Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.

The founders of mass tort firm Keller Postman and litigation funder Gerchen Capital Partners have launched Atticor Group, a management services organisation that takes economic exposure to personal injury law firms while leaving the practices themselves in attorney hands.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the venture brings together Ashley Keller and Warren Postman of Keller Postman with Adam Gerchen, chief executive of Gerchen Capital. Atticor describes itself as an AI-enabled platform serving the personal injury and single-event legal market, and provides administrative and back-office services to firms that contract with it.

The structure is the familiar one. Rather than acquiring a law firm, the MSO holds the operations that support it and supplies those services for a fee, allowing outside capital to participate in firm economics without running into the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership that applies in most US states. The stated purpose here is to finance technology upgrades that individual plaintiffs' firms would struggle to fund from cash flow.

More than six firms have signed on, according to the report, and the platform is described as well capitalised with an acquisition pipeline in place. Gerchen Capital closed its sixth fund at $600 million last year.

The launch is notable for who is behind it. Atticor places a mass tort firm's founders and an established commercial funder on the same side of a structure that several states are now moving to restrict, with Illinois and California both legislating this year on investor influence over law firms.

The Singapore International Commercial Court has upheld an arbitral tribunal's refusal to award third-party funding costs, rejecting arguments that denying such recovery offends public policy or amounts to a procedural failing reviewable under the Model Law.

As reported by the Wolters Kluwer Arbitration Blog, the decision in *DTH and another v DTF and others* [2026] SGHC(I) 5 arose from a joint venture dispute arbitrated under the SIAC Rules. The tribunal awarded the applicants approximately US$14.7 million but declined to award roughly US$14.6 million in funding costs, leaving them with minimal net recovery.

The applicants advanced two grounds. The first was that refusing funding costs conflicted with Singapore's public policy of promoting access to justice for impecunious parties. The court disagreed, holding that access to justice framed that narrowly does not rise to the level of public policy, and noting that Singapore's own SICC Rules expressly prohibit the recovery of third-party funding costs. A domestic rule barring recovery makes it difficult to characterise the same outcome in arbitration as contrary to national policy.

The second ground was that the tribunal had failed to comply with the agreed arbitral procedure. The court held that costs determinations fall outside the scope of procedural review under the Model Law, because they are substantive outcomes rather than questions of process. Framing an unfavourable costs result as a procedural defect does not convert it into a reviewable one.

On the underlying analysis, the tribunal had excluded the funding costs because certain fees were calculated as a percentage of the resolution amount rather than by reference to the principal advanced, placing them outside the statutory definitions governing third-party funding.

The ruling underscores that funders and funded parties in Singapore-seated arbitration cannot assume recovery of funding costs, and that how a funding agreement structures its return may determine whether those costs are recoverable at all.

Pogust Goodhead has publicly rejected the decision to replace it as solicitors for claimants in the multi-billion pound group action against BHP, arguing that the client committee that voted to terminate its retainer had no authority to do so and warning that the move puts claimants' costs protection at risk.

As reported by Legal Futures, the dispute follows the appointment of Bailey Glasser International (BGI) to take over conduct of *Município de Mariana and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd*, the claim brought for more than 420,000 Brazilian claimants arising from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam.

BGI said its "priority is continuity for the claimants," adding that it "does not expect the change of legal representation to have any significant effect on the overall litigation timetable" and acknowledging "the work done by Pogust Goodhead in bringing the case to the High Court in London and securing the landmark ruling on liability."

Pogust Goodhead disagrees. The firm said the "client committee has no authority to terminate Pogust Goodhead's representation on behalf of the wider group of claimants in the proceedings," and that it "remains the solicitor of record and continues to act in claimants' best interests." It described the litigation as continuing "as normal."

The firm's sharpest warning concerns after-the-event insurance, which was secured through Pogust Goodhead on the basis that it acted in the matter. By moving to displace it, the firm said, "the committee risks placing claimants' costs protection in jeopardy and exposing them to significant financial liabilities."

The commercial backdrop is substantial. Pogust Goodhead announced a partnership with Quinn Emanuel in June 2026, alongside $150 million in funding from Gramercy Funds Management arranged through the two firms for the next stage of the litigation. BGI is a joint venture between Edward McCourt & Company — owned by former Pogust Goodhead senior partner Jeremy Evans — and US firm Bailey & Glasser, with Hausfeld & Co supporting in London. Partners Faranak Ghajavand and Callum Walters previously worked at Pogust Goodhead.

Liability was established at the Stage One trial in November 2025 and can no longer be challenged after the Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal in May 2026. Evidence in the Stage Two trial on causation and quantum is listed from April to December 2027, with closing submissions in March 2028.

Carta Law, the AI-native law firm serving private capital, has announced four senior appointments across its Compliance and Contracts practices, deepening its bench as asset managers turn to technology-backed managed services for legal and compliance work on both sides of the Atlantic.

According to a press release from Business Wire, Noah Levine joins as Legal Director, leading the firm's Compliance function for North America. Levine spent three years as Managing Director and Senior Compliance Counsel at Angelo Gordon, previously held compliance roles at Two Sigma and Dune Real Estate Partners, and most recently served as Deputy General Counsel and Compliance Officer at Madison International Realty.

Karin Porstendörfer joins as Compliance Director and Head of Inbound KYC, based in Luxembourg. She was previously Head of AML/CFT at Carne Group, where she built and led fund compliance programmes across European jurisdictions, and brings 18 years of audit, compliance and forensic experience to the firm.

Carta Law also promoted two of its own. Chrystel Marincich becomes Managing Director, Contracts Americas, having joined two and a half years ago from Kirkland & Ellis, where she was a Partner, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Kenneth Howe becomes Managing Director, Contracts Europe and APAC, and will lead the build-out of the Contracts function in Europe after a career in private practice at Simmons & Simmons and Gowling WLG.

The appointments follow Carta Law's launch in May 2026 after Carta's acquisition of Avantia, which paired AI-native legal and compliance workflows with Carta's platform for private capital. The firm now serves more than 200 asset managers, including approximately 30% of the world's largest funds, and operates across the US, UK and Europe.

"Noah and Karin bring first-hand experience of the compliance challenges facing sophisticated asset managers, while Chrystel and Kenny have played a major role in building our Contracts practice," said James Sutton, General Manager of Carta Law.

Bailey Glasser International has taken over conduct of the multi-billion pound group claim against BHP arising from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in Mariana, Brazil, replacing Pogust Goodhead as solicitors for the claimants.

According to a press release from Bailey Glasser International, the firm was appointed in *Município de Mariana and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and another* following a decision of the Client Committee dated 28 August 2026, with Hausfeld & Co LLP supporting the conduct of the litigation in London. The vote to terminate Pogust Goodhead's retainer and appoint BGI was unanimous among the Committee's members.

The release states that the decision followed "confidential matters identified by the Client Committee about Pogust Goodhead's conduct of the case," which were "repeatedly communicated to Pogust Goodhead, including by way of a formal notice."

The claim is one of the largest group actions in English legal history, brought for more than 420,000 Brazilian claimants. Liability was established at the Stage One trial, and after the Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal in May 2026 it can no longer be challenged. The Stage Two trial on causation and quantum is listed from April 2027 to March 2028.

Faranak Ghajavand, Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes at BGI, said the firm's priority is "continuity for the claimants, with the case proceeding without disruption," adding that senior members of the existing counsel team will return to the matter.

The terms of the claimants' representation are unchanged, with fees payable only if the case succeeds. BGI is the first international venture of US firm Bailey & Glasser LLP, and is a trading name of Edward McCourt & Company LLP.

A principal at commercial litigation funder GLS Capital has argued that courts should resolve document discovery disputes using baseball arbitration, the winner-takes-all format used to settle professional baseball salary disputes, as a way of containing a cost that routinely strains case budgets.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Mick Biehl explains that in baseball arbitration each side submits a proposed figure and the arbitrator selects one of them outright, without splitting the difference. Because the decision-maker picks the more reasonable of the two positions, both parties have an incentive to moderate their submissions rather than anchor at extremes.

Applied to discovery, the mechanism would work the same way. Rather than conventional motion practice, each side would submit its last written position on the disputed request or response, and the court would adopt one party's position in full instead of crafting a middle path.

Biehl, a former litigator, identifies three ways the format would reduce spend. Parties would draft narrower initial requests and avoid boilerplate objections, knowing aggressive positions are unlikely to be selected. Negotiations starting from more reasonable positions would be likelier to resolve without judicial involvement. And the all-or-nothing risk would deter marginal motions to compel.

The savings, on his account, come less from the hearings themselves than from what precedes them: the rounds of meet-and-confer conferences, emails, amended requests and discovery hearings that accumulate before a dispute reaches a judge.

Among the proposals in the UK government's overhaul of the opt-out collective actions regime is a change to when litigation funders actually get paid, a mechanic that has drawn less attention than the certification debate but bears directly on funder economics.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Department for Business and Trade's consultation would introduce a presumption that funders receive their return "at the point of a damages award being ordered or a settlement sum approved, without needing to wait for the outcome of distribution." Payment would follow the waterfall arrangements set out in the litigation funding agreement, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal retaining discretion where that would risk "an unjust outcome."

The consultation, "Swifter and Simpler Competition Redress, Regulatory Appeals, and Competition Enforcement," was published on 21 July 2026. It would also require the CAT to indicate the "reasonableness in relation to the return and order of payment at the point of certification," giving funders an earlier read on whether their commercial terms will survive.

Alongside that, the government proposes lifting the ban on damages-based agreements in opt-out proceedings. It points to Victoria, Australia, where contingency fees were introduced in 2020, as evidence that "funding rates have decreased and claimants have received superior returns."

The counterweight is a tougher certification test, under which the CAT would assess the "absolute suitability" of a claim for collective proceedings and give greater weight to case costs measured against the benefits likely to reach the class.

Lexolent chief executive Nick Rowles-Davies has argued that the campaign group driving the UK's litigation funding regulation debate is an American lobbying effort operating under a British name, and that its use of the Woodville Consultants collapse misrepresents what actually failed.

Writing in Legal Finance Expert, Rowles-Davies notes that after the Financial Conduct Authority warned on 20 August about unregulated loan notes and mini-bonds, citing Woodville, Fair Civil Justice responded that the funding market "cannot remain unregulated." He calls that "opportunism, not mere imprecision," pointing out that Woodville's investors bought unregulated debt rather than entering litigation funding agreements. The FCA warning concerned financial promotion, unregulated introducers, investor self-certification and hidden commissions — none of which, he argues, regulation of funders would address.

On provenance, he observes that Fair Civil Justice's principal 2024 policy paper, cited four times in the European Commission's mapping study on third-party funding, states on its own opening pages that it is "a thorough update of a paper initially published in 2016 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform."

He also examines the campaign's structure. Fair Civil Justice Limited was incorporated on 19 May 2025 as a company limited by guarantee, registered at the London office of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang. Its six directors include David Meyerson, ILR's Executive Director for International Initiatives, whose registered correspondence address is the US Chamber's Washington headquarters.

Rowles-Davies contrasts the disclosure the campaign seeks from funders with its own filleted first accounts, which disclose no income figure.

California lawmakers have sent Governor Gavin Newsom legislation that would prohibit litigation funders, private equity firms and other outside investors from influencing case strategy, settlement decisions or client intake at law firms they finance.

As reported by the Edinburg Post, Assembly Bill 2305, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San José) and sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California, cleared the legislature with bipartisan support as part of a two-bill package alongside AB 2039. Law firms would also be barred from using investor money to market for cases. A spokesperson for the governor's office said it does not comment on pending legislation.

According to an analysis by Holland & Knight, the bill defines "corporate investors" broadly to capture private equity groups, hedge funds, investment firms and non-attorney corporations whose primary purpose involves raising or managing capital, and applies regardless of whether the practice is organised as a partnership, professional corporation or LLC.

The prohibited conduct list is detailed. It covers determining which clients to represent, the scope of representation, the financial terms of representation, legal strategy, whether to file or dismiss claims, settlement decisions, the presentation of evidence, the conduct of discovery and appellate or procedural choices. Contractual provisions granting investors that control would be void.

Enforcement runs through several channels: State Bar discipline against attorneys, statutory damages of $10,000 per violation or three times actual consumer damages, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees and injunctive or declaratory relief.

India has no dedicated statutory or regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding, the government has confirmed in Parliament that it has no proposal to create one, and the market is being built in the meantime by a small group of funders operating case by case.

As reported by The Financial Express, the practice is not expressly prohibited when undertaken by non-lawyer third parties, and it has drawn judicial approval. The Supreme Court noted in a 2018 judgment that there appeared to be no restriction on non-lawyer funding of litigation, and in 2023 the Delhi High Court described such funding as important for access to justice while flagging the need for transparency and disclosure rules.

The institutional base remains thin. India has only one SEBI-registered alternative investment fund dedicated to legal and litigation finance, 5 Rivers Capital Fund I. Others operate as technology platforms, corporate aggregators or private networks without regulatory oversight.

Pratyush Miglani of ELF Partners told the publication that roughly 70% to 80% of the firm's current mandates are global and unconnected to India, with about 20% India-linked and mostly commercial disputes. He said the firm now receives at least two inquiries a week, rising quarter over quarter. Delhi-based LegalFund said it has committed or deployed capital across more than 100 matters, applying a cap of Rs 5 crore per case and generally targeting claims worth Rs 50 lakh or more in realistic recovery value.

Ila Kapoor of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas argued that statutory recognition on the Singapore or Hong Kong model would settle which proceedings qualify, what must be disclosed, and who is fit to fund.

After-the-event insurers are being told to expect higher premiums, tighter limits and harder underwriting questions on group claims following the costs ruling against Prince Harry and his six co-claimants in their privacy case against Associated Newspapers Limited.

As reported by Insurance Business, ANL claimed £34.5 million in legal costs after winning at trial. Mr Justice Nicklin ordered that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis rather than the standard basis, removing the proportionality test, and awarded an interim payment of £9,544,355. He declined to set any ceiling on the total recoverable sum, even while describing ANL's bill as exceptionally high.

Nick McDonnell, a costs lawyer at Kain Knight, said the ruling could prompt ATE insurers to factor indemnity costs orders more heavily into their underwriting. Rocco Pirozzolo, managing director at Harbour Underwriting, argued the case should push pricing higher across the board, noting that insurers have no control over how litigation is conducted once cover is bound.

Reputation consultant Mark Borkowski said insurers will start asking much harder questions about how costs can escalate if claimants lose, and about how a claimant group is likely to appear to a judge.

The wider point for the funding market is that adverse costs cover has been priced on the assumption that standard-basis assessment will discipline a winning defendant's bill. Where indemnity-basis assessment becomes a live risk in high-profile group claims, the cost of the insurance layer that makes those claims fundable rises with it.

The Federal Court of Australia has approved a A$22.5 million settlement in a class action against two former Commonwealth Bank wealth management units, under which group members will receive A$5.12 million and the lawyers and litigation funder will take the balance.

As reported by Lawyerly, Justice Jonathan Beach approved the settlement in a proceeding the publication described as having been assessed as likely to fail had it gone to trial. Group members' share works out at roughly 23% of the gross settlement sum. Law360 reported that the funder's share of the fund is A$8.3 million.

The claim was run by Shine Lawyers and funded by Woodsford, and was brought on behalf of clients of Commonwealth Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom in connection with life insurance policies issued by CommInsure and AIA Australia. The allegation was that advisers failed to act in clients' best interests, including by not telling them that substantially similar or better cover was available elsewhere.

The approval places another data point in the running Australian debate over what proportion of a settlement fund should reach claimants. Where a case is settled at a discount because of litigation risk, the funder's commission and the solicitors' deferred fees and uplift are calculated against a gross sum that has already been written down, compressing the residual pool.

The outcome will be read closely by courts weighing common fund orders and funder commission in group proceedings, where the distribution split has become as contested as the merits.

Litigation Capital Management has secured another one-month extension of the covenant waiver on its debt facility with Northleaf Capital Partners, moving the expiry from 31 August to 30 September 2026.

As reported by Investegate, the AIM-listed funder told the market that the commercial terms are unchanged from the original waiver. Loan interest remains increased by 2.00% per annum for the duration of the waiver period, and there is no additional one-time waiver fee attached to this extension.

LCM said the extension reflects "Northleaf's ongoing support while LCM works towards a long-term resolution of its capital position." The company added that the Strategic Review first announced on 15 September 2025 "continues to progress," and that it will provide an update on that process in due course.

The announcement is the latest in a rolling series of short extensions that has run since December 2025, with each successive waiver granted for roughly a month at a time. The pattern has become the clearest public marker of where LCM stands with its lender: Northleaf has repeatedly declined to call the covenants, but has also declined to grant relief on anything longer than a monthly horizon.

The sequence has not been uneventful. Earlier extensions were accompanied by warnings of negative developments on case investments and expected material write-downs, and in July the company disclosed that permission to appeal in a competition claim had been rejected.

For a funder whose balance sheet depends on the timing of case resolutions, the repeated one-month cadence leaves the underlying question unresolved: whether the Strategic Review produces new capital, a sale, or a run-off.

Lawfront, the private equity-backed group that has assembled a portfolio of regional UK law firms since 2021, has named former esure Group chief executive Peter Martin-Simon as its new chief executive. He succeeds Neil Lloyd, who is retiring.

As reported by Legal Futures, the appointment comes shortly after a refinancing that nearly doubled the group's available funding, positioning it for a further round of acquisitions. Lawfront now employs roughly 1,500 staff and turns over in the region of £170 million.

The group has been one of the more visible consolidators in the UK legal market, acquiring Brachers, Farleys, Fisher Jones Greenwood, Nelsons, Slater Heelis, Trethowans and Field Seymour Parkes. Its model rests on external capital funding a buy-and-build strategy across established regional practices, with the acquired firms retaining their own brands.

Martin-Simon's background sits in insurance rather than legal services, having led esure Group, and the hire signals an emphasis on operational scale and capital deployment as the group moves into its next phase.

The appointment is relevant to the litigation finance sector less for any direct funding activity than for what it illustrates about the flow of institutional capital into legal services. The consolidation of law firms under private equity ownership sits alongside third-party litigation funding as a route by which outside investors take economic exposure to legal outcomes, and it is drawing comparable regulatory attention. In England and Wales, alternative business structures permit non-lawyer ownership, a position that contrasts sharply with most U.S. jurisdictions, where similar arrangements are typically structured through managed services organisations.

A newly published opinion piece argues that the push to compel disclosure of third-party litigation funding has moved past isolated state experiments and become a coordinated reform effort spanning Congress, statehouses and federal rulemaking.

As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the commentary by Jack Kalavritinos of InsideSources centres on the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026, introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and co-sponsors. The piece frames the federal bill as the anchor of a broader movement rather than a standalone measure.

At the state level, the author points to Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act and to enacted reform legislation in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma, with Ohio and North Carolina added to the list of jurisdictions taking up the issue. The commentary treats that spread as evidence of durable legislative appetite rather than a single-session trend.

The piece also draws on the Washington Health Innovation Council's 2024-25 annual report, which it says documents litigation funders targeting health-care innovators, and notes that Lawyers for Civil Justice has made a joint filing seeking an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform is cited as tracking the momentum.

The author's central objection is that funders are "pouring billions of dollars into lawsuits" without courts, defendants or claimants necessarily knowing who is behind a case, concluding that "justice should not be a financial product." No figures on total industry size are offered.

The commentary reflects the reform side of an ongoing debate in which funders argue that disclosure mandates risk exposing privileged strategy and deterring legitimate access to capital.

Alphabet has agreed to pay £260 million to settle a UK collective action brought on behalf of app developers over Google Play commissions, with £160 million earmarked for the class and £100 million allocated to the funders, insurers and legal team that carried the case. That stakeholder allocation amounts to roughly 38% of the total settlement fund.

As reported by EU Today, the proposed settlement resolves a claim alleging abusive Play Store commissions without any admission of liability by Google. The £160 million class pot is to be distributed to UK-domiciled developers that sold digital content through Play Store-distributed apps between August 2018 and July 2026.

The claim was brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal by competition law professor Barry Rodger of the University of Strathclyde, who instructed Geradin Partners. The case was certified in May 2025 and had originally been valued at more than £1 billion, with the underlying allegation that Google restricted developers' ability to distribute apps outside the Play Store while charging commissions of around 30%. Litigation funding for the proceedings has been provided by Bench Walk Advisors.

The Tribunal has listed a settlement approval hearing for 15 September, at which it will apply the statutory test of whether the agreement is just and reasonable. Represented persons had until 10 September to file written submissions. Approval would avert a trial scheduled to begin on 28 September that was expected to run for ten weeks.

Damien Geradin described the agreement as the largest settlement to date under the UK's opt-out competition regime. Google maintains it has strong defences to the claim.

California lawmakers have passed a pair of bills that would restrict the influence outside capital can exert over litigation, sending both measures to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature. Together they represent one of the most direct state-level attempts yet to regulate the relationship between private investors and the law firms they finance.

As reported by the Edinburg Post, which carried the Los Angeles Times account of the vote, AB 2305, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San José), would bar private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after funding a law firm. The measure targets investor involvement in decisions such as how many clients a firm signs and when a case settles, and it prohibits firms from using investor money for case marketing. Enforcement would sit with the State Bar.

The companion measure, AB 2039 from Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), addresses client solicitation. It would strip the licence of any attorney convicted of felony capping, or of misdemeanor capping where the lawyer acted knowingly and for financial gain, and carries fines of up to $25,000 per violation alongside new whistleblower protections for law firm employees.

Both bills were sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California. Zbur framed the package as a response to reported patterns of attorney misconduct, while Consumer Attorneys president Douglas Saeltzer said the group was "not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability."

Not everyone is satisfied. Jaime Huff of the Civil Justice Association of California withdrew support for AB 2305, describing its enforcement mechanism as toothless: "It's like the mall cop of self-policing." The bills now await the Governor's decision.

The head of personal lines at Ignite Specialty Risk has argued that standard after-the-event indemnity limits are being outgrown by higher-value claims and group actions, and that insurers need to rethink both limits and long-standing exclusions.

As reported by Legal Futures, Kyle Stubbs writes that modest limits and standard policy structures served personal injury and consumer claims adequately for years, but that "as damages, disbursements and adverse costs exposure continue to increase, there are more cases where conventional scheme limits may no longer provide adequate protection." He identifies catastrophic injury, clinical negligence and professional negligence as the areas where the gap is widest.

Group litigation is the second pressure point. Multi-party claims have historically been excluded from many ATE products, an approach Stubbs argues is becoming untenable. "The growth of collective consumer actions and multi-party litigation means these claims are likely to become a far more established part of the legal landscape over the next decade," he writes, suggesting insurers will need to price the risk rather than carve it out.

The piece also points to rising complexity in costs management and regulatory attention on premium fairness and consumer protection, with pressure for premium structures that remain proportionate to the cover provided.

Ignite has expanded its litigation insurance footprint over the past several years, launching capital protection insurance in the US, extending its offering across the EEA and entering the Australian market with a Sydney hire.

Lawyers at Signature Litigation have argued that the UK government's latest consultation on the opt-out collective actions regime must raise the certification bar without loading additional cost and delay onto class representatives.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, partner Becca Hogan, senior associate Tom Crawford and paralegal Nikki Sutton-MacGregor write that businesses facing collective claims can incur significant cost, uncertainty and reputational exposure before the merits are tested, while a low certification threshold leaves claimants exposed to funding expensive claims that ultimately fail.

The Department for Business and Trade consultation proposes a more explicit statutory merits test and closer scrutiny of costs against overall benefits. The authors note one proposal would have the Competition Appeal Tribunal indicate the "reasonableness" of a litigation funder's return at the point of certification. They cite the consultation's reference to claims against Stagecoach South Western Trains, where less than £216,000 reached class members against "more than £10 million" paid to lawyers, funders and other advisers.

On funding, the authors observe that the consultation "appears to give the green light for damages-based agreements," which would go further than the stalled Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Act 2024 by permitting DBAs directly in opt-out proceedings. They argue wider funding options should increase competition, reduce the cost of litigation finance and lift claim volumes, noting that market practice currently suggests a quantum of at least £500 million is needed to attract certain funders.

The consultation closes on 25 September 2026.

Victoria's contingency fee regime is producing court-approved rates that track third-party funder commissions almost precisely, according to the Australia chapter of Chambers' Litigation Funding 2026 guide.

According to the Chambers and Partners practice guide, authored by Jason Geisker, Dirk Luff, Sam Sheridan and Georgina Overend of Claims Funding Australia, the median group costs order rate since the regime began is 24.5%, within a range of 14% to 40%. That figure "closely compared to the 24% median rate for third-party litigation funding commissions" considered by courts across the seven years from the first common fund order in October 2016 through 31 December 2023.

Under the Victorian model, the Supreme Court fixes the percentage payable to the plaintiff law firm early in the proceeding and "may revisit this percentage at a later stage," including at settlement approval. The guide cites *Bogan v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased)* [2022] VSC 201 as authority that fee-sharing with funders is permissible under a group costs order, provided the law firm is not a "mere front" for the funder.

On after-the-event insurance, the authors report that competition "has applied downward pricing pressure, with more flexible options than the historical 20–40% of policy indemnity limits." They point to *i-Prosperity Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Crown Melbourne Ltd* [2025] NSWSC 1525, where the court accepted that an ATE policy carrying an anti-avoidance endorsement provided adequate security for costs.

The guide estimates Australian litigation funding market revenue at A$123.6 million for the 2025–2026 financial year.

The UK Financial Ombudsman Service has ordered litigation lender Novitas Loans to refund all interest and charges and halve a borrower's capital liability after finding the firm funded both parties to the same property dispute without telling either of them.

As reported by the Law Gazette, the complaint concerned former partners litigating against one another over property. Novitas had already lent to one party when it extended a facility to the other, leaving it with access to legally privileged information from both sides. The ombudsman found the arrangement "created a situation where Novitas had two or more competing interests and there was at least the potential that serving one of those interests could damage or harm the other interest."

There was no evidence the lender disclosed the dual funding to either client, no conflict management procedures, and no separate case officers assigned to each borrower. The ombudsman also found the pre-loan checks neither reasonable nor proportionate: Novitas asked only whether the applicant was a UK resident, checked for county court judgments or insolvency proceedings, and confirmed he owned a property that could be sold to repay the loan.

The borrower earned approximately £10,000 a year and already owed £240,000 when Novitas approved a £60,000 facility at 18% annual interest, later extended by a further £30,000. His former partner received approximately £50,000. The ombudsman described the arrangements as unfair, citing a "significant inequality of knowledge and understanding," and capped the borrower's total liability at roughly £36,000.

Novitas ceased accepting new clients in December 2021, and parent Close Brothers subsequently moved to write off around £90 million tied to unsuccessful funded cases.

Boston private equity firm Charlesbank Capital Partners is in advanced talks to take a stake in insurance defence firm Wood Smith Henning & Berman through a management services organisation, in a transaction that would rank as the largest private equity investment in a US law firm to date.

As reported by Above the Law, the deal values the firm at roughly $700 million, equivalent to about 18 times its adjusted EBITDA of $38.2 million. WSHB posted revenue of $244 million last year and operates more than 500 lawyers across 43 offices in 35 states and London. Charlesbank manages approximately $22 billion and traces its origins to managing Harvard's endowment. The parties have signed a letter of intent, with a definitive agreement expected in the coming weeks.

The structure is the mechanism that makes the investment possible. Rather than acquiring the law firm itself, Charlesbank would take a stake in a separate entity holding WSHB's back office, billing and technology operations, which then supplies those services to the attorney-owned practice for a fee. That split allows outside capital to participate in law firm economics without triggering the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership that applies in most US states.

LawFuel reported the talks on 20 August, framing the transaction as a test of the ownership rules that have kept institutional capital at the perimeter of the US legal market.

The deal follows a wave of MSO formation involving private equity and litigation funders in the personal injury sector, and arrives as several states move to restrict such arrangements.

Crestline Investors has closed its European Capital Solutions Fund II at $625 million in commitments, roughly 75% larger than its predecessor vehicle, with litigation finance named among the alternative asset classes the strategy is built to underwrite.

As reported by Pulse 2.0, the fund provides capital across the structure — from senior secured debt through to structured equity — for asset-backed and lower-middle-market businesses in Northern and Western Europe. Alongside conventional collateral, Crestline points to what it describes as less traditional assets including music royalties and litigation finance.

Roughly 35% of the fund had already been committed as of the second quarter of 2026. Limited partners include public and private pension plans, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.

Crestline has been deploying the strategy since 2015, completing approximately $2 billion across 45 European transactions. The firm manages around $18 billion in credit assets and operates as part of Rithm Capital.

Michael Guy, executive managing director and head of European credit, said the "European lower-middle-market continues to face a significant funding gap requiring creativity, speed and asset-level expertise." Keith Williams, executive managing director and chief investment officer, added that Crestline has "built relationships and proprietary sourcing networks, accessing bilateral opportunities difficult to replicate."

Crestline is a familiar name in the funding market, having provided a £20 million facility to UK funder Apex Litigation Finance in 2023. The latest close signals continued appetite among private credit managers to treat legal claims as one collateral type within a broader specialty lending mandate rather than as a standalone strategy.

Amazon has revised its Conditions of Use to require consumers pursuing mass arbitration claims to disclose whether third-party litigation funders are backing them. The updated terms, effective 15 August 2026, oblige claimants to identify any relationship with a funder, produce copies of funding agreements, and reveal any financial interest in the claim that has been assigned or transferred to a third party.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the move places Amazon alongside Uber, which has adopted comparable disclosure requirements as it faces thousands of passenger sexual assault claims. The provisions arrive as mass arbitration has become a significant pressure point for large consumer-facing companies.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company "continually update[s] our Conditions of Use to better serve our customers," adding that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."

The industry response was sceptical. Dai Wai Chin Feman, U.S. chapter chair of the International Legal Finance Association, described the requirement as "one of many new tactics in Amazon's arbitration terms that would face serious enforceability challenges if ever tested." He also questioned its practical significance, noting that individual consumer claims are generally too small to attract third-party funding in the first place.

Amazon removed a similar arbitration clause in 2021 following a wave of Alexa privacy challenges. Since then it has faced class actions over allegedly unsafe products sold on its platform and over its Prime cancellation practices.

Omni Bridgeway has reported a sharply lower bottom line for FY26, with net profit after tax falling 89% to A$45.9 million even as statutory revenue rose 57% to A$106.5 million. Total income declined 72% to A$182.2 million, and profit attributable to members fell 85% to A$53.7 million. The funder declared no final dividend for the year.

As reported by The Motley Fool Australia, the steep percentage declines largely reflect a high comparison base rather than a deterioration in the underlying business. FY25 income was inflated by a substantial one-off benefit tied to the Fund 9 transaction, which does not recur in FY26.

Beneath the headline figures, several operating metrics moved in the funder's favour. Omni Bridgeway recorded cash investment proceeds of A$350.5 million excluding secondary market activity, up 49% year on year, alongside A$564.4 million in newly added fair value. Employee expenses fell 16% as the group operated with a smaller headcount and reduced corporate overheads.

The company also pointed to record new commitments of A$712.2 million and a portfolio of more than 300 active litigation investments. Its late-July fourth-quarter update flagged an A$407.8 million pipeline spanning 43 exclusive term sheets.

Balance sheet measures were mixed. Net assets per share slipped to A$2.96 from A$2.99 a year earlier, while net tangible assets per share improved to A$2.08 from A$1.94.

The result caps a difficult stretch for the ASX-listed funder, whose shares have declined roughly 10% over the past 12 months against a rising benchmark index.

A commentary piece argues that the momentum behind third-party litigation funding disclosure laws has come from broad business coalitions rather than any single industry, pointing to Ohio as the template other states are now following.

As reported by AMAC, the article traces a run of state legislation beginning with Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, which requires outside financiers to register with state regulators, bars them from influencing litigation strategy and prohibits foreign funding. Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma each enacted their own versions, with Ohio and North Carolina subsequently added to the list.

Ohio State Representative Meredith Craig, a co-sponsor of House Bill 105, told the author that the coalition behind the measure mattered more than anything else. "We ultimately had every major business group supporting the legislation, from the Ohio Farm Bureau to the Ohio State Medical Association," she said. "That broad coalition showed this wasn't about helping one particular industry; it was about protecting Ohioans and the integrity of our courts." On the bill's bipartisan path, she added that members on both sides "agreed that it was time to defend our constituents and our businesses."

The piece frames the federal picture as moving in parallel, citing the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsors, which would require disclosure of funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside a joint filing by the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice seeking amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to create a uniform national disclosure standard.

Writing from the perspective of the Washington Health Innovation Council, the author focuses on medical device and biopharmaceutical companies, arguing that plaintiff recruitment advertising invoking the FDA name and logo can imply regulatory action that has not occurred, and that resources diverted to funded litigation lengthen development timelines.