FairPlay Legal has stopped funding Dutch gambling-loss claims and is terminating its existing files after the Hoge Raad, the Netherlands' Supreme Court, ruled that the absence of a Dutch licence does not by itself render an online operator's contracts void.

As reported by Casino Zorgplicht, the Court held in its 3 July 2026 judgment that the Wet op de kansspelen, the Dutch gaming act, never had the effect of invalidating contracts with operators acting contrary to article 1(1)(a). That conclusion removes the central legal theory underpinning thousands of claims seeking recovery of losses incurred with unlicensed offshore operators. The ruling followed preliminary questions referred in June 2024 by the district courts of Amsterdam and North Holland, and was consistent with the advisory opinion delivered by Advocate General Lindenbergh in November 2025.

FairPlay Legal withdrew financing immediately, telling the publication that the claims no longer offer "legal and commercial perspective." The funder, which worked exclusively with advocaat Pepijn Le Heux on the portfolio, said it will continue to pursue a separate category of cases in which operators refuse to pay out winnings. It has no connection to Fair Play Casino.

The decision illustrates how quickly a consumer-claims portfolio built on a single statutory argument can be wound down once an apex court closes the theory. Dutch gambling-loss claims had attracted significant funded volume over the past three years, and the ruling effectively strands files that had not yet reached judgment or settlement.

Linklaters has called for a new standalone hurdle at the certification stage of UK antitrust collective proceedings, arguing that claims should advance only where their expected financial benefits substantially outweigh the costs of bringing them.

As reported by PYMNTS, citing Law.com International, the firm submitted the proposal to the Department for Business and Trade's consultation on "Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement," published in July with responses due 25 September. Linklaters argued that the Competition Appeal Tribunal should apply heightened scrutiny to novel or unestablished theories of harm, and framed its concerns around litigation costs, third-party funding structures and the proportion of any award that ultimately reaches class members.

The submission enters a debate that has intensified since the Supreme Court's decision in Merricks, widely read as lowering the certification threshold and opening the door to a substantial pipeline of opt-out claims. Critics of the regime point to outcomes such as Waterside v Mowi, where the distribution of recoveries between class members, their lawyers and their funders drew judicial attention.

The proposal sits in direct tension with submissions from the claimant and funding side, including the International Legal Finance Association's call for the government to clarify rather than rebuild the opt-out regime. With the consultation window now closed, attention shifts to whether the Department for Business and Trade treats funder economics as a certification question or leaves it to the Tribunal's existing discretion.

Pogust Goodhead will abandon the name it has traded under since 2021 after both of its namesake founders publicly demanded their names be stripped from the firm, deepening a governance crisis at one of the most heavily funded claimant firms in the UK market.

As reported by Legal Futures, Harris Pogust announced via LinkedIn that he had issued a cease-and-desist demanding the firm stop using his name, saying he was "embarrassed to have my name anywhere on that document" in reference to proceedings the firm has brought against its own client committee. "You are suing someone you are asking the court to allow you to continue to represent?" he wrote. Co-founder Tom Goodhead followed with a similar demand days later.

A firm spokeswoman confirmed the change: "We intend to move away from the Pogust Goodhead name. The firm has moved on from its former leadership and its name should too." The rebrand will be the practice's fourth identity since 2018, following SPG Law and PGMBM.

The dispute centres on the £36 billion Mariana Dam claim against BHP, brought on behalf of more than 400,000 Brazilian claimants. Pogust Goodhead has filed a claim against its own client committee after the committee moved to replace it with Bailey Glasser International. An expedited hearing is expected.

For funders, the episode is a reminder that concentration risk in mass-claims portfolios extends beyond case merits to the stability of the firm running the book.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has partially certified a revived consumer claim against Apple and Amazon, but conditioned certification on changes to the proposed class representative's funding arrangements and remuneration — the second time funding terms have been the pivotal issue in this proceeding.

As reported by the Cyprus Mail, Judge Kelyn Bacon found the claim concerning Apple product sales on Amazon's UK marketplace to be "plausible, credible and grounded in the facts," while refusing to certify broader allegations relating to other retailers as resting on a "complex and speculative theory of harm." The certified claim is valued at between £289 million and £306 million including interest. Tribunal records list the case as 1759/7/7/25, brought by JLP A&A Class Representative Limited, with Justin Le Patourel as the proposed class representative.

Funding has shaped this litigation from the outset. In January 2025, the Tribunal refused a collective proceedings order sought by academic Christine Riefa, finding she was insufficiently independent of her funder, Asertis, given an uncapped success-fee multiple, a priority-payment obligation and confidentiality over the funding terms. Interim costs of £1,695,797.16 were awarded, with a further £1,355,347.77 in interest.

The latest ruling signals that the Tribunal remains willing to certify substantial opt-out claims while treating funder economics and class representative compensation as conditions precedent rather than post-certification housekeeping. The claimant side will now need to redraft its funding terms before the proceedings advance.

Burford Capital has told the market it could be entitled to as much as $1.4 billion following a San Diego federal jury's award of roughly $5.7 billion to Taction Technology in a patent dispute with Apple. The verdict, returned after market close on Friday, is among the largest patent damages awards ever entered against the technology company.

As reported by PR Newswire, Burford said that if the award were paid as rendered, its entitlement would be approximately $1.4 billion, split roughly evenly between its balance sheet and its investment funds. The funder attached unusually heavy caveats to that figure, noting that Apple is expected to file post-trial motions including a motion for judgment as a matter of law, that any judgment would be subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that "very few large patent verdicts survive the post-verdict process intact." Burford cautioned that the ultimate recovery could be substantially lower than the verdict amount, or nothing at all.

Burford's shares rose approximately 9% in London trading following the disclosure, which was also filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to a Form 8-K.

The announcement arrives roughly six months after the Second Circuit's reversal in the YPF matter, where Burford had reported a far larger potential entitlement tied to a $16 billion judgment against Argentina. That reversal underscored the volatility of concentrated, single-case exposures — a dynamic Burford's own caveats appear designed to pre-empt this time.

The Second Circuit has upheld a $4.8 million attorneys' fee award in a sex trafficking case, endorsing a district court's decision to strike time counsel spent communicating with its litigation funder.

In Moore v. Rubin, decided on September 4, a panel of Chief Judge Lohier and Judges Parker and Chin affirmed the award to six plaintiffs who won a $3.85 million jury verdict against former bond trader Howard Rubin under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In rejecting the argument that too many timekeepers had been compensated, the panel noted approvingly that the district court had applied a 15% across-the-board reduction and excluded non-compensable tasks, "such as communications with counsel's litigation funder."

The more consequential ruling for funders came below. In February 2025, Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York refused to shift roughly $1.84 million in principal and interest owed to a third-party funder, reasoning that how a lawyer finances a practice is irrelevant to the client and the defendant alike. "Whether it is a bank loan, family loan, personal assets, or a litigation funder," he wrote, "it is overhead."

Judge Cogan also declined to follow the English decision in Essar Oilfield Services v. Norscot Rig Management, which allowed recovery of funding costs, observing that neither the statute nor the local rule hints at such recovery.

The funding cost denial was not before the appellate panel, as Rubin appealed only the fee award. The funder, Pravati Investment Fund IV, later sought unsuccessfully to intervene to protect its interest in the fees after the plaintiffs' firm dissolved.

Litigation funder Legalist has asked a federal court in Manhattan to confirm an arbitration award against a claimant it financed, in a rare public dispute between a funder and the plaintiff whose case it paid for.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Legalist filed its petition on September 8 in the Southern District of New York, seeking to confirm a partial final award of $108,718.45 against Mario Rinaldi. The award, issued on May 18 by JAMS arbitrator the Hon. Elaine Rushing (Ret.), consists of $105,218.45 in attorneys' fees and $3,500 in arbitration costs.

The funding agreement dates to June 2018 and financed Rinaldi's suit against two French champagne producers, which he brought after working to build their brand in New York. A jury returned a $1.5 million verdict in his favor in March 2022, and final judgment with prejudgment interest was entered that December at $2,318,506.85. That judgment has not been collected. Rinaldi told Bloomberg Law he is still pursuing the money with his own resources, having retained French counsel to enforce it abroad.

Legalist alleges in its filing that Rinaldi breached the funding agreement by refusing to cooperate in collection efforts, including by declining to permit communication with his French counsel. According to the memorandum, Rinaldi did not appear in the arbitration at any stage, and has not moved to vacate or modify the award.

The arbitration was held open for Legalist to pursue further relief, indicating the $108,718.45 may not represent the full extent of its claim. No response from Rinaldi appears in the most recent public docket entries.

Sorren, a private equity-backed accounting and advisory group, has launched an affiliated US law firm under a management services structure — the latest sign of outside capital moving toward legal services through arrangements that sit outside direct law firm ownership.

As reported by Lawyer Monthly, Sorren Law has been established from Mansfield & Mayo, an existing law firm operating in Nevada and Idaho. The practice covers corporate and business law, mergers and acquisitions, commercial transactions, estate planning, asset protection, tax planning, and litigation and dispute resolution. It is led by attorneys Patrick Mansfield and Massey Mayo.

The structure separates the regulated practice from its commercial infrastructure. Sorren Law is a separately regulated, lawyer-owned law firm, while Sorren Legal Support operates as a management services organisation subsidiary providing administrative and operational support under a management-services agreement. "Sorren and lawyers at Sorren Law are co-invested in the management-services organisation," chief executive Josh Tyree said.

Sorren itself was formed in 2025 through the combination of 13 accounting firms and now employs more than 1,000 people. It is backed by private equity firm DFW Capital Partners, although that investment relationship does not extend to the legal practice.

The launch illustrates how the MSO model is being used to route outside capital toward legal work while preserving lawyer ownership of the firm itself. That same structure is now drawing legislative attention in California, Illinois and Colorado, where lawmakers have moved to restrict the influence outside investors can exert over case decisions.

Days after Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2305, California's leading civil justice reform group has dismissed the new law as effectively unenforceable — while noting that third-party litigation funding itself remains untouched by it.

As reported by The Center Square, the Civil Justice Association of California said the measure, signed on September 20, will change little in practice. "Unfortunately, this bill is a paper tiger," the group said. "Its weak enforcement mechanism will do little to deter bad actors or prevent outside investors from influencing lawsuits."

CJAC's central objection is the enforcement channel. "Putting the State Bar in charge of policing this conduct is like asking mall cops to take down organized crime," the group said, adding that "the bad conduct is likely to continue. Billboard lawyers and their hidden financial backers will keep gaming our courts, while victims, taxpayers and employers pay the price."

AB 2305 bars private equity firms, hedge funds and corporate legal funders from interfering with an attorney's professional judgment in client representation, court proceedings, trials or settlement negotiations. It carries statutory damages of $10,000 per violation against both the lawyer and the investor, or three times actual damages, whichever is greater.

Critically for the funding industry, the law leaves third-party litigation finance in place. Firms may continue securing loans from equity groups and investors to fund lawsuits, though those funds cannot be used for advertising or recruiting clients. Alternative business structures and management services organizations may still handle general business operations and back-office management.

A new empirical review of third-party funding disclosure disputes in the federal courts concludes that judges are already applying case-specific standards, and that no court has ever imposed the blanket disclosure regime now under consideration by federal rulemakers.

As reported by The National Law Review, the analysis, authored by Dai Wai Chin Feman for the International Legal Finance Association, examined more than 475 actions involving confirmed funding, suspected funding or contested disclosure motions. From that pool the study identified 163 court orders resolving disclosure motions, drawn from 153 distinct cases.

The headline finding is that courts denied 89 of those motions and granted some form of disclosure in 74. Only 19 orders — 12% of the total — resulted in production of a funding agreement to an opposing party.

Disclosure grants cluster heavily in two practice areas. Intellectual property cases account for 33 of the 74 grants, or 45%, while intellectual property and personal injury/tort matters together account for 48, or 65%.

The study lands in the middle of the pending proposal from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice to amend Rule 26(a)(1)(A) so that funding agreements are produced automatically in every civil case absent entry of a protective order. The authors argue the data undercuts that approach, concluding that "no court has ever ordered what ILR and LCJ's proposed rule would make automatic," and favouring a case-specific alternative instead.

A new opinion piece argues that legal system abuse, including the rapid expansion of third-party litigation funding, is an overlooked driver of household costs, and calls for federal transparency measures targeting outside investors in litigation.

As reported by the Washington Reporter, Jenn Pellegrino, founder of Defend Forgotten America Action, writes that staged crashes, billboard advertising that omits how attorneys' fees, litigation funders and medical liens consume settlements, and unnecessary medical treatment combine to push costs onto businesses, insurers and ultimately consumers through higher prices and suppressed wages. She argues small businesses absorb the effects most acutely.

Pellegrino singles out third-party litigation funding as "one particularly troubling trend," pointing to the involvement of outside investors, including foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds, and the limited visibility courts and defendants have into who is financing a suit, what influence investors hold, and how recoveries are divided. The civil justice system, she writes, "should not become another financial marketplace where investors place bets on the outcome of lawsuits."

The piece points to state-level disclosure reforms already enacted and to two federal proposals. The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act would require disclosure of foreign litigation funding and bar foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. The Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act would impose a higher tax rate on profits earned by outside investors in litigation.

The op-ed reflects a broader effort by funding critics to recast disclosure legislation as consumer economics rather than a narrow procedural debate.

Third-party litigation funding in India remains small but is attracting institutional capital, with domestic and foreign funders building portfolios in a market that still has no central statute, regulator or disclosure requirement.

As reported by Business Standard, active participants include Five Rivers, LegalPay and Singapore-based ELF Partners, while the government examines whether litigation funding can be deployed for insolvency-related claims. The economics are familiar: a claimant with a ₹100 crore claim that would cost ₹5 crore to pursue can transfer that cost to a funder on a non-recourse basis, repaying only from recoveries.

The legal foundation rests on case law rather than legislation. Sameer Jain, managing partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors, noted that the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Bar Council of India v A.K. Balaji held that lawyers cannot fund their own clients but did not bar anyone else, while Maharashtra, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh amended the Code of Civil Procedure to recognise financiers. In Tomorrow Sales Agency v SBS Holdings, the Delhi High Court declined to treat a funder as a party to arbitration and held that an award could not be enforced against a non-party funder, while stressing that funding should be transparent and not exploitative.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs' Insolvency Law Committee likewise found no legal bar. Neeha Nagpal, founding partner at NM Law Chambers, described the market as unregulated by statute but governed by contract and precedent, and pointed to voluntary self-regulation through industry bodies as an interim step toward a balanced regime.

The share of UK law firms willing to consider outside investment has climbed sharply, according to NatWest's annual legal sector report, with 40% now saying they would actively explore some form of third-party capital.

As reported by Legal Futures, the report analysed 112 law firms with turnover between £1 million and £250 million and a median of £23 million. The 40% figure is up from 29% two years ago. Firms cited growth plans most often, followed by succession management, technology investment and what the report described as opportunistic windfall realisation.

Competition from private equity-backed firms is a growing pressure point. A third of respondents named competition for talent as the most significant challenge posed by PE-backed rivals, while 24% pointed to increased business investment costs. The report, authored by Andrew Allen, partner and head of PKF Francis Clark's national legal sector team, found firms are "pushed to accelerate investment in infrastructure… to compete with externally funded firms which often have the budgets to invest quickly and boldly," while externally funded firms "are seeking to rapidly gain market share which in turn places pressures on work pricing."

Interest on client money has become a meaningful earnings line, at a median 3.7% of earned income and 14% of profit per equity partner, down from 5.6% and 21% respectively. On Ministry of Justice proposals to divert that interest, 29% predicted legal price inflation and 11% forecast firm failures. Allen warned removal would drive significant fee inflation and "most probably the demise of notable volumes of law firms."

Omni Bridgeway has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to reject Albania's bid to vacate a roughly $15 million default judgment enforcing an arbitral award, setting up a ruling on whether the Albanian state was ever properly served.

As reported by Kapitali, a U.S. court confirmed the award in Omni Bridgeway's favour in March 2026 as successor to the rights of GBC Oil, clearing the funder to pursue Albanian state assets abroad. In August, state-owned Albpetrol, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy and the National Agency of Natural Resources moved to annul the attachment order, arguing that Omni Bridgeway had incorrectly represented that service formalities were complete. Albania contends that documents mailed to its Ministry of Justice in July 2023 were never formally served.

In its opposition, Omni Bridgeway argues that Albanian institutions received repeated notices, ignored them, and waited an unreasonable 18 months before appearing. The funder asks the court to preserve the judgment, refuse any vacatur or stay, and continue attachment of Albanian accounts and assets worldwide. Judge Loren L. AliKhan will decide whether service was valid.

The dispute traces to 2017, when Albpetrol repossessed four oil fields held by GBC Oil. A Zurich arbitral tribunal rejected most of GBC's claims in July 2020 but awarded $12.7 million in rent compensation, against $40 million GBC owed the state. GBC signed a funding agreement with IMF Bentham in 2018, later acquired by Omni Bridgeway, which funded $3.6 million in costs. Albania, positioned to net $27 million, now faces a roughly $15 million payout instead.

Perpetual Limited has increased its holding in litigation funder Omni Bridgeway to 15.403%, according to a substantial holding notice lodged with the ASX, consolidating its position as one of the funder's largest institutional shareholders.

As reported by Kalkine Media, the Form 604 shows Perpetual and its related bodies corporate now control 44,613,540 ordinary shares carrying 15.403% of voting power in Omni Bridgeway, up from 41,291,970 shares and 14.256% at the time of the previous notice in April 2026. The change in relevant interest was recorded on September 18, and company secretary Sylvie Dimarco signed the notice on September 22.

The annexure to the filing sets out a two-stage pattern of trading by Perpetual Investment Management Limited between June 12 and September 18. Perpetual was a net seller through June and July, with disposals executed via custodians Citicorp Nominees and HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia). From late July onward the direction reversed, with purchases recorded on multiple dates including August 27 and 28 and across September 15 to 18, executed through both custodians.

The accumulation comes during a period of pronounced volatility for the ASX-listed funder. Omni Bridgeway reported record FY26 commitments and investment proceeds alongside a 89% fall in net profit, and was recently dropped from the S&P Global BMI index. A sizeable institutional shareholder adding to its position against that backdrop is a notable signal for a sector where public-market sentiment has lagged operational performance.

Omni Bridgeway has not commented on the change in Perpetual's holding.

A funded class action filed against Macquarie Investment Management over the collapse of the Shield Master Fund is drawing criticism from within the Australian advice industry, with questions being raised over whether litigation funding is the right route for investors who have already been partially compensated.

As reported by ifa, the action was served on September 17 on behalf of Rachelle Dessent and roughly 2,800 account holders who lost superannuation in the Shield collapse. Gordon Legal, which is running the case, alleges investors have not been fully compensated despite the $321 million Macquarie paid out last year covering total amounts invested, after the firm admitted failures related to Shield. The claim seeks the growth those savings might have achieved had they remained invested elsewhere, together with damages for distress. Netwealth was served with draft documents for a separate potential class action on September 21.

Central to the criticism is the cost of the funded route. Save Our Super advocate Melinda Kee, who told ifa that Gordon Legal approached her last year and that she "wasn't interested," pointed to the firm's own disclosure that the litigation funder is entitled to between 20% and 25% of any settlement fund if the action succeeds, with legal costs also payable from the group's award subject to court approval.

Kee argued that pursuing claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is free and delivers compensation directly to investors. With average losses around $120,000, and lower for many Macquarie and Netwealth investors following the return of capital, she suggested many residual claims could fall within the $150,000 CSLR cap.

The case turns in part on so-called "but for" losses. Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino recently confirmed that only actual losses will be compensated through the CSLR from July 1, 2027.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that former clients have no mechanism under the Solicitors Act to compel their solicitors to reveal commissions earned on after-the-event insurance, even while criticising firms that refuse to answer the question as behaving unwisely.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the judgment in Turner v Coupland Cavendish upheld a challenge brought by the solicitors and found there is no route through a Part 18 request for further information to force disclosure in a Solicitors Act costs assessment. Lady Justice Andrews, giving the lead judgment, said there was no "shortcut" for former clients seeking information about secret commissions on ATE premiums.

Andrews nonetheless made clear her discomfort with the position. As a fiduciary, she said, a solicitor ought to tell a client about any commission if asked, and where a firm refuses there appears to be no easy or cost-effective remedy. She described the solicitors' conduct as "unattractive," "unwise" and "unedifying," and acknowledged the unfairness of requiring a client to produce evidence that a commission was paid in order to obtain the evidence needed to prove it, when that evidence sits with the solicitor. She stopped short of proposing a fix, flagging it instead for those able to change the rules or the law.

The sums at stake in the underlying matter were modest. The ATE premium on the original personal injury claim was £245, with any commission likely to be no more than £25. Andrews observed that the principal beneficiaries of a successful challenge would be those who have built an industry out of challenging solicitors' costs. The claim was led by Leeds firm JG Solicitors.

At first instance, Costs Judge Rowley refused the Part 18 request. Mr Justice Sweeting reversed that decision in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has now restored the original position.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 2305 into law, enacting restrictions on the influence private equity firms, hedge funds and other outside investors can exert over the legal decisions of California law firms. The bill was signed on September 20 and applies to covered contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027.

As reported by JD Journal, the measure, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, adds new provisions to California's Business and Professions Code aimed at protecting the independent professional judgment of attorneys. It bars outside capital providers from directing decisions on client selection, the scope of legal work, fees, case strategy, settlement, case funding, and the selection and supervision of lawyers.

Importantly for the litigation finance industry, AB 2305 does not prohibit outside investment or litigation funding outright. The law continues to permit certain nonrecourse litigation finance arrangements, provided they specify a payment amount or maximum payment and observe statutory limits on investment return. It also draws a distinction between funding tied to existing matters and capital deployed to source future cases.

Enforcement runs through both professional discipline and private litigation. Attorneys may face State Bar discipline, while clients may recover the greater of $10,000 per violation or three times their actual damages, along with attorney fees and costs. A violation does not constitute a crime.

California now joins Illinois and Colorado in legislating limits on outside influence over law firms. Trisha Rich of Holland & Knight noted that existing professional conduct rules already restrict outside influence, and that comparable measures in Illinois and Colorado have not materially disrupted management services organization arrangements. Firms and funders have until the start of 2027 to review financing agreements and MSO structures against the new standard.

ARAG has reported total UK income of £244 million for the 2025 financial year, its first set of results to include the former DAS UK business, though the cost of absorbing that acquisition kept the legal expenses insurer at a pre-tax loss.

As reported by Legal Futures, ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company recorded income of £216.7 million, up more than 50% on the £141.4 million DAS reported a year earlier following the integration of the ARAG plc business. Growth was driven in particular by the strength of ARAG's before-the-event portfolio, with commercial products singled out.

ARAG LEI posted a pre-tax loss of £4.1 million, narrowed from a £5.5 million loss in 2024. The company attributed the shortfall mainly to the continuing cost of integrating the former DAS UK operations and consolidating the businesses under one roof at Trinity Quay in central Bristol. The UK consolidated businesses, which include ARAG plc and ARAG Law, contributed £8.9 million net of reinsurance to the international ARAG Group.

ARAG SE acquired DAS UK in 2024. The combined UK operation now insures more than 10 million families and roughly two million businesses against unforeseen legal costs, and recently launched its Insuring Justice social impact report at the House of Commons.

ARAG UK chief executive David Haynes said the business now contributes more than €250 million in income to the international group, "making the UK business ARAG's most significant operation outside Germany." He said the company was continuing its strong performance into 2026. In May, the international ARAG Group reported income of €3.2 billion, ahead of the target it had set for 2030.

Four states have put new third-party litigation funding restrictions on the books this year, and the trucking industry that lobbied for several of them is already pressing for more.

As reported by Transport Topics, North Carolina went furthest. Governor Josh Stein signed the Prohibit Litigation Investments Act in June, making it illegal to provide litigation investments to a party or attorney in a civil action in the state. The ban took effect June 22 and applies to proceedings filed on or after that date, as well as to contracts entered into, renewed or amended afterward. Violations carry fines of up to $50,000 per offense, enforced by the attorney general.

Ohio's House Bill 105, signed by Governor Mike DeWine on July 7, takes effect October 6. It bars foreign governments, corporations and investors from participating in third-party litigation financing, prohibits funders from directing legal strategy or selecting counsel, and blocks plaintiffs and attorneys from sharing sealed or protected material with commercial funders. Funding agreements must disclose the amount advanced, the fees charged, how those fees accrue and the maximum a consumer could owe, and attorneys must provide agreements to the attorney general within 14 days of resolution.

Illinois House Bill 5487, signed August 7 and effective immediately, prohibits investors including private equity firms and hedge funds from interfering with the attorney-client relationship or controlling client records, and restricts fees tied to law firm revenue or profits. Mississippi's Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act took effect July 7, requiring funders to disclose to the attorney general the identity and country of incorporation of foreign entities with access to proprietary information.

Ohio Trucking Association president Tom Balzer called the legislation "a good step forward" and said further reforms are planned.

Novarex Capital Partners has closed a second financing round of £16 million, more than tripling the size of its opening £5 million raise and bringing total capital generated across the programme to £21 million.

As reported by Pulse 2.0, the London-based platform completed the round on terms providing investors a stated return of 20%. A further round is already planned, structured around a stated return of 16.5%, though Novarex has not disclosed its timing or terms. The firm also declined to name the participants in the £16 million round or detail its contractual structure.

The capital supports the working capital requirements of an unnamed law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that prepares eligible legal claims. Novarex said the underlying firm operates within applicable SRA standards, maintains professional indemnity insurance, and handles client money and case processes inside the regulatory framework. The firm has a pipeline of contracted work and focuses on claims meeting established eligibility criteria.

Novarex describes itself as a specialist introduction platform covering private credit, litigation finance and structured capital, connecting sophisticated investors with private-market opportunities built around defined transaction parameters. It closed its initial £5 million round in August.

The structure is a familiar one in the UK consumer claims market, where law firms preparing high volumes of cases face significant upfront costs long before any recovery arrives, and where outside capital has increasingly filled the working capital gap. It is also the model drawing regulatory attention, with the SRA consulting on new rules governing solicitors' involvement in litigation funding arrangements following a series of claims firm failures.

Thomas Goodhead, forced out of the firm he co-founded a year ago, is returning to the Mariana Dam litigation at the head of the rival practice now claiming to be lead solicitors on the case.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, Goodhead will lead the claim at Bailey Glasser International alongside former Pogust Goodhead partners Jeremy Evans, Faranak Ghajavand and Guy Robson. Senior barristers instructed since the start of the trial, including Alain Choo Choy KC and Andrew Fulton KC, continue on the case. BGI said more than 15 lawyers with experience on the matter are moving across, and has brought in Hausfeld as co-counsel.

BGI is a trading name of Edward McCourt & Co, a City firm operating under a commercial cooperation agreement with US practice Bailey & Glasser. Edward McCourt & Co has been owned since February by Evans, previously a senior partner at Pogust Goodhead. Goodhead himself was briefly a director of the firm last November.

The dispute sits on top of a funding fight. Goodhead has said his removal followed his refusal to accept a settlement he considered to have vastly undervalued the claim, a settlement he says Pogust Goodhead's funder Gramercy pressed him to take. Pogust Goodhead accused him of improperly using investment capital intended for the litigation on personal spending, allegations he denies, describing his removal as a "boardroom coup."

Pogust Goodhead disputes that BGI is on the record and has warned that changing advisers could put claimants' costs protection at risk. Chief executive Alicia Alinia said the firm is "deeply concerned about the potential consequences for our clients." An expedited hearing next month will decide which firm represents the claimants, with the quantum trial listed for April 2027.

Responses to the Solicitors Regulation Authority's consultation on third-party litigation funding have exposed a gap between those who want the regulator to go further and those who want it to go no further than the risks it has actually identified.

As reported by Credit Connect, the Finance & Leasing Association welcomed the SRA's proposals to strengthen consumer protections around funded claims, but argued that a solicitor-focused rulebook cannot address market-wide risk on its own. The FLA called on the Government to extend Financial Conduct Authority regulation to commercial litigation funders, introduce anti-money laundering oversight, and impose stronger transparency requirements. It also pressed for better coordination between the SRA, the FCA, the Information Commissioner's Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The Law Society took the opposite position. As reported by Solicitors Journal, the Society urged the SRA to make fuller use of its existing powers and guidance before layering new obligations onto solicitors, and cautioned against assuming that every consumer claim requires additional regulatory involvement.

Law Society president Mark Evans said the organisation supports the SRA's transparency and consumer protection objectives, but that "any new requirements must target genuine risks rather than create unnecessary burden." He added that litigation funding "can be a vital route to justice for consumers who could not otherwise afford to pursue a claim, but additional regulation must be in-line with the risks identified."

Both responses point back to the collapse of SSB Group, the high-volume claims firm whose failure left funded consumers exposed and which has driven much of the SRA's recent work in this area. Evans acknowledged that the collapse underlined the need for effective safeguards, while warning that a one-size-fits-all approach risks making it harder, not easier, for individuals to bring claims.

Siltstone Capital has released the full programme for the first European edition of LITFINCON, which opens in Amsterdam on 7 October with eleven panels and a speaker roster drawn from funders, brokers, insurers and the plaintiff bar.

As reported by PR Newswire, the two-day conference runs 7 and 8 October at the Rosewood Amsterdam, the former Palace of Justice on the Herengracht, with VIP programming including a dinner and canal cruise the evening before. This is the seventh LITFINCON edition and the first held in Europe, following events in Houston, Beverly Hills and Singapore that have drawn more than a thousand attendees between them.

The theme is "The Claim Is the Asset: IP, Arbitration, Class Actions & the Investors Who Know It." Confirmed speakers include Philipp Leibfried, Managing Director and Head of Europe at Burford Capital; Neil Purslow, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Therium Capital Advisors; Max Tribble of Susman Godfrey; Dan Kesack of WTW; Nick Moore of CAC Specialty; Jamie Molloy of Ignite Specialty Risk; Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Capital; and Till Schreiber of Cartel Damage Claims.

Panels cover pricing in European collective actions, enforcement of arbitration awards, Unified Patent Court strategy, artificial intelligence in litigation finance, insurance structures for legal assets, and the divergent regulatory positions taking shape in the UK, EU and United States. The programme closes with a 75-minute unscripted session billed as "Candid Conversations."

Jim Batson, Chief Investment Officer of Legal Finance at Siltstone Capital, said: "Every deal in this industry starts with a conversation between people who trust each other."

Austrian funder Padronus is financing three new German collective redress actions against Netflix, Apple TV and WOW, structuring its return just below the statutory ceiling that governs funder participation in the country's collective redress regime.

As reported by Digital Fernsehen, the Verbraucherschutzverein filed the three Abhilfeklagen on 15 September, two before the Kammergericht Berlin and one before the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht. The claims allege that the providers raised subscription prices unilaterally on the basis of clauses that do not meet German standards for consumer contracts. Cited increases include WOW from €35.99 to €44.99, Apple TV+ from €4.99 to €9.99, and Netflix from €11.99 to €19.99.

The funding terms are the notable feature for the market. Padronus, operating through Vienna-based Prozessfinanzallianz GmbH, carries the entire cost risk and takes 9.9% of any proceeds, deliberately set beneath the 10% cap imposed on funder remuneration by the German legislation implementing the EU Representative Actions Directive. Where a participant holds legal expenses insurance that responds, Padronus waives its share altogether. Consumers pay nothing regardless of outcome.

Expected individual refunds run from roughly €200 to €700 per provider, and Padronus chief executive Richard Eibl has said a subscriber to all four services could recover close to €800. At the participation levels the funder is targeting, aggregate exposure would reach nine figures.

The German courts have not settled the question. The Kammergericht Berlin held comparable Netflix and Spotify clauses invalid in 2023, and the Bundesgerichtshof declined to disturb that outcome. But the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht dismissed a parallel claim over Prime Video in July, and an appeal is pending.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the £260 million settlement of the opt-out collective action brought against Google on behalf of thousands of UK app developers, clearing the way for the largest distribution to class members the Tribunal has sanctioned since the UK's collective proceedings regime began in 2015.

Of the total, £160 million is earmarked for eligible developers, including sole traders and small businesses that sold apps or digital content through the Play Store from August 2018 onwards. The remaining £100 million covers the funding, insurance and legal costs of running the case. Individual payouts will be calculated on each developer's qualifying Play Store sales during the relevant period, and eligible businesses are being directed to the claim website to register ahead of the claims process opening.

As reported by City AM, the claim alleged that Google abused a dominant position by imposing unfair and excessive commissions on developers distributing through the Play Store. Google settled without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, saying it was pleased to reach agreement subject to court approval.

For the funding market, the approval resolves the question hanging over the case since August. Bench Walk Advisors financed the proceedings, and the professional parties agreed to forgo £34 million of their contractual entitlement, bringing their combined return down to the £100 million the Tribunal has now approved. The Tribunal's willingness to sanction a settlement of this size, with costs and funder returns disclosed and reduced in advance, gives funders a concrete benchmark for what the CAT will treat as just and reasonable.

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said: “This landmark settlement vindicates the opt-out collective actions regime at an important moment for its future. Thanks to the regime and the litigation funders who underpin it, thousands of small businesses with no realistic alternative to take on a corporate wrongdoer will now be awarded compensation they could never have won on their own.”

“As the Government considers the future of the regime, this case is proof the system can deliver. This is a young regime that should be nurtured and expanded, not constrained, so more consumers and small businesses can hold powerful defendants to account.”