US-based litigation funder Diamond McCarthy has agreed to back a high-stakes investment treaty claim brought by Lansdowne Oil and Gas against the Irish state, with the claim reportedly valued at up to $100 million. The dispute arises from Ireland’s policy shift away from offshore oil and gas development, which Lansdowne argues has effectively wiped out the value of its investment in the Barryroe offshore oil field.

According to NewsFile, Lansdowne Oil and Gas, a small exploration company listed in London and Dublin, is pursuing arbitration against Ireland under the Energy Charter Treaty. The company alleges that Ireland’s 2021 decision to halt new licences for offshore oil and gas exploration, followed by regulatory actions affecting existing projects, breached treaty protections afforded to foreign investors. Lansdowne contends that these measures frustrated legitimate expectations and amounted to unfair and inequitable treatment under international law.

Diamond McCarthy’s involvement brings significant financial firepower to a claim that would otherwise be difficult for a junior energy company to pursue. The funder will cover legal and arbitration costs in exchange for a share of any recovery, allowing Lansdowne to advance the case without bearing the full financial risk. The arbitration is expected to be conducted under international investment dispute mechanisms, with proceedings likely to take several years.

Ireland has previously defended its policy changes as part of a broader climate strategy aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence and meeting emissions targets. Government representatives have indicated that the state will robustly contest the claim, arguing that the measures were lawful, proportionate, and applied in the public interest. Ireland is also in the process of withdrawing from the Energy Charter Treaty, although existing investments may remain protected for a period under sunset provisions.

Tata Steel is facing a major legal challenge in Europe after a Dutch environmental foundation launched a large-scale collective action seeking approximately €1.4 billion in damages related to alleged environmental and public health impacts from the company’s steelmaking operations in the Netherlands. The claim targets Tata Steel Nederland and Tata Steel IJmuiden, which operate the sprawling IJmuiden steelworks near Amsterdam.

An article published by MSN reports that the lawsuit has been filed by Stichting Frisse Wind.nu, a nonprofit representing residents living in the vicinity of the IJmuiden plant. The claim alleges that years of harmful emissions, particulate matter, noise, and other pollution from the facility have led to adverse health effects, reduced quality of life, and declining property values for people in surrounding communities. The foundation is seeking compensation on behalf of affected residents under the Netherlands’ collective action regime, which allows representative organizations to pursue mass claims for damages.

According to the report, the lawsuit has been brought under the Dutch Act on the Resolution of Mass Claims in Collective Action, known as WAMCA. This framework requires the court to first assess whether the claim is admissible before any substantive evaluation of liability or damages takes place. If the case proceeds, it could take several years to resolve given the scale of the alleged harm and the number of potential claimants involved.

Tata Steel has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as speculative and unsupported. The company has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the proceedings and argue that the claims fail to meet the legal standards required under Dutch law. Tata Steel has also pointed to ongoing efforts to reduce emissions and modernize its European operations as part of its broader sustainability strategy.

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.

Litigation funding has become a fixture in modern civil justice systems, designed to open the courts to claimants who lack the means to pursue meritorious claims. But a recent opinion piece by Labour MP Oliver Ryan argues that in the UK, the industry is increasingly drifting from that core purpose and instead serving the financial interests of investors and funders at the expense of real victims.

An article in City A.M. states that while third-party litigation funding has a legitimate role in enabling access to justice, market incentives are now skewing the system. Ryan highlights examples including the UK government’s move to “protect litigation funding” and reverse the Paccar ruling—a Supreme Court decision that had cast doubt on traditional fee structures—arguing that policy solutions must reflect how the market actually operates on the ground, not just how policymakers hope it will.

Ryan points to the handling of the Post Office scandal as a stark case in point. Despite grievous harms suffered by sub-postmasters, he notes that approximately 80 percent of damages paid eventually flowed to funders and lawyers rather than victims—an outcome he says “cannot be right.” He also cites the collapse of a cavity insulation claim and management upheavals in a multi-billion-pound class action against BHP as examples of how funder-centric incentives can undermine claimant outcomes and system integrity.

Rather than calling for an end to litigation funding, Ryan urges reforms centered on capping excessive funder returns, enforcing capital adequacy protections for claimants, tightening marketing oversight, and rebalancing incentives so victims—not investors—are the primary beneficiaries of successful claims.

An investigation reveals that private investors are positioning themselves to profit from the enormous pool of money flowing from Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse litigation. The county has already agreed to spend nearly $5 billion this year resolving thousands of claims related to alleged sexual abuse in its juvenile detention and foster care systems, including a $4 billion settlement—the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

An article in the Los Angeles Times explains that proponents of this investor involvement argue such financing gives plaintiffs’ attorneys the capital they need to take on deep-pocketed defendants and helps victims who lack resources access justice. Records reviewed by the Times show that several law firms bringing these claims receive financial backing from private investors, often through opaque out-of-state entities and Delaware-based companies.

Backers contend the arrangement can level the legal playing field and expedite case filings and settlements. However, public officials and critics express alarm over the lack of transparency surrounding these investments and the possibility that significant portions of settlement money intended for survivors could instead flow to private financiers. Some county supervisors reported being contacted by investors asking about the potential profitability of the sex abuse suits, raising ethical concerns about treating human trauma as an “evergreen” revenue stream.

The backdrop to this investor interest is a surge in litigation following changes in California law that revived long-dormant abuse claims and spurred widespread advertising by plaintiff firms seeking new clients. Government scrutiny has heightened amid reports of questionable recruitment practices and potential fraud in some claims, and the county’s district attorney has launched an investigation into parts of the settlement process.

Litigation finance is entering a new strategic chapter as innovators seek to bridge legal funding with broader capital markets and institutional investment. At the forefront of this evolution is James Koutoulas, co-founder of JurisTrade, who draws on his unique blend of hedge fund management and securities law experience to rethink how legal claims can be structured as investable assets for large pools of capital.

An article in Lehigh Valley Business explains that JurisTrade has built the first institutional marketplace for litigation finance, where legal claims are converted into structured financial products like insured bonds, litigation index funds, and private credit vehicles—mechanisms designed to attract pension funds, hedge funds, and other institutional investors traditionally absent from the space. Koutoulas, noted for leading pro bono recovery of $6.7 billion for MF Global customers, argues that litigation finance can offer compelling risk-adjusted returns—sometimes in excess of traditional private credit yields—especially when backed by insurance or securitization features that mitigate downside risk.

The piece also highlights how managed service organizations (MSOs) could reshape law firm economics by outsourcing non-core functions—bringing a level of operational efficiency and capital-raising sophistication more typical of private equity into legal practice. Koutoulas emphasizes the impact of regulatory changes in jurisdictions like Arizona and Washington, D.C., where alternative business structures now allow non-lawyers to hold ownership stakes in law firms, further blurring lines between legal services and traditional business models. He also connects the boom in LegalTech to broader FinTech dynamics, pointing to venture capital interest and technological innovations as catalysts in transforming how legal assets are financed.

Koutoulas recognizes transparency and risk management as ongoing industry challenges, advocating for disclosure standards to protect both claimants and investors.

France has taken a significant step in codifying oversight of third-party financed collective actions with the issuance of Decree No. 2025-1191 on December 10, 2025.

An article in Legifrance outlines the new rules, which establish the procedure for approving entities and associations authorized to lead both domestic and cross-border collective actions—referred to in French as “actions de groupe.” The decree brings long-anticipated regulatory clarity following the April 2025 passage of the DDADUE 5 law, which modernized France’s collective redress framework in line with EU Directive 2020/1828.

The decree grants authority to the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) to process applications for approval. Final approval is issued by ministerial order and is valid for five years, subject to renewal.

Approved organizations must meet specific governance and financial transparency criteria. A central provision of the new rules is a requirement for qualifying entities to publicly disclose any third-party funding arrangements on their websites. This includes naming the financiers and specifying the amounts received, with the goal of safeguarding the independence of collective actions and protecting the rights of represented parties.

Paul de Servigny, Head of litigation funding at French headquartered IVO Capital said: “As part of the transposition of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, the French government announced a decree that sets out the disclosure requirements for the litigation funding industry, paving the way for greater access to justice for consumers in France by providing much welcomed clarity to litigation funders, claimants and law firms.

"This is good news for French consumers seeking justice and we look forward to working with government, the courts, claimants and their representatives and putting this decree into practice by supporting meritorious cases whilst ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected.”

By codifying these requirements, the French government aims to bolster public trust in group litigation and ensure funders do not exert improper influence on the course or outcome of legal actions.

The United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is set to hear a closely watched appeal that could have wide-ranging implications for third-party litigation funding in international arbitration. The case stems from a dispute between OGD Services Holdings, part of the Essar Group, and Norscot Rig Management over the enforcement of a Mauritius-based arbitral award. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had previously upheld the award in favor of Norscot, prompting OGD to seek review from the Privy Council.

An article in Bar & Bench reports that the appeal is scheduled for next year and will feature two prominent Indian senior advocates: Harish Salve KC, representing Norscot, and Nakul Dewan KC, representing OGD. At issue is whether the use of third-party funding in the underlying arbitration renders the enforcement of the award improper under Mauritius law, where third-party litigation funding remains a legally sensitive area.

The case is drawing significant attention because of its potential to shape the international enforceability of funding agreements, particularly in light of the UK Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision. That ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape by classifying many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, thereby subjecting them to stricter statutory controls. The PACCAR decision has already triggered calls for legislative reform in the UK to preserve the viability of litigation funding, especially in the class action and arbitration contexts.

The Privy Council appeal will test the legal boundaries of funder involvement in arbitration and may help clarify whether such arrangements compromise enforceability when judgments cross borders. The outcome could influence how funders structure deals in jurisdictions with differing attitudes toward third-party involvement in legal claims.

Several major global banks, including JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup, Barclays, MUFG, and NatWest, have successfully blocked a £2.7 billion ($3.6 billion) opt-out collective action in the UK’s Supreme Court. The proposed lawsuit, led by Phillip Evans, aimed to represent thousands of investors, pension funds, and institutions impacted by alleged foreign exchange (forex) market manipulation.

An article in Yahoo Finance reports that the case stemmed from earlier European Commission findings that fined multiple banks over €1 billion for operating cartels in forex trading. Evans’ action, filed under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, sought to recover damages on behalf of a wide investor class. However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower tribunal’s decision that the claim could not proceed on an opt-out basis, requiring instead that individual claimants opt in.

The judgment emphasized the insufficient participation rate among potential class members and found that an opt-out mechanism was not appropriate given the specifics of the case. Justice Vivien Rose, delivering the court’s opinion, noted that while individual claims might have merit, the representative structure lacked the cohesion and commitment necessary to justify a mass claim. As a result, the banks have succeeded in halting what would have been one of the largest collective actions in the UK to date.

Fund managers exploring or operating within the litigation finance space face a complex and often underappreciated regulatory landscape. A recent guide from McDermott Will & Emery provides a detailed roadmap for how litigation fund managers can navigate this evolving environment, with a particular focus on securities laws, fiduciary obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The memo serves as a primer on key legal considerations, especially for those managing funds in the United States or marketing to U.S. investors. It emphasizes that litigation finance funds may be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional investment vehicles. Managers must consider registration requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as exemptions, such as those for foreign private advisers or venture capital fund advisers. The authors also explore the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, cautioning that even non-traditional funds can be pulled into regulatory oversight if structured improperly.

Fiduciary duties take center stage in the memo’s discussion of fund governance. Managers are reminded that they owe duties of care and loyalty to their investors, which can become complicated in litigation finance where the fund’s interests may diverge from those of claimholders or legal counsel. Disclosure, consent mechanisms, and robust internal compliance protocols are strongly recommended to mitigate potential conflicts.

The guide also highlights the increasing focus by regulators and policymakers on transparency and ethical boundaries within the litigation finance industry. Fund managers are urged to prepare for heightened scrutiny and evolving disclosure expectations.

A growing chorus of voices is calling for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with a new op-ed warning that opaque capital is compromising the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system.

An opinion piece in The Hill by Lindsay Lewis and Phil Goldberg of the Progressive Policy Institute argues that American courtrooms are being quietly transformed into a financial marketplace, with hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, and other investors channeling billions into U.S. litigation. The authors highlight an alleged lack of disclosure, warning that litigation funders can influence or outright control high-value cases, often without the knowledge of courts, litigants, or the public.

The litigation funding industry has long cited a lack of evidence regarding such accusations, yet the pressure from industry critics persists. The article points to mass torts as a flashpoint for abuse, claiming funders are building lawsuits “too big to fail” by bankrolling advertising campaigns and scientific claims to pressure companies into mass settlements regardless of the merits.

The op-ed also echoes previously-made critiques around national security and economic concerns, citing recent reports of Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and Emirati-backed funds investing in U.S. litigation. These foreign entities, the authors argue, could use lawsuits to access sensitive corporate data or strategically target American companies, all while avoiding U.S. taxes on any litigation proceeds.

Lewis and Goldberg call for reforms mandating disclosure of litigation funders, establishing ethical walls between financiers and legal strategy, and regulating foreign involvement in U.S. lawsuits.

A recent article in the National Law Review by Eric K. Schuller offers a strong endorsement of Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) as a market-driven solution to the financial challenges faced by individuals pursuing legal claims. Schuller, who serves as President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), presents CLF as a voluntary, non-coercive financial tool that allows consumers to maintain stability and independence while waiting for their legal cases to resolve.

In the article, Schuller argues that CLF enables consumers to access much-needed funds on their own terms, without government mandates or subsidies. The availability of CLF helps consumers avoid settling their claims prematurely out of financial desperation. Instead, it gives them the breathing room to hold out for fair outcomes. Schuller emphasizes that the funding process is entirely optional, typically involves attorney consultation, and occurs in a competitive marketplace that encourages innovation in pricing, transparency, and service.

Schuller outlines three key benefits of CLF. First, it helps individuals resist lowball settlement offers by reducing financial pressure. Second, it provides support for essential living expenses such as rent, groceries, and utilities while legal proceedings continue. Third, it preserves consumer autonomy by allowing recipients to use the funds as they see fit, unlike government programs that often come with use restrictions.

The article also makes the case that CLF is faster and more accessible than public assistance programs, which often involve delays and eligibility hurdles. Schuller notes that in states with existing CLF regulations, laws already prohibit funders from influencing legal strategy or interfering with the attorney-client relationship, reinforcing the consumer-focused nature of the product.

He pushes back against critics who claim that CLF inflates litigation costs or interferes with the legal process. Instead, Schuller frames CLF as a form of personal finance, not litigation financing, and stresses that it is provided at no cost to taxpayers.

Ordinary people will have greater access to justice thanks to Government’s plans for legislation to help claimants receive the funding they need to take on powerful organisations in court.    

Since the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in 2023, claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a civil case against a well-resourced opponent.  

Third-party litigation funding allows people to bring complex legal cases against powerful organisations when they cannot afford the costs themselves. Under these arrangements, a funder pays for the legal case in exchange for a share of any compensation won.   

The PACCAR judgment, which classed these funding arrangements as “Damages Based Agreements”, made it harder to access to third-party funding and has resulted in a drop in collective action lawsuits. Today, the government is confirming that it will take action to remove this barrier to justice by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, protecting victims and claimants.   

Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said:  “The Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice. Without litigation funding, the Sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal would never have had their day in court. These are David vs Goliath cases, and this Government will ensure that ordinary people have the support they need to hold rich and powerful organisations to account. Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it."   

David Greene, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) said: “This announcement is good news for ordinary people seeking access to justice. However, whilst the government has recognised the urgent need to reverse PACCAR, the proposal to regulate litigation funding agreements as part of the proposed legislation is likely to add considerable delay. We therefore urge the government to introduce an urgent bill to reverse PACCAR, and that the thornier issue of what light touch regulation of litigation funding might look like be considered separately.”

The UK’s legal services industry is worth £42.6 billion a year to the economy, with a highly skilled workforce of 384,000.  

A new framework will ensure that agreements are fair and transparent, so that third-party litigation funding actually works for all those involved.  These changes follow a comprehensive and wide-ranging review by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), published earlier this year. The government will continue to consider the recommendations set out in the CJC review.  

The UK government has pledged to introduce legislation to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, which has left many litigation funding agreements in legal limbo. The Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to bring forward a bill that will clarify that third party litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages based agreements (DBAs) under existing law, a classification that, since PACCAR, has rendered many LFAs unenforceable and raised deep concerns across the funding market.

An article in The Law Gazette reports that the forthcoming legislation will specifically address the fallout from the 2023 PACCAR decision, which had classed typical litigation funding arrangements where a funder receives a share of damages as DBAs, bringing them within regulatory restrictions and making them invalid unless they met DBA regulatory requirements. This has undermined the clarity and enforceability of funding agreements for collective actions and other high value cases.

Industry sources and legal commentators have long advocated for a statutory fix. Over recent months, funders and claimant groups have pointed to the erosion of access to justice while PACCAR uncertainty persists, given that many have been hesitant to underwrite new claims under a model the courts deemed unenforceable. The government’s proposed change to statute rather than judge made law aims to restore the pre PACCAR position and reaffirm that LFAs do not fall within the DBA regime.

If enacted, the bill is expected to provide greater certainty for both existing and future litigation funding arrangements, reinforce the UK’s position as a leading venue for funded litigation, and encourage finance for complex group and commercial claims. Observers note that while the legislative promise is welcome, its timing and detailed provisions will be closely watched by funders, claimants and legal practitioners alike.

Omni Bridgeway has further strengthened its U.S. litigation finance platform with two senior strategic hires in its Washington, D.C. office. In a move signaling expanded capabilities in both international arbitration and antitrust litigation funding, the global legal finance leader appointed Claire-Naïla Damamme and William Vigen as Investment Managers and Legal Counsel. These additions reflect Omni Bridgeway’s continued commitment to deepening in-house legal and investment expertise amid growing demand for sophisticated funding solutions.

Omni's press release states that Claire-Naïla Damamme brings nearly a decade of distinguished international legal experience to Omni Bridgeway, where she will lead the firm’s U.S. International Arbitration initiative. Damamme’s background includes representing sovereign states and multinational corporations across energy, telecommunications, infrastructure, and technology disputes. Her expertise covers the full lifecycle of investor-state and commercial arbitrations, including enforcement before U.S. courts, honed through roles at top global law firms and institutions like White & Case LLP, WilmerHale, and the International Court of Justice.

William Vigen complements this expansion with more than 15 years of trial and litigation experience, particularly in antitrust enforcement and government investigations. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Vigen worked at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and later as a partner in private practice, where he led complex criminal prosecutions and major civil antitrust matters. At Omni Bridgeway, he will spearhead investment sourcing and evaluation in antitrust and related litigation.

According to Matt Harrison, Omni Bridgeway’s U.S. Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, these appointments underscore the firm’s focus on delivering world-class legal finance expertise both domestically and internationally.

A significant legal win for litigation funder Archetype Capital Partners emerged this month in the firm’s ongoing dispute with one of its co‑founders. A Nevada federal judge granted Archetype a preliminary injunction that prevents the ex‑partner from using the company’s proprietary systems for underwriting and managing mass tort litigation while the underlying trade secret lawsuit continues.

According to an article in Bloomberg, Archetype filed suit in September against its former co‑founder, Andrew Schneider, and Bullock Legal Group LLC, alleging misappropriation of confidential methodologies and business systems developed to assess and fund mass tort claims. The complaint asserted that Schneider supplied Bullock Legal with sensitive documents and leveraged Archetype’s systems to rapidly grow the firm’s case inventory from a few thousand matters to well over 148,000, a jump that Archetype says directly undercut its competitive position.

In issuing the injunction, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada found that Archetype was likely to succeed on its trade secret and breach of contract claims. While the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Bullock Legal and dismissed the company from the suit, it nonetheless barred both Schneider and Bullock from distributing proceeds from a $5.6 billion mass tort settlement tied to video game addiction litigation that had been structured using Archetype’s proprietary systems.

The order further requires the return of all materials containing confidential data and prohibits Schneider from soliciting or interfering with Archetype’s clients.

In a development drawing fresh scrutiny to fee arrangements in class action proceedings, law firms involved in the high-profile shareholder lawsuit against BHP have collected nearly three times the legal fees they initially represented to the court. The firms took in approximately $48 million from a $110 million settlement approved in the Federal Court of Australia, despite earlier representations suggesting significantly lower costs.

An article in the Australian Financial Review details how the legal teams initially indicated their fees would constitute a relatively modest share of the final settlement. However, court filings reveal a different outcome, with the firms ultimately securing a much larger cut after a revised funding structure was approved during the settlement process.

The underlying class action was brought on behalf of shareholders following the catastrophic 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil, and partially funded by G&E KTMC Funding LLC, which is backed by Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, two prominent US-based shareholder litigation firms.

The case centered on allegations that BHP failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the dam's operations, leading to sharp share price declines after the disaster. While BHP did not admit liability, the $110 million agreement was one of several global legal settlements related to the event.

The revised fee arrangement was approved as part of a “common fund” order, which allows for legal and funding costs to be deducted from the total settlement on behalf of all group members. The final order was issued without a detailed public explanation for the increased fees, prompting concerns from legal observers and stakeholders about transparency and accountability in class action settlements.

King and Spalding is facing a malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit from former client David Pisor, a Chicago-based entrepreneur, who claims the law firm pushed him into a predatory litigation funding deal and massively overbilled him for legal services. The complaint, filed in Illinois state court, accuses the firm of inflating its rates midstream and steering Pisor toward a funding agreement that primarily served the firm's financial interests.

An article in Law.com reports that the litigation stems from King and Spalding's representation of Pisor and his company, PSIX LLC, in a 2021 dispute. According to the complaint, the firm directed him to enter a funding arrangement with an entity referred to in court as “Defendant SC220163,” which is affiliated with litigation funder Statera Capital Funding. Pisor alleges that after securing the funding, King and Spalding tied its fee structure to it, raised hourly rates, and billed over 3,000 hours across 30 staff and attorneys within 11 months, resulting in more than $3.5 million in fees.

The suit further alleges that many of these hours were duplicative, non-substantive, or billed at inflated rates, with non-lawyer work charged at partner-level fees. Pisor claims he was left with minimal control over his case and business due to the debt incurred through the funding arrangement, despite having a company valued at over $130 million at the time.

King and Spalding, along with the associated litigation funder, declined to comment. The lawsuit brings multiple claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Illinois’ Consumer Legal Funding Act.

An article in Carrier Management highlights a rare direct dialogue between litigation finance leaders and insurance executives aimed at clearing up persistent misconceptions about the role of legal finance in claims costs and social inflation.

Burford Capital’s David Perla and Parabellum Capital’s Dai Wai Chin Feman underscore that much of the current debate stems from confusion over what legal finance actually is and what it is not. The pair participated in an Insurance Insider Executive Business Club roundtable with property and casualty carriers and stakeholders, arguing that the litigation finance industry’s core activities are misunderstood and mischaracterized. They contend that legal finance should not be viewed as monolithic and that policy debates often conflate fundamentally different segments of the market, leading to misdirected criticism and calls for boycotts.

Perla and Feman break legal finance into three distinct categories: commercial funding (non-recourse capital for complex business-to-business disputes), consumer funding (non-recourse advances in personal injury contexts), and law firm lending (recourse working capital loans).

Notably, commercial litigation finance often intersects with contingent risk products like judgment preservation and collateral protection insurance, demonstrating symbiosis rather than antagonism with insurers. They emphasize that commercial funders focus on meritorious, high-value cases and that these activities bear little resemblance to the injury litigation insurers typically cite when claiming legal finance drives inflation.

The authors also tackle common industry narratives head-on, challenging assumptions about funder influence on verdicts, market scale, and settlement incentives. They suggest that insurers’ concerns are driven less by legal finance itself and more by issues like mass tort exposure, opacity of investment vehicles, and alignment with defense-oriented lobbying groups.

Legal Bay LLC, a pre settlement funding firm, has announced plans to significantly expand its focus on wrongful termination and commercial litigation funding in 2026.

According to a recent press release, the company cited a sharp rise in workplace lawsuits tied to return to office mandates, including claims of retaliation, sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and employment discrimination. While Legal Bay has a long track record of supporting plaintiffs in employment disputes, the firm stated that the growing volume and complexity of these cases has created an urgent need for increased resources and capital allocation.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, stated that many litigation funders tend to shy away from large or complicated matters. Legal Bay, by contrast, plans to ramp up its funding support for claimants facing job loss due to alleged wrongful termination. Janish emphasized that the company will dedicate substantial resources in the year ahead to meet the needs of plaintiffs in protracted legal battles.

Legal Bay offers non recourse cash advances, often within 24 to 48 hours of documentation, to plaintiffs seeking back pay, lost benefits, or other damages in connection with workplace disputes. The company’s funding is structured so that plaintiffs owe nothing if their case does not result in a favorable outcome.

A prominent North West-based claimant law firm is setting aside more than £200 million to fund a major expansion in personal injury and assault claims. The substantial reserve is intended to support the firm’s continued growth in high-volume litigation, as it seeks to scale its operations and increase its market share in an increasingly competitive sector.

As reported in The Law Gazette, the move comes amid rising volumes of claims, driven by shifts in legislation, heightened public awareness, and a more assertive approach to legal redress. With this capital reserve, the firm aims to bolster its ability to process a significantly larger caseload while managing rising operational costs and legal pressures.

Market watchers suggest the firm is positioning itself not only to withstand fluctuations in claim volumes but also to potentially emerge as a consolidator in the space, absorbing smaller firms or caseloads as part of a broader growth strategy.

From a legal funding standpoint, this development signals a noteworthy trend. When law firms build sizable internal war chests, they reduce their reliance on third-party litigation finance. This may impact demand for external funders, particularly in sectors where high-volume claimant firms dominate. It also brings to the forefront important questions about capital risk, sustainability, and the evolving economics of volume litigation. Should the number of claims outpace expectations, even a £200 million reserve could be put under pressure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Findings

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

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