Kindleworth, the UK legal consultancy backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, has opened an office in New York and appointed two senior figures to lead its expansion into the United States market.

As reported by Non-Billable, the firm has hired Maryana Kodner as Partner and Head of US Operations. Kodner is a former Clifford Chance litigator who has spent more than 20 years in senior operational roles at boutique New York law firms. Joining her as Strategic Advisor is Anand David, who previously oversaw the recruitment and integration of more than 300 partners and partner-led teams at Hogan Lovells, White & Case and Morrison Foerster.

Kindleworth provides infrastructure and support to lawyer-led firm launches, covering financing, strategy, recruitment, technology and operations. The business now has 60 professionals and has supported the launch of more than 50 law firms and offices globally, including the US launches of Three Crowns in Washington, DC and Pallas Partners in New York.

Burford Capital took a strategic minority investment in Kindleworth in 2025, backing the consultancy's international expansion. The New York opening marks the first substantial deployment of that capital in the US market.

Chief executive James Hacking said the firm has had "a front-row seat to one of the most significant shifts in the legal industry, as leading partners choose to build focused, entrepreneurial firms rather than remain within traditional structures."

The move reflects a broader pattern of litigation funders extending their capital beyond individual case investments and into the infrastructure of the legal services market itself.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has rejected Amazon's attempt to carve roughly 1,000 of its largest marketplace sellers out of an opt-out collective action and require them to opt in, leaving the full merchant class to proceed on an opt-out basis.

As reported by Law News, Amazon applied under rule 85(1) of the CAT Rules 2015 to vary the collective proceedings order so that merchants with more than £10 million in Gross Merchandise Sales would be excluded from the opt-out class. Although those merchants represent only about 1,000 of approximately 214,000 class members, they account for just over 40% of total marketplace sales. The Tribunal declined to create the resulting hybrid opt-out and opt-in structure in its judgment, cited as [2026] CAT 84.

Funding arrangements featured directly in the Tribunal's reasoning. The judgment noted that the litigation funding agreement and the after-the-event insurance policy backing the claim covered only opt-out proceedings, a point that bore on the practicality of Amazon's proposed restructuring.

The claim is brought by class representative Professor Andreas Stephan and is valued at approximately £2.7 billion. The collective proceedings order was made in November 2025. Kieron Beal KC and Christopher Monaghan of Geradin Partners act for the class representative, while Daniel Piccinin KC and Kristina Lukacova of Covington & Burling LLP act for Amazon.

The first trial is scheduled to begin on 25 April 2028 and run for approximately eight weeks, addressing market definition, dominance and abuse. A second trial will deal with causation, quantum and pass-on.

Litigation Capital Management has confirmed that the funded party in one of its commercial litigation investments has been refused permission to appeal, bringing the matter to a close and forcing the funder to write off the full carrying value of the position.

As reported by Investegate, the company disclosed in a regulatory announcement on 9 November 2026 that the investment had been carried at £5.0 million (A$9.5 million) as at 30 June 2026. With the appeal route now exhausted, that value will be written off in full, crystallising an impairment that reduces the funder's assets and is expected to weigh on both profit and net asset value.

The disclosure follows a difficult period for the Australian-headquartered funder. In July 2026, LCM reported that permission to appeal had been refused in a separate competition claim, resulting in a smaller write-off of £0.8 million (A$1.5 million). The company's full-year results for FY26 recorded a net realised loss of A$63.9 million, reversing a A$22.2 million gain in the prior year, alongside a negative fair value movement of A$54.1 million.

LCM has also been operating under financial constraints tied to its borrowing arrangements, having secured an extension of a covenant waiver from lender Northleaf Capital Partners to 13 November 2026. The funder announced a strategic review in July 2026 and is scheduled to hold its annual general meeting in Sydney on 30 November 2026.

The announcement illustrates the binary nature of litigation finance returns, where an adverse judgment and a subsequent refusal of appeal permission can eliminate an entire position's carrying value in a single step.

Debates over Consumer Legal Funding tend to focus on the financial relationship between the consumer and the funding company, but one key participant is often overlooked: the consumer's own attorney.

As reported by The National Law Review, Eric K. Schuller of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) argues that attorney involvement is one of the strongest consumer protections in the marketplace. Because the product is tied to a pending claim, the consumer is always represented by counsel before a funder ever sees the file. Maine and Nebraska define an eligible consumer as one represented by an attorney, Missouri permits contracts only where the consumer is represented, and Kansas limits the product to plaintiffs in a pending civil action.

Of the thirteen state laws reviewed, nine require the consumer's attorney to sign an acknowledgment in the funding contract, and two more require the consumer to certify that counsel was involved. In most of those states, a contract without the acknowledgment is void. The attorney typically confirms that disclosures were reviewed with the client, that the attorney is retained on contingency, that proceeds will flow through a trust account or settlement fund, and that the attorney has received no referral fee or other consideration from the funder.

Schuller contrasts this with payday loans, credit cards, auto title loans and even mortgages, none of which require the borrower's lawyer to attest to anything. He also highlights disclosure rules, including cumulative-amount disclosures in six states and ten-business-day rescission windows in Kansas, New York, Ohio, Missouri and Utah.

As more states weigh legislation, Schuller presents the attestation model as a proven blueprint that addresses the transaction's real structure while preserving the consumer's right to decide.

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argues that the United Kingdom's collective action and costs rules are steering claims against large technology companies away from British courts, leaving affected workers and consumers to seek redress abroad.

As reported by IPPR, the think tank points to proceedings brought in the Dutch courts by Stichting Worker Info Exchange International against Uber on behalf of affected drivers, including British drivers. The case challenges Uber's alleged use of personal data to determine drivers' pay, following earlier research findings that its algorithmic pay system has made earnings less predictable and widened pay inequality.

The report draws a direct contrast between the two jurisdictions. Dutch law allows non-profit organisations to bring collective cases on behalf of affected people with limited risk of legal costs, while UK rules make equivalent legal action much harder and carry the risk of massive legal costs.

IPPR's recommendations go to the heart of the funding question. The report calls for allowing charities and NGOs to bring public interest cases against technology companies without requiring individual authorisation, introducing opt-out collective legal action across areas including workers' rights, and capping potentially crippling legal costs while reforming litigation funding rules.

The report, authored by independent legal strategy and technology policy consultant Swee Leng Harris, is supported by former attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, Labour MP Jess Asato, and the App Drivers and Couriers Union. Driver and union member Abdurzak Hadi said that taking on a company like Uber in court "costs huge amounts of money, far more than most drivers I know can afford."

Tata Power has escalated its long-running dispute with Kleros Capital Partners from the courtroom to the police station, with Mumbai Police registering a First Information Report against eight accused parties over an alleged fraud valued at ₹4,800 crore.

As reported by the Free Press Journal, the complaint names Kleros Capital Partners and two former Tata Power employees among the accused, alleging data leakage and criminal conspiracy in connection with a Russian coal mine transaction and the Singapore arbitration that followed.

Tata Power claims that confidential information shared with Kleros under non-disclosure agreements signed in 2013 and 2014 was later used against it in arbitration. It alleges direct losses of roughly $8 million and says a valuation report was prepared without a site visit before being relied upon in the proceedings. None of the allegations has been established in any court.

Kleros commenced SIAC arbitration in November 2020. The tribunal, chaired by Professor Lawrence Boo and including Stuart Isaacs KC and Amal K. Ganguli, issued a liability award in September 2023 and a damages award on 1 July 2025, with the majority ordering payment of $490.32 million plus simple interest at 5.33% per annum.

On 26 August 2026 the Singapore International Commercial Court rejected all three of Tata Power's set-aside applications, finding no breach of natural justice or apparent bias. The Court also held that Omni Bridgeway's involvement in unrelated proceedings involving the arbitrators did not establish apparent bias. Tata Power shares fell 3.89% following the ruling.

Australia's Federal Court has approved a $12 million funding commission to Court House Capital out of a $29.6 million class action settlement, rejecting the suggestion that hindsight should be used to shrink a funder's reward.

As reported by Australasian Lawyer, Justice Lee handed down Top Ryde Financial Services Pty Ltd v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Settlement Approval) [2026] FCA 1652 on 30 October 2026, approving roughly $16.6 million in total deductions comprising $4 million in legal costs and the $12 million commission.

The proceeding was brought by 15 former franchisees of RAMS, Westpac's former home-lending business, who alleged wrongful termination and the withholding of 25% of trail commissions after termination. The settlement deed required payment of $29,624,397.67, made up of withheld trail commission with interest plus an additional sum of approximately $20.8 million. RAMS also agreed to stop withholding part of future trail commission and to offer buy-outs of future trailer income. There was no admission of liability.

The Court acknowledged the commission exceeded the average percentage seen in some recent approvals, but noted that alternative formulas in the funding agreements would have produced either $8.58 million or $16 million. All but one franchisee had signed a funding agreement, and no group member objected. Justice Lee remarked that "a headline percentage may conceal more than it reveals," though he did limit the reach of the settlement deed.

For context, the 7-Eleven franchisee class action settled for $98 million in 2021, inclusive of a $24.5 million funder commission.

Rightmove has challenged the litigation funding agreement underpinning a £1.6 billion collective action against it, arguing that funder Innsworth Advisors holds an excessive degree of control over the proceedings.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the property portal told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the agreement is structured to secure the funder a potentially inappropriate return, with Innsworth reportedly in line for around £100 million.

The claim is brought by former Competition and Markets Authority panel member Jeremy Newman on behalf of roughly 7,200 class members, largely estate agents, letting agents and new-homes developers who paid listing fees between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026. The underlying allegation is abuse of dominance through excessive and unfair fees. The claim is funded by Innsworth Capital, the UK litigation funding arm of Elliott Management, with Scott+Scott UK LLP acting as counsel and Kairos Economics providing economic analysis.

The certification dispute centers on whether the action should proceed on an opt-out or opt-in basis. Rightmove argues that allowing opt-out here would raise questions about when opt-in could ever be appropriate. The proposed class representative counters that forcing an opt-in process is designed to shrink damages or exhaust the budget so that the litigation will "run into the sand," citing complexity, modest individual recoveries and fear of retaliation from a must-have commercial partner as deterrents to signing up.

The Tribunal rejected comparable opt-in arguments earlier in 2026 in Stasi v Microsoft, Ennis v Apple and Brook v Google. Rightmove has said it will defend the claim vigorously.

Burford Capital has reported third quarter 2026 results, posting total revenues of $135 million and describing the period as its strongest of the year on the strength of portfolio activity and cash generation.

As reported by PR Newswire, the funder released its 3Q26 and YTD26 financial results ahead of an investor call, with revenues coming in above analyst consensus of roughly $109 million.

Chief Executive Officer Christopher Bogart said revenues would have been well over $200 million were it not for a non-cash increase in market discount rates, which weighed on the carrying value of the portfolio without affecting underlying case progress. The distinction matters for a business whose reported earnings move with fair-value assumptions as much as with case outcomes.

On the balance sheet, Burford completed $100 million of de-leveraging during the quarter, retiring its nearest-term debt maturity, and finished the period with more than half a billion dollars in cash.

The company also disclosed a subsequent event: after quarter-end, it received a further $64 million in cash from the resolution of a matter originating in 2015, at a return of approximately 12x invested capital. That realization is not reflected in the third quarter figures and will instead land in fourth quarter results. Burford did not identify the underlying case.

The results follow a softer stretch for the funder, which reported earnings of $0.01 per share in August against expectations of $0.08. For an industry where returns arrive in lumps rather than streams, the quarter offers a reminder that cash realizations and accounting revenues rarely move in step.

Loopa Finance, the litigation and arbitration funder formerly known as Qanlex, has added two Investment Managers to support its expansion across Brazil, Chile, Europe and the United Kingdom.

According to a press release from Loopa Finance, Raquel Assis will be based in São Paulo and focus on consolidating the firm's growth in Brazil, one of its key markets. Roberto Gassmann, a Chilean-qualified lawyer based in London, will work to strengthen Loopa's presence in Europe and the UK while supporting its development in Chile and other Latin American markets.

Assis previously worked at Demarest Advogados on high-value civil litigation and international arbitration, including matters handled alongside Quinn Emanuel. She later joined Lass Legal Capital as an Investment Associate, where she assessed and structured nine-figure investments across Latin American jurisdictions.

Gassmann brings more than seven years of experience in complex litigation and international disputes. Most recently at Baker Botts in London, he worked on investment treaty and commercial arbitrations under ICSID, UNCITRAL, ICC and LCIA rules, covering mining, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure and construction disputes. He earlier practised at Chilean firms Albagli Zaliasnik and Balmaceda, Cox & Piña Abogados.

"Every investment decision we make begins with a thorough understanding of the legal merits, risks and commercial realities behind a dispute," said Fernando Folgueiro, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Loopa Finance. He added that the two appointees will strengthen the firm's ability to evaluate complex cases and build closer relationships with law firms and businesses across its markets.

Loopa operates with its own capital on a non-recourse basis, funding litigation and arbitration expenses, advancing against expected recoveries, and offering portfolio, law firm and class action funding, as well as legal costs insurance. The firm recently closed its $70 million Fund III.

Samil PwC has signed a memorandum of understanding with dispute funding advisory Lithic Equity Partners to build out joint capability in international disputes and third-party litigation funding for Korean companies.

As reported by Herald Business, Lithic Equity Partners announced the agreement on 2 November, with Samil PwC publicising it the following day. Lithic, an Asia-Pacific international dispute funding advisory, is led by chief executive Moon Jin-seung. Samil PwC is led by chief executive Yoon Hoon-soo.

The two firms have divided the work along their respective specialisms. Samil PwC will handle quantum and damages assessment, expert witness testimony, eDiscovery, accounting and financial analysis, valuation, forensics and tax. Lithic will assess the economic viability and funding suitability of claims, prepare dispute budgets, structure third-party funding arrangements, supply intelligence on the global funder market, and compare and negotiate funding terms.

The parties also plan joint seminars, webinars, forums and conferences, along with knowledge exchange and published research. The stated aim is to help Korean companies respond strategically as cross-border disputes grow in volume and complexity.

Hong Jun-ki, who heads Samil's audit division, said damages assessment and accounting and financial analysis are becoming more important as disputes grow more complex. Moon described third-party funding as a non-recourse financial instrument rather than merely a means of covering costs.

The tie-up is a notable signal for funding in Korea, where third-party funding remains at an early stage of adoption. Pairing a Big Four accounting practice's quantum and forensic capability with a dedicated funding advisory gives Korean claimants a domestic route to structuring funded international claims.

The High Court of New Zealand has declined to allow an Omni Bridgeway-funded claim against Transpower and contractor Omexom to proceed on an opt-out basis, finding the proposed class of up to 24,000 businesses lacked sufficient common issues.

As reported by NZ Lawyer, the judgment in *Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited* [2026] NZHC 3275 was released on 21 October. The claim arises from the June 2024 collapse of a transmission pylon at Glorit, near Wellsford, after an unsupervised Omexom contractor removed all the nuts from three of the tower's four legs during routine maintenance. Roughly 180,000 people and 20,000 businesses lost power, some for days.

The court held that the duty of care question could only be answered with "it depends," following the Court of Appeal's approach in the cladding class action, and warned of an evidentiary vacuum beyond the two named plaintiffs. Large electricity users had bespoke supply arrangements and had taken differing protective steps, including insurance and backup generators. An adverse finding on duty would bind class members who had not opted out and who might have stronger claims, and the two named businesses were not sufficiently representative. The risk that the case would not proceed at all without an opt-out order could not overcome the absence of common issues. The court invited the plaintiffs to recast the claim or run it on an opt-in basis.

The claim is run by Lee Salmon Long and Piper Alderman on a no-win-no-fee basis with Omni Bridgeway funding. Losses have been estimated at NZ$60m by Infometrics and NZ$80m by the Northland Chamber of Commerce. LeeSalmonLong partner David Bullock has said the defendants' NZ$1m regional resilience fund was unlikely to cover actual losses.

Omni Bridgeway has taken its Robodebt class action commission to the Full Federal Court of Australia after the trial judge cut the funder's entitlement to roughly half of what it sought from the A$475m settlement.

As reported by Lawyerly, the funding entity Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Lion Pty Ltd has filed an appeal challenging the reduction, which took its commission down from approximately A$71m. The appeal was lodged in late August 2026.

The underlying proceeding, *Knox v Commonwealth*, was an appeal from the original *Prygodicz* settlement, brought to set that settlement aside so claimants could pursue a misfeasance in public office case built on evidence from the Robodebt Royal Commission. The Albanese Government announced a settlement in September 2025, and Justice Beach approved it on 23 June 2026, with the Commonwealth ordered to pay A$475,000,000. Total value of the settlement is around A$550m.

Gordon Legal, which acted for the class, has described the settlement as the A$475m sum less a 15% funding commission. In his approval judgment, [2026] FCA 1029, Justice Beach recorded submissions that the costs claimed "are excessive as is the 20% commission sought," and considered fixing the commission by reference to a multiple of five on pre-mediation costs. The judgment cited comparative authority in which the largest reduction took a commission from 30% to 18.66%, and emphasised the need for proportionality in the aggregate commission paid out of a settlement fund.

The appeal puts a significant question before the Full Court: how far a first-instance judge may go in recalibrating a contractual funding commission at the approval stage of a very large settlement.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that an investor cannot assign an ICSID arbitration award against a sovereign state without that state's consent, closing off a route that award buyers had hoped to use to acquire and enforce treaty claims.

As reported by Essex Court Chambers, the judgment in *Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc v Kingdom of Spain* [2026] EWCA Civ 1392 was handed down on 2 November. Foxton LJ, with Males LJ and Lewison LJ agreeing, dismissed an appeal by Blasket Renewable Investments LLC against a first-instance refusal to substitute it as a party to enforcement proceedings over a €29.3m award against Spain.

The court held that the right to enforce an ICSID award is a treaty right as between states, and that "on the current state of customary international law, treaty rights as between states are not assignable without the consent of the obligor." Foxton LJ also rejected the argument that section 2 of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 creates a new, freely assignable substantive right, characterising it instead as execution machinery. A voluntary assignee cannot invoke Article 54(2) of the ICSID Convention where the original award creditors still exist.

The ruling leaves important questions open. The court expressly reserved involuntary transfers arising from insolvency, death or corporate succession, as well as assignments made with a state's consent. Males LJ accepted that assignability of such awards may be commercially desirable, but found it is not where international law currently stands.

For the award-monetisation market, the decision narrows the mechanics rather than the appetite. Buyers seeking exposure to ICSID awards may still need to preserve the identity of the original creditor through corporate reorganisations, mergers or share transfers rather than outright assignment.

The International Legal Finance Association has responded to the Law Commission's Consumer Class Actions Initial Scoping Questionnaire, which closed on Friday, calling for an opt-out consumer regime modelled on the Competition Appeal Tribunal and supported by access to third-party funding.

ILFA argues that many consumer claims cannot be brought today because existing procedures outside the CAT are poorly suited to group actions: representative actions are of limited use where damages need individual assessment, and Group Litigation Orders are opt-in, complex and expensive. It wants the regime to cover the full range of consumer harms and to be open to small businesses.

On funding, ILFA says all opt-out cases in the CAT are supported by third-party funding and calls for PACCAR to be reversed, as the Civil Justice Council recommended in June 2025. It wants funding terms and payment priorities fixed at certification, so agreed waterfalls cannot be reopened at the end of a claim, and opposes making funder returns contingent on take-up rates.

"Too many consumers and small businesses are harmed by the same unlawful conduct yet have no viable route to redress, because each claim is too small to pursue on its own," said Neil Purslow, Chairman of ILFA's Executive Committee. "A consumer class actions regime of the kind the Law Commission is considering, modelled on the Competition Appeal Tribunal's opt-out regime, would give them one."

"Backed by litigation funding, such a regime would put money back into consumers' pockets at a time when the cost of living remains a pressing concern, instead of letting those responsible keep the proceeds," he added. "It would also make corporate wrongdoers answerable to every consumer they harm, thereby promoting more competitive markets that reward businesses for playing by the rules."

Omni Bridgeway is funding a class action against the New South Wales Government on behalf of people who paid merchant fees on card and PayPal transactions with state agencies such as Service NSW and Revenue NSW.

According to Omni Bridgeway's claim page, the claim follows the government's own admission in October 2024 that approximately 92 million card transactions since 2016 had attracted about $144 million in merchant fees levied without a lawful basis. The claim alleges the government received legal advice on four separate occasions from the NSW Crown Solicitor that the practice was unlawful.

The claim alleges that the government owed a duty of care to those who paid the fees and breached it by continuing to charge them, and that it made misleading statements about its right to do so in breach of Australian consumer protection laws. Omni Bridgeway notes that, as at the date of filing, the government had not confirmed whether it would refund the surcharges.

The class covers anyone who paid a merchant fee to the NSW Government between 23 September 2020 and 23 September 2026, for example when renewing a driver licence or vehicle registration, or buying a National Parks annual pass. Piper Alderman is on the record for the class.

The action is funded on a no win, no pay basis. If it succeeds, Omni Bridgeway will recover its costs plus a commission, and it has agreed to cover any adverse costs awarded to the government, so class members face no out-of-pocket exposure.

The client committee in the Mariana dam litigation has taken its fight over who represents more than 400,000 claimants to the Court of Appeal, after the High Court refused it permission to appeal a ruling that left PGMBM, formerly Pogust Goodhead, in control of the claim.

As reported by Legal Business, London disputes boutique Humphries Kerstetter, which acts for the committee, announced on 27 October that it had applied to the Court of Appeal for permission.

The application follows Mr Justice Waksman's October ruling that the committee had no authority to terminate the collective conditional fee agreements or litigation management agreements with PGMBM, and therefore could not appoint Bailey Glasser International to run the next phase of the case. "It is plain to me that Pogust Goodhead's construction is preferred," the judge said at the time, adding that the committee "had no power to instruct BGI." He ordered £300,000 in costs on account.

The dispute has direct consequences for the claim's funding. PGMBM is backed by Gramercy, and the committee's criticisms in the High Court included concerns about the funder. PGMBM had estimated that claimants would face around £2 billion in costs exposure if its contracts were terminated.

The underlying claim arises from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil. BHP was found strictly liable in November 2025, with a quantum trial listed for 2027. Any appeal on representation would run alongside preparations for that trial.

The cost of the U.S. tort system has nearly doubled over a decade, rising from $299.7bn in 2014 to $579.7bn in 2023, according to new research that identifies third-party litigation funding among the factors behind the increase.

As reported by Insurance Business Magazine, the figures come from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform's 2026 report, *International Tort Costs: A Comparative Analysis*, produced with the Insurance Information Institute. Tort costs grew at roughly twice the rate of the wider economy over the period and about four times the rate of inflation.

Commercial lines accounted for $377.73bn of the total against $202.01bn for personal lines. Other liability at $249.31bn and personal auto at $188.13bn together represent 75.45% of all tort costs. Self-insured and uninsured exposures made up $163.25bn, or 28.16% of the total.

Alongside third-party litigation funding, the report points to social inflation, nuclear verdicts and expanding theories of liability. Michel Léonard, chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute, framed the trend as a structural strain on the casualty market rather than a cyclical one. The analysis projects that U.S. and UK tort costs as a share of GDP will converge around 2029 to 2030.

The report is the latest from a body that has consistently urged disclosure requirements for litigation funding arrangements, and its figures are likely to feature in the state and federal debates now underway.

Harbour Credit has provided a £2m funding package to Manchester credit hire specialist Garvins Law, financing a management buyout that leaves founder Neil Garvin as the firm's sole shareholder.

As reported by Legal Futures, the package from the lending arm of litigation funder Harbour includes a £1m working capital facility. Garvins Law was founded in 2007 and employs 22 staff, having built its practice around credit hire work following the whiplash reforms. The firm was previously owned by alternative business structure EDAM Group, which entered administration in January 2025; Garvins remained solvent and continued trading throughout.

The firm's accounts for the year to 31 March 2026 show turnover of £2.5m, more than double the prior year, and a profit of £125,000 against a £200,000 loss the year before.

"We have an experienced team, an established position in the credit hire market and ambitious plans to grow the business," said Neil Garvin. Ellora MacPherson is managing director of Harbour Credit.

The transaction illustrates the continuing expansion of litigation funders into law firm lending, where capital is deployed against a practice's receivables and work in progress rather than the outcome of a single case. For claimant firms emerging from the ownership of a collapsed consolidator, that form of credit offers a route to independence without ceding equity to an external investor.

The High Court has voided an £11m claim after finding that the cause of action had been assigned to a company in which the solicitors acting on the matter held shares, applying a rule against solicitors purchasing their clients' claims that dates back to 1784.

As reported by Legal Futures, the claim arose from an April 2019 deed of loan from Maltby Services to John Rhoden. The cause of action was assigned first to TD Capital in November 2024 and then to MSV Estates in December 2025. Andrew Hickman and Anthony Page, solicitors at Hickman Construction Law in Worcestershire, each held approximately 11% of the relevant company. Master Sullivan, sitting in the King's Bench Division, applied the so-called "solicitor rule" derived from Hall v Hallet (1784) and held the claim void.

Rejecting the argument that minority shareholdings held through a corporate vehicle took the arrangement outside the rule, the Master said: "The solicitor rule would be hollow if it could be so easily circumvented merely by the solicitors acting through a company. That is no less a forceful argument even if they are minority shareholders."

The ruling is relevant to anyone structuring claim acquisitions rather than conventional funding agreements. It signals that the courts will look through corporate vehicles to the identity of the beneficial owners, and that an assignment which places a client's claim in the hands of the solicitors conducting it risks being set aside entirely rather than merely reduced.

Litigation Capital Management has obtained a further extension of the covenant waiver on its senior debt facility, buying the funder two additional weeks as it works to complete a longer-term amendment to the facility.

As reported in a regulatory announcement released on 2 November 2026, the waiver agreed with lender Northleaf Capital Partners (Canada) Ltd had been due to expire on 31 October 2026 and has now been extended to 13 November 2026. The company said the short duration reflects the fact that the conditions precedent to the longer-term facility amendment announced on 30 September 2026 are close to being satisfied. The interest rate on the facility remains 2.00% per annum above the standard rate, and no additional waiver fee is payable.

The extension is the latest in a sequence of short waivers running back to December 2025, during which the facility limit was increased from US$75m to US$100m. LCM's strategic review, announced in September 2025, concluded without a transaction, and the company is now in orderly run-off.

For the financial year ended June 2026, LCM reported a loss after tax of A$165.7m and net liabilities of A$53.6m. In October the company disclosed an unsuccessful judgment in an Australian insolvency claim and received a termination notice alleging breach of a funding agreement in a Competition Appeal Tribunal collective action, which LCM disputes. Shares closed at 0.499p on 2 November.

The estate of a deceased class representative has been ordered to pay £7.7m in costs after the collective proceedings he brought against a group of UK rail operators collapsed, in a ruling that underscores the adverse costs exposure attaching to opt-out claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the case concerned David Courtney Boyle, who in 2021 brought a claim valued at roughly £400m against Govia Thameslink Railway and other defendants over allegedly inflated fares on London to Brighton routes. Mr Boyle died of Parkinson's disease in June 2025. With no replacement class representative coming forward, the Tribunal revoked the collective proceedings order and the claim was decertified. The Tribunal's Order of the Chair on costs is dated 26 October 2026, and a further costs hearing has been listed for 24 November 2026.

The outcome is the second costs ruling of its kind against a UK class representative in recent months. In May 2026, Walter Merricks CBE was ordered to pay £70,000 in interim costs — against a defence application for £223,000 — after withdrawing from proceedings for want of after-the-event insurance.

For funders, the decision reinforces the centrality of adverse costs cover in the economics of UK collective actions. Where a class representative dies or withdraws and no successor steps in, the claim does not simply lapse: the defendants' costs crystallise, and the question of who ultimately bears them turns on the funding and insurance arrangements put in place at the outset.

Omni Bridgeway has restated its medium-term targets for assets under management and cost coverage, telling investors it expects annualised AUM growth of at least 10% through FY28.

As reported by GlobeNewswire, the Australian funder is also targeting 70% coverage of its operating costs by FY28. Assets under management stand at A$5.9bn, up 12% since June 2025, representing a 17% compound annual growth rate since June 2022.

The cost coverage trajectory is the more telling figure. The measure has moved from 17% in FY23 to 53% in FY26, as the business shifts weight from its own balance sheet toward third-party capital and fee income. Operating expenses fell 20% in FY26 while new commitments rose 38%.

Chief executive Raymond van Hulst has positioned the group around capital-light growth. FY26 produced record proceeds of A$350.5m, up 49%, alongside A$712.2m in new commitments, A$862m of third-party capital and more than A$1.6bn in total capital formation.

The guidance is a reaffirmation rather than a new disclosure, and the targets were set out in the company's FY26 results cycle. Its value lies in the consistency of the message: Omni Bridgeway continues to tell the market that growth will come through managed funds and co-investment rather than through expanding its own book.

Legal-Bay has introduced an attorney funding and fee advancement program that provides contingency-fee law firms with up to $1m against fees they have already earned but not yet received.

As reported by PR Newswire, the Jersey City-based funder is targeting firms waiting on settlement proceeds. Qualifying firms need a signed settlement agreement and release along with a retainer, and the company says funding can close within two to three business days.

The program sits alongside a broader set of offerings that includes law firm funding against contingency receivables, cash advances, settlement funding and case cost funding. Chris Janish, Legal-Bay's chief executive and founder, framed the product around lawyers who have already completed the work and are simply waiting to be paid.

The launch builds on the firm's existing attorney-facing business. Legal-Bay opened an attorney funding branch in October 2023 and added a case cost program in May 2025.

Fee advancement addresses a structural timing problem in contingency practice. A firm can win a case and still face a gap of months between the settlement agreement and the arrival of funds, during which payroll, case costs and new matter intake all continue. Products of this kind convert a signed settlement into near-term working capital, and the segment has drawn increasing attention from funders looking for shorter-duration, lower-variance exposure than single-case investment typically provides.

Burford Capital is among the investors behind FluxCap, an artificial intelligence startup for litigators launched publicly this week by two former leaders of the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

As reported by PYMNTS, the company was founded by Jonathan Kanter and Doha Mekki, who ran the division under the Biden administration. FluxCap has raised $6.4m in seed funding from Y Combinator, Bloomberg Beta, Deep Work Capital, Coalition Operators, Omidyar Network and Burford Capital.

The platform is built for plaintiff-side litigators and government enforcers rather than the defence bar, and is aimed at evaluating claims, managing discovery, analysing evidence and outlining arguments. Its initial focus is antitrust. The team includes former DOJ and White House officials alongside a number of Palantir alumni, and the company says its tools are already being used in active matters seeking more than $1bn in damages. Three products have been named so far: FluxAlmanac, FluxFacts and Vision Manager.

Burford's participation is the detail of note for the funding market. Capital that typically backs individual cases is being deployed into the infrastructure that selects and builds them, which gives funders earlier visibility into claim quality.

The wider legal technology market remains uneven. Roughly $3.2bn flowed into legal startups in 2025, up about 150% year on year, but Tracxn data puts legal tech funding through October 2026 at $2.74bn, down 19.7%. Courtroom performance also remains unproven: researcher Damien Charlotin had catalogued 2,231 decisions involving AI hallucinations as of this week.

A proposed group action against St James's Place has secured litigation funding, clearing one of the principal hurdles facing collective claims brought by former advisers against the wealth manager.

As reported by Professional Adviser, the claim is being organised by Robertson Pugh Associates, which signed a relationship agreement with a litigation funder in July and has now confirmed that funding is in place. The action is open to former appointed representatives and advisers who say their practices were transferred without fair compensation.

The underlying allegations concern the treatment of adviser practices within the SJP network. According to the claim organisers, hundreds of appointed representatives had client banks moved to other advisers without being paid fairly for them, in some cases following the termination or suspension of their contracts. The Financial Times first reported that former advisers were organising a collective claim.

The funding announcement arrives while SJP continues to work through a separate and much larger liability. The firm set aside £426m to compensate clients over historic service delivery, a provision it reduced to £340m from July 2025.

Third-party funding has become the decisive variable in UK group litigation against financial institutions, where claimant numbers are large, individual losses are uneven, and adverse costs exposure can run for years. Securing a funder does not resolve the merits, but it does determine whether a claim of this type reaches a courtroom at all. The SJP action now moves to the stage of recruiting claimants and formalising its case.

Zurich American Insurance Company increased its federal lobbying expenditure in the third quarter of 2026, with the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 among the measures listed in its disclosures.

As reported by Legis1, Zurich reported $550,000 in in-house lobbying expenses for the quarter, supplemented by $60,000 paid to Invariant LLC and $50,000 to Tiber Creek Group Inc. The combined total of $660,000 is $70,000 above the insurer's second-quarter figure of $590,000.

H.R.1109 would require parties in a civil action to disclose any person, other than counsel, holding a contingent right to receive payment based on the outcome of the case, and to produce the underlying funding agreement. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee in February 2025 and its most recent recorded action remains the committee consideration and markup sessions held in November 2025. Its cosponsor count has grown from two at introduction to 28 as of June 2026.

The measure has drawn broad support from the property and casualty sector. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce coalition letter backing the bill was signed by Zurich North America alongside Allstate, Chubb, Liberty Mutual, State Farm and Travelers, as well as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

Opposition has come from an unexpected direction. Tea Party Patriots Action has urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject the bill, and a donor-privacy coalition including PDE Action has argued it would compel disclosure of private financial arrangements outside the ordinary discovery process without any judicial finding of relevance.

Rival clubs, players and agents weighing compensation claims against Manchester City may struggle to secure after-the-event insurance until the club's appeal is resolved, according to a specialist litigation insurance underwriter.

As reported by Insurance Business, Rocco Pirozzolo, managing director and underwriting director at Harbour Underwriting, said the live appeal creates uncertainty that underwriters are unlikely to price. "With a live appeal, this creates uncertainty, and so I expect underwriters would want to wait for the outcome of the appeal," he said.

The Premier League announced on 29 September that an independent commission had found the club in breach of more than 100 of its rules, upholding 114 of the 115 charges brought in 2023 following an investigation that began in 2018. Manchester City lodged an appeal on 1 October and denies wrongdoing.

Pirozzolo noted that Burnley's earlier award against Everton gives underwriters a roadmap for this type of claim, but that tying a rule breach to lost results and lost revenue remains the difficult part. Causation and quantum are the key tests for ATE underwriters assessing whether a claim is insurable.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham are reported to have lodged notices in 2024 reserving the right to claim compensation, while players and agents are said to be exploring loss-of-earnings claims tied to bonus payments.

A three-member appeal board will hear the case and may dismiss or allow the appeal, remit it to the commission, or alter any sanction. Under Premier League rules the hearing should be held within 12 weeks of being lodged, with a decision due within 30 days of its conclusion.

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) has reported that it is tracking at or above all of its FY27 operational targets, with first-quarter completions returning well above the funder's recent historical average.

As reported by GlobeNewswire, the alternative asset manager's Investment Portfolio Report as at 30 September 2026 records 20 full and partial completions generating A$135.8m in investment proceeds at a 3.9x multiple on invested capital. That compares with a two-year trailing average of 2.5x, and the completions converted at 102% of carrying fair value.

Management fees rose 24% year-on-year to A$10.7m, and the group received A$9.4m in cash carried interest, with a further A$8.6m accrued on Series II funds but not yet distributed. Omni Bridgeway also completed the final close of its Funds 4 and 5 Series II at the full US$1 billion target during the quarter, which it expects to push management fee growth towards the higher end of its indicated FY27 range.

New commitments totalled A$87.1m across nine new investments, up 23% on the prior corresponding quarter, adding A$81.2m in new fair value. The pipeline comprised 46 agreed exclusive term sheets representing an estimated A$416.6m in potential new commitments, up from A$317.8m a year earlier.

Cash operating expenses of A$15.7m tracked below the FY27 budget range of A$72.5m to A$75.0m, with a cost coverage ratio of 68% for the quarter. Chief Executive Officer Raymond van Hulst pointed to the 46 exclusive term sheets and a significant number of late-stage investments in the portfolio.