legal funding and litigation finance sector, this development is especially consequential. Were collective actions to be scaled back or abolished, the landscape for financing competition‑law claims would shift markedly: fewer aggregated opportunities, higher individual‑case risk, and potentially lower investor appetite. It raises key questions about the future viability of funding models that rely on class‑style litigation in the UK market.

A healthcare‑turned‑litigation investor has taken legal action against Lake Law Firm and its partner Ed Lake, alleging a sweeping investment failure in the mass‑tort financing space. According to the complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court on October 22, the investor pumped around $5.3 million into programs tied to hernia‑mesh, Bayer AG’s RoundUp, 3M Co., and Johnson & Johnson talcum‑powder claims — only to find that fewer than the promised number of cases ever materialized.

An article in Bloomberg notes that per the suit, the law firm had committed to signing up 113 hernia‑mesh cases, 100 3M cases, and 50 RoundUp matters, but delivered only 15, 40, and 8 respectively. Separately, Lake Law pledged submission of 8,000 applications under the federal Covid‑era Employee Retention Credit program, yet managed only 2,655. The complaint characterizes the structure as “more akin to a Ponzi scheme than a legitimate litigation‐finance program.”

The investor also alleges that the law firm defaulted on a “case‑replacement agreement,” and is now demanding $6.2 million in damages, plus rights to any mass‑tort profits and tax‑credit claims that “rightfully belong” to him. According to the filing, his wife had separately invested $2.5 million and likewise filed suit last week claiming non‑repayment.

The latest chapter of the Global Legal Group’s Class and Group Actions Laws & Regulations 2026 report titled “In Case of Any Doubt – The Group and Collective Action Market is Here to Stay” provides a clear signal: the group and collective litigation landscape across the UK and Europe is evolving, and legal funders should take notice.

An article in ICLG highlights several key moves in the UK: the Civil Justice Council (CJC) issued its final report in June 2025 on private litigation funding, recommending “light‑touch” regulation of third‑party litigation funding and reiterating support for funding as a tool of access to justice. It follows the PACCAR Ltd v Green & others decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which classified certain litigation funding agreements as damages‑based agreements (DBAs), raising regulatory scrutiny on opt‑out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The CJC recommends reversing that classification via legislation, permitting DBAs in opt‑out class actions, and regulating funders’ capital and AML compliance.

Meanwhile, the UK’s opt‑out collective action model under competition law is under review. The government’s call for evidence flagged the high costs and shifting case mix as areas of concern.

On the European front, the Representative Actions Directive has spurred changes in France and Germany. France’s new law allows third‑party funding of group actions and broadens access and scope. Germany’s implementation enables qualified consumer associations to bring collective redress for both injunctive and monetary relief across a wide range of sectors including ESG, data‑protection and tort.

For legal funders, these developments signal both opportunity and risk. On one hand, enhanced regulatory clarity and expanded access points strengthen the business case for collective‑action funding. On the other, increasing scrutiny over funding arrangements, roles of funders, and capital adequacy impose compliance burdens.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) said he’s not backing down in his push to impose a special tax on litigation‑finance investors, signalling a new legislative attempt after an initial setback.

According to a report in Bloomberg Law, Tillis introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act earlier this year, which would levy a 41 % tax on profits earned by third‑party funders of civil lawsuits (37 % top individual rate plus 3.8 % net investment income tax). While the bill was included in the Senate Republicans’ version of the tax reconciliation package, the tax provision was ultimately removed by the Senate parliamentarian during the June process.

Tillis argues this is about fairness: he says that litigation‑finance investors enjoy more favourable tax treatment than the victims who receive legal awards, a situation he calls “silly.” He acknowledged the industry’s strong push‑back, noting a high level of lobbying from entities such as the International Legal Finance Association and other funders. “You couldn’t throw a rock and not hit a contract lobbyist who hadn’t been engaged to fight this … equitable tax treatment bill,” he said.

Though Tillis is not seeking re‑election and will leave office next year, he remains committed to using his remaining time to keep the tax issue alive. His remarks suggest this debate is far from over and could resurface in future legislation.

Hausfeld has achieved a major breakthrough in the UK’s collective‑action landscape by securing a trial victory against Apple Inc. in a case seeking up to £1.5 billion in damages. The case, brought on behalf of roughly 36 million iPhone and iPad users, challenged Apple’s App Store fees and policies under the UK collective action regime.

According to the article in The Global Legal Post, the action was filed by Dr Rachael Kent (King’s College London) and backed by litigation funder Vannin Capital. Over a 10‑year span, the tribunal found that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing “exclusionary practices” and charging “excessive and unfair” fees on app purchases and in‑app subscriptions.

The judgement, delivered by the ­Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 23 October 2025, marks the first collective action under the UK regime to reach a successful trial‐level resolution. The CAT held that Apple’s 30 % fee on these transactions breached UK and EU competition laws and that the restrictions were disproportionate and unnecessary in delivering claimed benefits.

Apple has stated it will appeal the ruling, arguing the decision takes a “flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy.” Meanwhile, the result is viewed as a significant vindication for collective claimants, with Dr Kent describing it as “a landmark victory … for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant.”

Thousands of women who served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) between 12 November 2003 and 25 May 2025 are eligible to join a new class action in the Federal Court of Australia, brought by the law firm JGA Saddler and backed by global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway.

The Nightly reports that according to JGA Saddler lawyer Josh Aylward, the case alleges that the ADF has been afflicted by “sexual violence and discrimination” for decades—despite prior investigations and recommendations. “There is a gendered battlefield within the ADF that female soldiers have been faced with for more than 20 years,” Aylward said.

The claim includes allegations ranging from daily harassment—such as sexist comments and unwanted touching—to physical assaults. One cited case involves a woman pinned against a wall during a night out with colleagues, reporting the incident to military police who declined to prosecute with no explanation offered. The class action marks a bid to hold the Commonwealth to account for systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

The eligibility window is broad: any woman who served in the ADF during that 2003–2025 period may participate. The class action is expected to become a multi‑million‑dollar claim.

Australian‑based technology startup ddloop has emerged as the winner of the 2025 Legal Pitch Night competition, securing recognition for its innovative artificial‑intelligence powered due‑diligence platform designed for legal workflows.

According to an article from Startup Daily, the startup impressed judges by automating key steps in legal review processes—delivering speed and accuracy in document‑intensive transactions.

The platform developed by ddloop harnesses AI‑driven analytics to sift through large volumes of contracts, disclosures and ancillary documentation, identifying risks, anomalies and salient terms far faster than manual review. By doing so, ddloop aims to reduce the time and cost burdens of due‑diligence work typically borne by legal teams and their corporate clients. The pitch competition win signals investor and industry recognition of the business model and its relevance to the evolving legal‑tech landscape.

For stakeholders in the legal‑funding and litigation‑support ecosystem, ddloop’s ascent highlights two compelling intersections: first, the rising role of tech‑enabled platforms in claim intake, case evaluation and documentation workflows; second, the increasing expectation that legal service providers (and potentially funders) adopt more data‑driven tools to manage risk, control cost and enhance predictability.

As funders and counsel assess funding opportunities, the availability of AI‑enabled due‑diligence platforms may shift how intake and underwriting processes are structured—particularly in high‑volume or document‑heavy matters.