Legal Bay has praised New York Governor Kathy Hochul for signing the New York Litigation Funding Act into law, describing the legislation as a landmark step that finally provides a clear regulatory framework for consumer litigation funding in the state. The new law represents a significant development for an industry that has operated for years amid legal uncertainty in one of the country’s most active litigation markets.

A Legal Bay press release notes that the legislation establishes a comprehensive set of consumer protections and regulatory standards governing litigation funding transactions in New York. Legal Bay characterized the law as the product of more than two decades of policy development and sustained advocacy efforts by industry participants and consumer access to justice groups. The company emphasized that the statute provides long needed clarity by formally recognizing consumer litigation funding as a non recourse financial transaction rather than a traditional loan.

Under the new framework, funded plaintiffs are only required to repay advances if they obtain a recovery in their legal claims. Supporters of the law argue that this distinction is critical in protecting consumers from additional financial risk while ensuring that individuals with meritorious claims are able to cover basic living expenses during the often lengthy litigation process. Legal Bay highlighted that litigation funding can help plaintiffs avoid accepting early settlements driven by financial pressure rather than the merits of their cases.

Legal Bay also acknowledged the role played by New York lawmakers in advancing the legislation through the state legislature, noting that the law strikes a balance between consumer protection and preserving access to funding. According to the company, the statute promotes transparency, fairness, and stability in a market that continues to grow in both size and sophistication.

Invenio has announced the addition of John J. Hanley as a partner, bolstering the firm’s bench in litigation finance, claim monetization, and structured finance. Hanley joins Invenio with a practice that sits squarely at the intersection of complex commercial litigation and sophisticated financial structuring, advising a wide spectrum of market participants including litigation funders, claimholders, law firms, hedge funds, investment funds, and specialty finance providers.

According to Invenio's website, Hanley brings a particular focus on structuring, negotiating, and executing advanced funding arrangements across the full litigation finance lifecycle. His experience spans single-case funding, portfolio transactions, and bespoke claim monetization structures, with a notable specialization in prepaid forward purchase agreements. In addition, Hanley has advised extensively on secured lending transactions involving banks, commercial lenders, and alternative capital providers—experience that aligns closely with the hybrid legal-financial nature of modern litigation funding deals.

A post on LinkedIn announcing the move highlights that Hanley’s practice is designed to support both the capital side and the legal side of funded disputes, an increasingly important capability as funding arrangements grow more complex and interconnected with broader capital markets. His background enables him to navigate not only the legal risks inherent in funding structures, but also the financial and regulatory considerations that sophisticated investors expect to see addressed at the outset of a transaction.

Malaysia has officially overhauled its legal framework for third-party funding in arbitration, marking a significant development in the country’s dispute finance landscape. Effective 1 January 2026, two key instruments, the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act A1737) and the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026, came into force with the aim of modernising regulation and improving access to justice.

An article in ICLG explains that the amended Arbitration Act introduces a dedicated chapter on third-party funding, creating Malaysia’s first comprehensive statutory foundation for funding arrangements in arbitration. The reforms abolish the long-standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the arbitration context, removing a historical barrier that could render funding agreements unenforceable on public policy grounds.

The legislation also introduces mandatory disclosure requirements, obliging parties to reveal the existence of funding arrangements and the identity of funders in both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Malaysia. These changes bring Malaysia closer to established regional arbitration hubs that already recognise and regulate third-party funding.

Alongside the legislative amendments, the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding sets out ethical standards and best practices for funders operating in Malaysia. The Code addresses issues such as marketing conduct, the need for funded parties to receive independent legal advice, capital adequacy expectations, the management of conflicts of interest, and rules around termination of funding arrangements. While the Code is not directly enforceable, arbitral tribunals and courts may take a funder’s compliance into account when relevant issues arise during proceedings.

The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department has indicated that this combined framework is intended to strike a balance between encouraging responsible third-party funding and improving transparency in arbitration. The reforms also respond to concerns raised by high-profile disputes where funding arrangements were not disclosed, highlighting the perceived need for clearer rules.

ProLegal, formerly operating as Pro Legal Funding, has announced a strategic rebrand and expansion that reflects a broader vision for its role in the legal services ecosystem. After nearly a decade in the legal finance market, the company is repositioning itself not simply as a litigation funder, but as a comprehensive legal support platform designed to address persistent structural challenges facing plaintiffs and law firms.

The announcement outlines ProLegal’s evolution beyond traditional pre-settlement funding into a suite of integrated services intended to support cases from intake through resolution. Company leadership points to longstanding industry issues such as opaque pricing, misaligned incentives, and overly transactional relationships between funders, attorneys, and clients. ProLegal’s response has been to rethink its operating model with a focus on collaboration, transparency, and practical support that extends beyond capital alone.

Under the new structure, ProLegal now offers a range of complementary services. These include ProLegal AI, which provides attorneys with artificial intelligence tools for document preparation and case support, and ProLegal Live, a virtual staffing solution designed to assist law firms with intake, onboarding, and administrative workflows.

The company has also launched ProLegal Rides, a transportation coordination service aimed at helping plaintiffs attend medical appointments that are critical to both recovery and case valuation. Additional offerings include a law firm design studio, a healthcare provider network focused on ethical referrals, and a centralized funding dashboard that allows for real-time case visibility.

Central to the rebrand is what ProLegal describes as an “Integrity Trifecta,” an internal framework requiring that funding advances meet standards of necessity, merit, and alignment with litigation strategy. The company emphasizes deeper engagement with attorneys, positioning them as strategic partners rather than intermediaries.

A Croton-on-Hudson-based litigation financier has filed suit against a former client following a roughly $1 million settlement, alleging the funded party failed to honor the repayment terms of their litigation funding agreement. The dispute highlights the contractual and enforcement challenges that can arise once a funded matter reaches resolution.

According to Westfair Online, the financier provided capital to support a plaintiff’s legal claim in exchange for a defined share of any recovery. After the underlying litigation concluded with a significant settlement, the funder alleges that the plaintiff refused to authorize payment of the agreed-upon amount. The lawsuit claims breach of contract and seeks to recover the funder’s share of the settlement proceeds, along with any additional relief available under the agreement.

The case underscores a recurring tension within the litigation funding ecosystem. While funders assume substantial risk by advancing capital on a non-recourse basis, they remain dependent on clear contractual rights and post-settlement cooperation from funded parties. When those relationships break down, enforcement actions against clients, though relatively uncommon, become a necessary tool to protect funders’ investments.

For industry participants, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that even straightforward single-case funding arrangements can result in contentious disputes after a successful outcome. It also illustrates why funders increasingly emphasize robust contractual language, transparency around settlement mechanics, and direct involvement in distribution processes to reduce the risk of non-payment.

New state laws taking effect across the Southeast at the start of 2026 include significant changes for insurers and litigation finance, with Georgia’s new restrictions on third-party funding standing out as particularly consequential for the legal funding industry.

Insurance Journal reports that in Georgia, newly effective legislation imposes a formal regulatory framework on litigation funders operating in the state. Funders are now required to register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance and disclose ownership information, including details related to foreign affiliations. The law also restricts funders from exercising control over litigation strategy, barring involvement in decisions such as attorney selection, settlement authority, or expert witness engagement. In addition, litigation funding agreements must be disclosed during discovery in civil cases, increasing transparency around third-party capital in litigation.

Beyond litigation finance, the Georgia law package includes changes affecting insurers, including provisions preventing auto insurers from canceling coverage or increasing premiums solely due to a failure to wear a seat belt. Other updates require certain home warranties, including heating and air-conditioning systems, to transfer automatically to new homeowners.

Elsewhere in the region, Florida enacted new requirements for pet insurers to provide clearer explanations of coverage terms and claim denials. Florida also implemented a law creating a public registry of individuals convicted of animal cruelty, which could influence liability and insurance disputes. South Carolina revised its liquor liability framework by reducing coverage requirements and limiting exposure for businesses found less than 50 percent at fault.

Slater and Gordon has announced the renewal of its committed financing facility with Harbour, securing an enhanced £30 million loan agreement that strengthens the firm’s financial position and supports its ongoing strategic plans.

According to Slater and Gordon, the facility replaces the previous arrangement and will run for at least three years, underscoring the depth of the relationship between the firm and Harbour, a long-standing provider of capital to law firms.

The renewed financing follows a £30 million equity raise earlier in 2025 and is intended to provide financing certainty as Slater and Gordon continues to invest across its core practice areas and enhance its client service offering. Chief executive Nils Stoesser highlighted the progress the business has made in recent years and said the renewed facility provides confidence as the firm pursues its longer-term strategic priorities.

Ellora MacPherson, Harbour’s managing director and chief investment officer, described the commitment as the next stage in a constructive and established partnership. She noted Harbour’s support for Slater and Gordon’s ambitions, particularly around improving service delivery and outcomes for clients.

Over the past two years, Slater and Gordon has focused on strengthening its family law, employment, and personal injury practices, while also expanding its capacity to handle large-scale group actions. The firm has also continued to invest in technology and operational improvements aimed at improving the overall client experience.

New York has enacted a new Consumer Litigation Funding Act, establishing a formal regulatory framework for third party litigation funding transactions involving consumers. The law, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December, introduces new registration requirements, disclosure obligations, and pricing restrictions aimed at increasing transparency and limiting costs for funded claimants.

As reported in Be Insure, litigation funders must register with the state and comply with detailed consumer protection rules. Funding agreements are required to clearly disclose the amount advanced, all fees and charges, and the total amount that may be owed if the case is successful.

Consumers must initial each page of the agreement and are granted a ten day cooling off period during which they may cancel the transaction without penalty. The law also prohibits funders from directing litigation strategy or interfering with the professional judgment of attorneys, preserving claimant and counsel independence.

One of the most significant provisions is a cap on the total charges a funder may collect, which is limited to 25 percent of the gross recovery. Prepayment penalties are unenforceable, and attorneys representing funded plaintiffs are prohibited from holding a financial interest in a litigation funding company. For the first time, consumer litigation funding in New York is brought under the state’s General Business Law, replacing years of relatively limited oversight with a comprehensive statutory regime.

Supporters of the legislation argue that the law addresses concerns about excessive costs and abusive practices while providing clarity for an industry that has operated in a regulatory gray area. Industry critics, however, have raised questions about whether pricing caps could restrict access to funding for higher risk claims.

The litigation finance industry, now estimated at roughly $16.1 billion, is heading into 2026 amid growing uncertainty over regulation, capital structures, and its relationship with adjacent industries. After several years of rapid growth and heightened scrutiny, market participants are increasingly focused on how these pressures may reshape the sector.

Bloomberg Law identifies four central questions likely to define the industry’s near-term future. One of the most closely watched issues is whether federal regulation will finally materialize in a meaningful way. Legislative proposals have ranged from restricting foreign sovereign capital in U.S. litigation to taxing litigation finance returns. While several initiatives surfaced in 2025, political gridlock and election year dynamics raise doubts about whether comprehensive federal action will advance in the near term, leaving the industry operating within a patchwork of existing rules.

Another major development is the expansion of alternative investment structures, particularly the growing use of management services organizations. MSOs allow third party investors to own or finance non legal aspects of law firm operations, offering a potential pathway for deeper capital integration without directly violating attorney ownership rules. Interest in these models has increased among both litigation funders and large law firms, signaling a broader shift in how legal services may be financed and managed.

The industry is also watching the outcome of several high profile disputes that could have outsized implications for funders. Long running, multibillion dollar cases involving sovereign defendants continue to test assumptions about risk, duration, and appellate exposure in funded matters.

Finally, tensions with the insurance industry remain unresolved. Insurers have intensified efforts to link litigation funding to rising claim costs and are exploring policy mechanisms that would require disclosure of third party funding arrangements.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that 2026 could be a defining year for litigation finance, as evolving regulation, new capital models, and external pushback shape the industry’s next phase of development.

Commercial liability insurers are escalating their long-running dispute with the litigation funding industry by introducing policy language that could require insured companies to disclose third-party funding arrangements. The move reflects mounting concern among insurers that litigation finance is contributing to rising claim costs and reshaping litigation dynamics in ways carriers struggle to underwrite or control.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the Insurance Services Office, a Verisk Analytics unit that develops standard insurance policy language, has drafted an optional provision that would compel policyholders to reveal whether litigation funders or law firms with a financial stake are backing claims against insured defendants. While adoption of the provision would be voluntary, insurers could begin incorporating it into commercial liability policies as early as 2026.

The proposed disclosure requirement is part of a broader push by insurers to gain greater visibility into litigation funding arrangements, which they argue can encourage more aggressive claims strategies and higher settlement demands, particularly in mass tort and complex commercial litigation. Insurers have increasingly linked these trends to what they describe as social inflation, a term used to capture rising jury awards and litigation costs that outpace economic inflation.

For policyholders, the new language could introduce additional compliance obligations and strategic considerations. Companies that rely on litigation funding, whether directly or through counterparties, may be forced to weigh the benefits of financing against potential coverage implications.

Litigation funders and law firms are watching developments closely. Funding agreements are typically treated as confidential, and mandatory disclosure to insurers could raise concerns about privilege, work product protections, and competitive sensitivity. At the same time, insurers have been criticized for opposing litigation finance while also exploring their own litigation-related investment products, highlighting tensions within the market.

If widely adopted, insurer-driven disclosure requirements could represent a meaningful shift in how litigation funding intersects with insurance. The development underscores the growing influence of insurers in shaping transparency expectations and suggests that litigation funders may increasingly find themselves drawn into coverage debates that extend well beyond the courtroom.

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.