Pine Valley Capital Partners is carving out a distinctive niche in the litigation‑finance market by providing post‑settlement capital to contingency‑fee law firms.

According to an article in LawDragon, Pine Valley funds law firms after a settlement agreement has been reached but before the distribution of settlement proceeds. This strategy responds to a critical pain point: the gap between case conclusion and payout. Managing partners and co‑founders Ryan Stephen and Sam Vinson explain that for contingent‑fee practices — especially in high‑volume mass‑tort scenarios — cash flow can stagnate for years once a settlement is secured. Pine Valley’s solution unlocks that “trapped” value, enabling firms to meet operating expenses, payroll, vendor invoices, and growth needs.

Stephen’s background in private credit and Vinson’s experience in receivables‑factoring underpin the firm’s structure: lending against “ascertainable value” in settlements rather than speculative pre‑settlement outcomes. Pine Valley emphasizes transparency, partnership and sustainable fundamentals, distinguishing itself from players whose terms may favor funder returns at the expense of firm sustainability.

As of late last year, Pine Valley’s assets under management reportedly stood at about $535 million, with the firm targeting nearing $1 billion in AUM. The firm highlights its role in enabling access to justice: by supporting plaintiff‑firms financially, they help ensure that clients—often without other routes to legal redress—receive high‑quality representation.

For the legal funding industry, this development signals a growing sophistication: as pre‑settlement litigation funding becomes more mature and crowded, funders are innovating toward post‑settlement solutions, blending private‑credit discipline with legal‑funding frameworks.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is weighing whether the case involving the Argentine nationalisation of oil company YPF should have been litigated in the U.S. in the first place. The original ruling awarded approximately $16.1 billion to minority shareholders.

An article in Finance News highlights that Burford Capital—which provided substantial litigation finance support for the plaintiffs—is now under scrutiny, and the uncertainty has already knocked more than 10 % off Burford’s share price.

According to the report, two of the appellate judges expressed scepticism about whether U.S. jurisdiction was appropriate, signalling a possible shift in the case’s trajectory. The funding provided by Burford makes this more than a corporate dispute—it's a pivotal moment for litigation funders backing claims of this magnitude. The article underscores that if the award is overturned or diminished on jurisdictional grounds, the returns to Burford and similar funders could shrink dramatically.

Looking ahead, this case raises critical questions: Will funders rethink backing multi‑billion‑dollar sovereign claims? Will lawyers and funders factor in jurisdictional risk more aggressively? And how will capital providers price that risk? The outcome could influence how global litigation finance portfolios are structured—and the appetite for large‑ticket sovereign cases.

A recent industry move sees the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury warning that the growth of third‑party litigation funding is putting fresh stress on the U.S. property‑casualty insurance sector. The FIO’s 2025 Annual Report on the Insurance Industry highlights the so‑called “tort tax” as a new burden, with insurers and consumers increasingly feeling the cost.

An article in Insurance Business explains that third‑party litigation funding—in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of potential settlements—is now viewed by federal regulators as a significant factor driving up claims costs for insurers.

The report quantifies the burden, pointing to an average annual cost exceeding $5,000 per household. In response, insurance trade groups like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) are throwing their weight behind federal bills such as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025, both of which aim to bring greater scrutiny and disclosure to litigation funding practices.

The report also draws on lessons from state-level reforms. In Florida, new legislation that slashed legal filings by over 30% has already helped insurers reduce premiums and issue customer refunds—offering a case study in how tort reform can yield near-term results. While the report also examines the insurance industry’s evolving role in climate resilience and loss mitigation, it makes clear that rising legal system costs remain an urgent and unresolved challenge.

For the legal funding sector, the report underscores a shifting regulatory landscape. With calls for federal oversight gaining traction, funders may soon face new transparency requirements, rate limitations, or reporting obligations. The FIO’s framing of litigation finance as a systemic cost driver is likely to spark renewed debate over how to balance consumer protection, insurer stability, and access to justice.

The plaintiff‑funding marketplace ClaimAngel announced it has surpassed 18,000 individual fundings—a milestone signaling its growing influence in the legal funding arena. The platform, founded in 2022 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, positions itself as a disruptor to traditional litigation finance models.

An release in PR Newswire outlines how ClaimAngel offers a single standardized rate of 27.8% simple annual interest and caps repayment at two‑times the amount funded after 46 months—significantly lower and more predictable than many legacy funders. The platform also claims to bring efficiency and transparency to the market by hosting a marketplace of over 25 vetted funders, allowing competing offers, and integrating directly into law‑firm workflows.

How claimants benefit: The core value proposition is to give plaintiffs “breathing room” when insurers use time as a weapon, enabling lawyers and clients to press for better settlement outcomes rather than settling prematurely under financial pressure. With over 500 plaintiff‑side law firms now using the platform, ClaimAngel is positioning itself as a credible alternative to more opaque “Wild West” funding practices—where a $5,000 advance could balloon into a $30,000 repayment by settlement.

ClaimAngel is striking at the heart of two key pain points: (1) lack of standardized pricing and (2) lack of transparency in funding terms. By offering a fixed rate and capped repayment in a marketplace format, it may prompt other players to rethink fee structures and disclosure practices. The milestone of 18,000 fundings also signals broader acceptance of tech‑driven innovation in a space often slow to modernize.

The Law Society of England and Wales has sounded the alarm that scrapping the UK’s opt‑out collective actions regime would invite a surge in unchecked anti‑competitive conduct by multinational firms.

An article in the Law Society Gazette explains that the UK government is reviewing its collective redress regime—introduced in 2015 under the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) framework—to determine whether it remains appropriate for businesses and consumers alike. Above all, the bar warns that eliminating or substantially reducing the ability of groups of consumers to act together would remove a key check on large firms’ power.

According to the bar’s statement, collective actions provide a vital counterbalance: they allow individuals with smaller claims (often against powerful enterprise defendants) to combine resources, reduce costs, and obtain meaningful relief. Without that mechanism, the risk is that dominant players may routinely engage in cartel‑type behaviour, abuse market position or otherwise infringe competition law with little fear of private litigation.

The review highlights that the regime has evolved faster than anticipated: the original design assumed most cases would follow a finding by the competition authority, but in practice around 90% are now “stand‑alone” claims brought without a prior regulatory decision.

For the legal funding and litigation finance sector, this development is especially consequential. Were collective actions to be scaled back or abolished, the landscape for financing competition‑law claims would shift markedly: fewer aggregated opportunities, higher individual‑case risk, and potentially lower investor appetite. It raises key questions about the future viability of funding models that rely on class‑style litigation in the UK market.

A healthcare‑turned‑litigation investor has taken legal action against Lake Law Firm and its partner Ed Lake, alleging a sweeping investment failure in the mass‑tort financing space. According to the complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court on October 22, the investor pumped around $5.3 million into programs tied to hernia‑mesh, Bayer AG’s RoundUp, 3M Co., and Johnson & Johnson talcum‑powder claims — only to find that fewer than the promised number of cases ever materialized.

An article in Bloomberg notes that per the suit, the law firm had committed to signing up 113 hernia‑mesh cases, 100 3M cases, and 50 RoundUp matters, but delivered only 15, 40, and 8 respectively. Separately, Lake Law pledged submission of 8,000 applications under the federal Covid‑era Employee Retention Credit program, yet managed only 2,655. The complaint characterizes the structure as “more akin to a Ponzi scheme than a legitimate litigation‐finance program.”

The investor also alleges that the law firm defaulted on a “case‑replacement agreement,” and is now demanding $6.2 million in damages, plus rights to any mass‑tort profits and tax‑credit claims that “rightfully belong” to him. According to the filing, his wife had separately invested $2.5 million and likewise filed suit last week claiming non‑repayment.

The latest chapter of the Global Legal Group’s Class and Group Actions Laws & Regulations 2026 report titled “In Case of Any Doubt – The Group and Collective Action Market is Here to Stay” provides a clear signal: the group and collective litigation landscape across the UK and Europe is evolving, and legal funders should take notice.

An article in ICLG highlights several key moves in the UK: the Civil Justice Council (CJC) issued its final report in June 2025 on private litigation funding, recommending “light‑touch” regulation of third‑party litigation funding and reiterating support for funding as a tool of access to justice. It follows the PACCAR Ltd v Green & others decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which classified certain litigation funding agreements as damages‑based agreements (DBAs), raising regulatory scrutiny on opt‑out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The CJC recommends reversing that classification via legislation, permitting DBAs in opt‑out class actions, and regulating funders’ capital and AML compliance.

Meanwhile, the UK’s opt‑out collective action model under competition law is under review. The government’s call for evidence flagged the high costs and shifting case mix as areas of concern.

On the European front, the Representative Actions Directive has spurred changes in France and Germany. France’s new law allows third‑party funding of group actions and broadens access and scope. Germany’s implementation enables qualified consumer associations to bring collective redress for both injunctive and monetary relief across a wide range of sectors including ESG, data‑protection and tort.

For legal funders, these developments signal both opportunity and risk. On one hand, enhanced regulatory clarity and expanded access points strengthen the business case for collective‑action funding. On the other, increasing scrutiny over funding arrangements, roles of funders, and capital adequacy impose compliance burdens.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) said he’s not backing down in his push to impose a special tax on litigation‑finance investors, signalling a new legislative attempt after an initial setback.

According to a report in Bloomberg Law, Tillis introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act earlier this year, which would levy a 41 % tax on profits earned by third‑party funders of civil lawsuits (37 % top individual rate plus 3.8 % net investment income tax). While the bill was included in the Senate Republicans’ version of the tax reconciliation package, the tax provision was ultimately removed by the Senate parliamentarian during the June process.

Tillis argues this is about fairness: he says that litigation‑finance investors enjoy more favourable tax treatment than the victims who receive legal awards, a situation he calls “silly.” He acknowledged the industry’s strong push‑back, noting a high level of lobbying from entities such as the International Legal Finance Association and other funders. “You couldn’t throw a rock and not hit a contract lobbyist who hadn’t been engaged to fight this … equitable tax treatment bill,” he said.

Though Tillis is not seeking re‑election and will leave office next year, he remains committed to using his remaining time to keep the tax issue alive. His remarks suggest this debate is far from over and could resurface in future legislation.

Hausfeld has achieved a major breakthrough in the UK’s collective‑action landscape by securing a trial victory against Apple Inc. in a case seeking up to £1.5 billion in damages. The case, brought on behalf of roughly 36 million iPhone and iPad users, challenged Apple’s App Store fees and policies under the UK collective action regime.

According to the article in The Global Legal Post, the action was filed by Dr Rachael Kent (King’s College London) and backed by litigation funder Vannin Capital. Over a 10‑year span, the tribunal found that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing “exclusionary practices” and charging “excessive and unfair” fees on app purchases and in‑app subscriptions.

The judgement, delivered by the ­Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 23 October 2025, marks the first collective action under the UK regime to reach a successful trial‐level resolution. The CAT held that Apple’s 30 % fee on these transactions breached UK and EU competition laws and that the restrictions were disproportionate and unnecessary in delivering claimed benefits.

Apple has stated it will appeal the ruling, arguing the decision takes a “flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy.” Meanwhile, the result is viewed as a significant vindication for collective claimants, with Dr Kent describing it as “a landmark victory … for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant.”

Thousands of women who served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) between 12 November 2003 and 25 May 2025 are eligible to join a new class action in the Federal Court of Australia, brought by the law firm JGA Saddler and backed by global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway.

The Nightly reports that according to JGA Saddler lawyer Josh Aylward, the case alleges that the ADF has been afflicted by “sexual violence and discrimination” for decades—despite prior investigations and recommendations. “There is a gendered battlefield within the ADF that female soldiers have been faced with for more than 20 years,” Aylward said.

The claim includes allegations ranging from daily harassment—such as sexist comments and unwanted touching—to physical assaults. One cited case involves a woman pinned against a wall during a night out with colleagues, reporting the incident to military police who declined to prosecute with no explanation offered. The class action marks a bid to hold the Commonwealth to account for systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

The eligibility window is broad: any woman who served in the ADF during that 2003–2025 period may participate. The class action is expected to become a multi‑million‑dollar claim.

Australian‑based technology startup ddloop has emerged as the winner of the 2025 Legal Pitch Night competition, securing recognition for its innovative artificial‑intelligence powered due‑diligence platform designed for legal workflows.

According to an article from Startup Daily, the startup impressed judges by automating key steps in legal review processes—delivering speed and accuracy in document‑intensive transactions.

The platform developed by ddloop harnesses AI‑driven analytics to sift through large volumes of contracts, disclosures and ancillary documentation, identifying risks, anomalies and salient terms far faster than manual review. By doing so, ddloop aims to reduce the time and cost burdens of due‑diligence work typically borne by legal teams and their corporate clients. The pitch competition win signals investor and industry recognition of the business model and its relevance to the evolving legal‑tech landscape.

For stakeholders in the legal‑funding and litigation‑support ecosystem, ddloop’s ascent highlights two compelling intersections: first, the rising role of tech‑enabled platforms in claim intake, case evaluation and documentation workflows; second, the increasing expectation that legal service providers (and potentially funders) adopt more data‑driven tools to manage risk, control cost and enhance predictability.

As funders and counsel assess funding opportunities, the availability of AI‑enabled due‑diligence platforms may shift how intake and underwriting processes are structured—particularly in high‑volume or document‑heavy matters.

The Judicial Conference of the United States’s advisory body is taking aim at developing new rules that would govern class certification procedures and third‑party litigation funding disclosure in federal courts. Advisers signaled their interest in crafting far‑reaching reforms to tackle two of the most contentious issues in civil‑litigation governance.

An article in Law360 notes that the impetus for change stems from growing corporate and defense‑bar pressure to require plaintiffs and their funders to disclose funding arrangements in class and mass litigation. Proponents argue that greater transparency would enable courts and defendants to assess potential conflicts of interest and settlement dynamics.

At the same time, advisers are considering whether the rules for class certification themselves should be amended to take account of funding structures, the role of law‑firm portfolios and the influence of financiers on case strategy and settlement.

For the legal‑funding industry, this signals a possible regulatory shift in the U.S. Although there is not yet a formal rule change, funders, plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants should anticipate potential requirements to disclose the identity of funders, terms of funding agreements, and how such arrangements may impact class‑certification motions or settlement approvals.

In its October 2025 Business Litigation Report, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP outlines major shifts impacting the litigation‑funding sector in the UK.

The report highlights the landmark decision in Sony Interactive v Neill and Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 841, where the Court of Appeal of England & Wales unanimously upheld the validity of litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that provide a return based on a multiple of the funder’s investment—so long as they are capped by the proceeds of litigation—and rejected the view that such arrangements automatically qualify as “damages‑based agreements” (DBAs) under Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

The report underscores that, had Sony v Neill gone the other way, a significant portion of UK LFAs could have been rendered unenforceable—a scenario that would have triggered major disruption across the funding industry.

Running in parallel, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published a wide‑ranging final report on litigation funding, containing 58 recommendations aimed at reforming the UK funding regime. Key among these are: (i) legislative reversal of the effects of the PACCAR Inc and others v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others decision [2023] UKSC 28, which had classified many LFAs as DBAs; (ii) introduction of a formal, “light‑touch” regulatory framework for funders (including capital adequacy, conflict disclosure, oversight of funder control, and mandatory transparency of funder identity and source of funds); and (iii) explicit carve‑out of arbitration funding from this regulatory regime.

For legal funders and claim‑funded parties, these developments yield both clarity and new compliance horizons. The Court of Appeal’s decision affirms that LFAs structured around multiples of investment remain enforceable, paving the way for continued market activity. Simultaneously, the CJC’s recommendations signal that legislative and regulatory reform is likely imminent—bringing a higher level of oversight and formalisation to the sector.

In a high-stakes move that could redefine climate litigation in Latin America, Loopa Finance has announced it will fund a series of civil claims tied to environmental and human health damages stemming from the Ventanas thermoelectric complex in Chile. The lawsuits seek multimillion-dollar compensation for over 1,000 individuals in the so-called “sacrifice zones” of Quintero and Puchuncaví, alleging direct harm from toxic emissions over a seven-year period.

In a press release, Loopa Finance announced the litigation is built on a landmark study from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which uses advanced atmospheric modeling to directly link emissions from the Ventanas facility to 563 deaths, hundreds of adverse birth outcomes, and an estimated USD 1.4 billion in economic losses between 2013 and 2020. The findings provide the first scientifically verified causal link between the plant’s pollution and measurable human and environmental harm—spanning as far as Santiago, 300 kilometers away.

The legal action, Arellano v. Empresa Eléctrica Ventanas SpA (Case No. C-8595-2025), was filed in the 18th Civil Court of Santiago in September 2025 and is led by attorney Miguel Fredes of the Climate Defense Program. Backed by precedent from Chile’s Supreme Court and UN findings on regional human rights risks, the plaintiffs seek environmental remediation, full compensation, and permanent closure of the Ventanas facility.

Loopa Finance—formerly known as Qanlex—brings its cross-border litigation funding model to bear, combining legal and engineering expertise across Latin America and Europe. “This is a landmark case,” said Loopa investment manager Federico Muradas. “We’re backing it because we believe in effective and restorative environmental justice.”

The UK legal profession is bracing for sweeping regulatory changes after the government announced plans to transfer anti-money laundering (AML) supervision of lawyers and accountants to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

An article in Legal Futures details the surprise decision, which has sparked widespread criticism from legal regulators including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), and the Law Society. SRA Chief Executive Paul Philip, speaking at the regulator’s compliance conference, described the change as “very different” from existing oversight, warning that the FCA’s rules-based approach could upend how legal firms manage AML compliance. SRA Chair Anna Bradley echoed this sentiment, highlighting the potential for friction in adapting to the FCA's framework.

Currently employing 30 AML specialists, the SRA may redirect those resources elsewhere, but clarity remains lacking on how the FCA will structure and fund its expanded mandate. Law Society President Mark Evans cautioned that the move could raise compliance costs and create a burdensome dual-regulation environment, sentiments echoed by the CLC and the Law Society of Scotland.

The FCA, for its part, says the consolidation will streamline AML oversight and bolster enforcement capabilities. However, several experts—including former SRA AML director Colette Best and compliance professionals across the sector—warn that the FCA’s unfamiliarity with legal practice, possible under-resourcing, and the need for new legislation may delay implementation and sow confusion.

While anti-corruption advocates like Spotlight on Corruption welcomed the move, calling it a long-overdue shakeup, industry voices argue the transition must be carefully managed to avoid disrupting one of the UK’s most respected professions.

For litigation funders, the development underscores a trend toward stronger centralized oversight in areas intersecting with financial crime enforcement. Questions remain over how the FCA’s broader enforcement style might influence law firms—and by extension, the funders who work with them.

William Weisman of Parabellum Capital uses a football metaphor to dismantle claims that commercial litigation funders wield excessive influence over the U.S. legal system. Opponents—like the Chamber of Commerce and Lawyers for Civil Justice—portray funders as shadowy power brokers manipulating outcomes. In reality, Weisman argues, the industry is tiny.

Writing in the National Law Review, Weisman notes that U.S. commercial litigation funding represents just $2.3 billion in annual commitments, with only about $759 million going directly to litigants. The workforce across roughly 33 funders totals only 337 people, over half of whom work at firms with five or fewer employees. Burford Capital alone accounts for about 20% of that headcount.

Of those 337 employees, only 204 hold law degrees, and most are focused on origination or operations—not trial oversight. Roughly 80% of funders employ fewer than 10 lawyers, making it implausible that they could “quarterback” litigation. Compared to the 1.3 million U.S. lawyers, 450,000 law firms, and 85,000 attorneys at Am Law 100 firms, the entire funding sector barely registers in size. Even individual corporate law departments often employ more attorneys than all U.S. funders combined.

Weisman concludes that funders aren’t calling plays—they’re providing capital to level the field for smaller businesses that couldn’t otherwise litigate against deep-pocketed opponents. Allegations of undue influence, he writes, are a strategic “ball fake” meant to preserve the advantage of entrenched corporate interests.

A sharp pivot is underway in litigation finance as funders increasingly court the private credit market amid waning interest from traditional backers.

An article in Law Gazette details how funders, faced with reduced appetite from pension and endowment funds due to rising interest rates and macroeconomic volatility, are now tapping into the $1.7 trillion private credit sector—comprising non-bank lenders known for backing complex, high-yield opportunities. At Brown Rudnick’s European litigation funding conference last week, executives from Rocade, Therium, and others dissected the sector’s evolving funding landscape.

Brian Roth, CEO of Rocade LLC, emphasized that litigation finance offers the kind of complexity private credit thrives on. “We’re looking for assets that are complex or hard to source… [that offer] a ‘complexity premium,’” Roth said, adding that insurance-wrapped and yield-segmented portfolios could make the space even more appealing to credit investors.

Therium Capital Management co-founder Neil Purslow—whose flagship fund is now in runoff—recently launched Therium Capital Advisors to help bridge the gap between funders and private credit. Purslow noted that while capital is plentiful, accessing it requires sophisticated structuring to meet private lenders’ expectations. “It’s very bespoke,” he said. “This pool of investors… think very specifically about their strategy.”

Not all industry voices are convinced. Soryn IP’s Michael Gulliford warned that litigation finance must deliver returns consistent with private credit norms, or risk being shunned. Meanwhile, Balance Legal Capital’s Robert Rothkopf and Harbour Litigation Funding’s Susan Dunn raised alarms over new players using questionable financial structures and attracting inexperienced investors.

The shift toward private credit could redefine how litigation finance structures deals, raises capital, and manages risk. But the influx of new money—especially if poorly vetted—may also invite instability. As private credit steps into the void, funders must weigh innovation against the risk of diluting industry standards.

The London‑based asset manager Yield Bridge Asset Management (Yield Bridge) has announced its entry into the litigation financing arena, marking a strategic shift into the private‑credit sector of the legal‑funding landscape.

According to a press release in OpenPR, Yield Bridge has entered into several strategic partnerships in the international arbitration space, granting the firm ongoing access to “vetted, insurance‑wrapped Litigation and Private Credit asset programs.”

In detailing the strategy, Yield Bridge highlights litigation finance as a rapidly growing asset class. The release states that high costs in international arbitration often create an uneven battlefield—where financial strength outweighs merits. Litigation funding, the firm argues, offers a counterbalance. It points to “Litigation Finance Bonds” as their preferred investment vehicle—emphasizing 100% capital protection, attractive yields, and short-duration liquidity windows for accredited investors. The firm claims to target structured portfolios of multiple claims (versus single-case investments) to diversify risk and leverage economies of scale. Cases “displaying pre‑determined characteristics and a potential 8–10× multiple” are cited as typical targets.

Yield Bridge positions itself as a “leading international financial services intermediary … bringing together multi‑asset expertise with targeted investment propositions.” While the announcement is light on detailed track record or specific claim‑portfolios, the firm is formally signalling its ambitions in the litigation finance space.

Yield Bridge’s pivot underscores a broader trend: litigation finance moving deeper into structured, institutional‑grade private‑credit models. By packaging multiple claims and targeting returns familiar in alternative‑credit strategies, firms like Yield Bridge are raising the bar—and potentially the competition—for players in the legal‑funding ecosystem. This development raises questions about how deal flow will scale, how returns will be verified, and how risk will be managed in portfolio‑based litigation funding.

In a significant development for UK collective actions, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the landmark case Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions & Motorola. The case—brought by Clare Spottiswoode CBE—accuses Motorola of abusing its dominant position in the UK's emergency services network by charging excessive prices through its Airwave network, which the Home Office claims resulted in £1.1 billion in overcharges to UK taxpayers.

According to iclg, the class action is being funded by the UK Home Office itself, which is also the complainant in an associated CMA enforcement action. In its judgment, the CAT concluded that Spottiswoode is an appropriate class representative, and that the claim—which covers a proposed class of over 100,000 public service bodies—is suitable for collective proceedings. The case will proceed on an opt-out basis for UK entities, with opt-in available for overseas claimants.

The Tribunal emphasized that funding by a government department does not compromise the independence of the class representative, and that the Home Office’s funding arrangement complies with legal and procedural requirements. Notably, the judgment paves the way for governmental entities to play a dual role—as both complainant and funder—in future competition-based collective actions.

This case raises fascinating implications for the legal funding industry. It challenges traditional notions of third-party funders and opens the door to more creative and strategic funding models initiated by government entities themselves, particularly in cases with broad public interest and regulatory overlap.

A notable shift is underway in the legal‑services world as institutional investors increasingly direct capital toward law‑firm ownership—particularly via the alternative business structure (ABS) model in Arizona.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg, large asset managers and venture‑capital firms are positioning themselves to participate in legal‑services revenues in a way that diverges from traditional contingent‑fee funding of lawsuits. The piece identifies heavy hitters such as Benefit Street Partners and Crossbeam Venture Partners as recent entrants into the ABS‑enabled law‑firm ownership space. Benefit Street’s application for a new Arizona law‑firm entity lists tort litigation, IP claims and bankruptcy matters as focal areas.

The ABS pathway in Arizona has grown rapidly. In 2021, the state approved 15 ABS licences; by 2024, that number rose to 51, bringing the overall total to approximately 153. The regulatory flexibility in Arizona contrasts with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, where non‑lawyer ownership of law firms remains prohibited or severely constrained. Meanwhile, states such as California have reacted by imposing restrictions—e.g., California's recent ban on contingency‑fee sharing with out‑of‑state ABS models.

For the legal‑funding and law‑firm investment ecosystem, this development carries multiple implications. First, it signals that investors view law‑firm ownership as a viable risk‑adjusted investment category beyond pure litigation funding. Second, it raises governance and regulatory questions around outside ownership of law firms, especially as the lines blur between funders, back‑office providers and equity owners. Finally, firms, funders and law‑firm owners may need to reassess their strategies and compliance frameworks in light of the shifting landscape of capital entry and structural innovation.

A new California law—Assembly Bill 931, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom—prohibits California‐licensed attorneys and law firms from entering into contingent‐fee sharing arrangements with out‑of‑state “alternative business structures” (ABS) or law firms owned, in whole or in part, by non‑lawyers.

According to Reuters, the law targets a key business model of mass‑tort and personal‑injury practices, where fee revenue is shared with non‑lawyer entities or firms located in jurisdictions that permit non‑lawyer ownership or alternative legal structures (such as Arizona, Utah, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia). The law was narrowed during legislative debate to apply specifically to contingent fees rather than flat‑fee or fixed‑fee arrangements.

Under the statute, contracts beginning on or after January 1, 2026, that violate the prohibition will expose the California lawyer or law firm to minimum fines of $10,000 per infraction. The legislation expressly allows fixed‑fee sharing for specific dollar amounts and non‑lawyer involvement in back‑office or support services, but draws the line at traditional contingency‑fee tying arrangements with ABS entities.

For the litigation finance industry, this legislative shift signals a tightening of rules around fee‑sharing and ownership arrangements, particularly for cross‑jurisdictional structures that rely on non‑lawyer capital. The change may hamper integration between California‑based counsel and out‑of‑state firms that depend on contingency‐driven revenue sharing.

Burford Capital has published a new Burford Quarterly that pitches legal finance as a strategic resource for corporates and law firms confronting increasingly complex, cross-border matters. Vice Chair David Perla frames the theme succinctly: legal finance is no longer merely a tool to pay fees—it’s a way to unlock capital trapped in claims and manage portfolio risk as regulatory scrutiny and multijurisdictional exposure rise.

The issue is built around sector playbooks. A pharma feature addresses how generic and branded drug makers use financing to shoulder costly Hatch-Waxman litigation and development timelines, positioning capital as a buffer where damages are uncertain but speed to market is critical.

A construction-arbitration piece tracks the uptick in global disputes amid supply-chain shocks, decarbonization mandates, and elongated project schedules, with third-party capital smoothing cash flow over multi-year EPC programs and helping parties sustain high-value claims through arbitration.

Two additional components round out the package. A ten-year lookback on the UK’s opt-out competition regime argues funding has been central to the maturing collective-actions market and will remain pivotal as policymakers contemplate broader redress. And a Q&A tied to Burford’s strategic minority investment in Kindleworth explores how alternative capital and law-firm entrepreneurship intersect to seed specialist boutiques and align incentives with client outcomes.

The UK’s fast-evolving funding landscape continues to clarify what works—and what doesn’t—after PACCAR. In July, the Court of Appeal in Sony Interactive v Neill held that LFAs pegging a funder’s return to deployed or committed capital, even when paid from proceeds and subject to a proceeds cap, are not damages-based agreements. That distinction matters: many CAT and other group LFAs were rewritten over the past year to swap percentage-of-recovery models for multiple-based economics, and the ruling indicates those structures remain enforceable when drafted with care.

Quinn Emanuel's Business Litigation Report traces the arc from PACCAR’s treatment of percentage-based LFAs to Sony v Neill’s clarification and the policy response now gathering steam. The analysis underscores that returns keyed to funding outlay—not the quantum of recovery—avoid the DBA regime, reducing the risk that amended post-PACCAR agreements are second-guessed at certification or settlement approval.

The Civil Justice Council’s June Final Report outlines a legislative repair kit: a statutory fix to reverse PACCAR’s impact prospectively and retrospectively; an explicit separation of third-party funding from contingency-fee arrangements; a shift from self-regulation to light-touch statutory oversight; and, in exceptional cases, judicial power to permit recovery of funding costs from losing defendants. The CJC would also keep third-party funding of arbitration outside the formal regime.

For market participants, the immediate implications are contractual. Multiples, proceeds caps, waterfall mechanics, and severability language deserve meticulous treatment; so do disclosure and control provisions, given heightened judicial scrutiny of class representation and adverse costs exposure.

Burford Capital has strengthened its European presence with its first senior hire in Spain, recruiting Teresa Gutiérrez Chacón as Senior Vice President based in Madrid.

According to the press release, Gutiérrez Chacón brings over 16 years of experience in complex dispute resolution, international arbitration, and legal strategy—most recently serving as Chief Legal Counsel for Pavilion Energy’s European trading arm. Her prior roles include positions at Freshfields and Gómez‑Acebo & Pombo, and she has been recognized by Legal 500 as a “Rising Star” in Litigation & Arbitration and named Best Arbitration Lawyer Under 40 by Iberian Lawyer.

In her new role, she will deepen Burford’s relationships with Spanish law firms and corporations, positioning the firm to address the growing demand in Spain for legal finance solutions. Burford emphasized that Spain’s sophisticated legal market presents “significant opportunities,” and that adding on‑the‑ground leadership in Madrid enhances its ability to deliver local insight and cross‑jurisdictional support.

Philipp Leibfried, Burford’s Head of Europe, noted that this hire demonstrates a commitment to expanding in key European jurisdictions and strengthening Burford’s role as a “trusted partner” for law firms and businesses seeking innovative capital solutions.

The UK Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple’s appeal in Apple Inc and others v Gutmann, leaving intact a Court of Appeal decision that significantly strengthens the position of litigation funders in collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

An article in Law Gazette reports that the Supreme Court refused Apple’s petition on the grounds that it did not raise an arguable point of law, effectively endorsing the lower court’s April 2025 decision. That ruling affirmed that litigation funders can be paid directly from damages recovered in a class action before distributions are made to class members. The decision resolved longstanding ambiguity surrounding Sections 47C(3) and (6) of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 93 of the CAT Rules 2015.

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT has wide discretionary authority to order payments to class representatives for costs, fees, and disbursements, provided such allocations are deemed fair and reasonable under the tribunal’s supervisory jurisdiction. This was a pivotal victory for claimant-side funders, who have long warned that being last in line for recovery—after damages are disbursed—posed unacceptable risk in UK opt-out cases.

Law firm Charles Lyndon, counsel for class representative Justin Gutmann, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision not to revisit the matter, stating that it brings “welcome certainty” to the evolving collective proceedings regime and affirms the CAT’s broad discretion in addressing complex, end-of-case allocation scenarios.

This decision is expected to have a profound impact on the UK’s competition class action landscape. Funders now have greater confidence in the recoverability of their investments, potentially spurring more funding activity in CAT proceedings. The ruling may also prompt defendants to reconsider their settlement calculus, knowing that funders now enjoy a more secure repayment pathway.

Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a high-stakes antitrust class action are now targeting the use of third‑party litigation funding by plaintiffs’ counsel in a bid to derail class certification. At issue is whether a lead firm’s reliance on external financing renders it “inadequate” under class action rules — a novel approach that raises fresh procedural and policy questions.

An article in Reuters notes the the suit alleges that Cornell, Penn, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame and others favored wealthy applicants over students needing financial aid, plaintiffs’ counsel (led by Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, or GLC) is facing attacks over transparency and risk allocation. The universities contend that GLC mischaracterized its financial exposure by not fully disclosing its funding arrangements. GLC responds that it only uses outside funding for a portion of its fees (covering 40% of its own, and under 16% of the aggregate) and that no court has previously held that use of funding makes class counsel inadequate. A judge has already found the funding documents “potentially relevant” to the certification motion, underscoring the stakes.

Legal commentators call this a new twist in class litigation — rather than questioning the merits or fairness of funding, defendants are now probing its procedural footprint. The case also dovetails with a broader trend: litigation funders are becoming more visible and controversial, particularly when their support is used by class‑action counsel. Reuters Meanwhile, in adjacent news, law firms are consolidating and AI‑driven tools for plaintiffs’ practices are attracting investor capital — further reshaping the economics of litigation.

This challenge could force courts nationwide to reinterpret adequacy standards in class actions, potentially chilling the use of external funding. It may also provoke funders, defense firms, and plaintiffs to recalibrate disclosure rules and risk-sharing norms across major litigation.

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.