As funders and law firms await the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding later this summer, industry experts are opining not only on the potential direction any future regulation could take, but what body would be in charge of this new oversight function.

In an insights post from Shepherd and Wedderburn, Ben Pilbrow looks ahead to the CJC review of litigation funding and poses the question that if some form of regulation is inevitable, who will act as the regulator for these new rules? Drawing upon two previous reports that reviewed the funding of litigation, Pilbrow points out that historically there have been two main bodies identified as the likely venues for regulation of third-party funding: the courts or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Analysing the comparative pros and cons of these institutions as prospective regulators, Pilbrow highlights that each one has two core contrasting qualities. The courts have the requisite expertise and connection to litigation funding yet lacks ‘material inquisitive powers’. On the other hand, the FCA does not have the aforementioned ‘inherent connection to the disputes ecosystem’, but benefits from being an established regulator ‘with considerable enforcement powers’.

Exploring options outside of these two more obvious candidates, Pilbrow suggests that utilising one of the existing legal regulators may be viable due to the fact they are all ‘largely staffed by lawyers but have regulatory powers.’ However, Pilbrow notes that these legal regulators may have common flaw that would stop them taking on this new role. That flaw being the comparatively small size of these organisations, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) still only boasting 750 employees despite being the largest of these legal regulators.

Concluding his analysis, Pilbrow suggests unless the government opts for an expanded system of self-regulation under an industry body such as the Association of Litigation Funders, the most likely outcome is for the FCA’s remit to be expanded to include the regulation of litigation funding.

The full article from Ben Pilbrow can be read on Shepherd and Wedderbun’s website.

In an announcement posted on the ASX, Omni Bridgeway announced that it had completed the final payment for the acquisition of the Omni Bridgeway Europe (OBE) business that took place in 2019. The litigation funder confirmed that 5,213,450 fully paid ordinary shares had been ‘issued in satisfaction of the fifth and final tranche of variable deferred consideration’ to complete the acquisition.

Highlighting the progress of the business over the past six years, Omni Bridgeway said that the European business ‘has been successfully integrated into the global operations of the group, creating the most diversified legal asset management platform globally, covering all relevant civil and common law jurisdictions and all relevant areas of law.’ 

The announcement also revealed that OBE has ‘achieved the defined five-year KPIs in full’, whilst the management team ‘has been fully retained.’

With the global economy and financial markets in a current state of uncertainty, the stability of litigation funding as an uncorrelated asset class for investors is attracting wider attention than ever.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital discussed the current state of the litigation finance market, explained why third-party funding is attractive to clients and investors alike, and addressed the common critiques that are levelled at the industry.

On the enduring appeal of litigation funding to corporate clients, Bogart said that for many CEOs and CFOs the truth is that their companies are “spending too much money today on legal fees”. He went on to say that money spent by companies on legal fees is “not doing anything that advances their core undertaking”, and as a result, “the ability to offload that to somebody like us [Burford] is very valuable.”

When asked about why the litigation finance market is thriving during the global economic uncertainty, Bogart highlighted that all of Burford’s “cash flows come entirely out of the outcome of litigation results and those are independent of what’s happening in the market, independent of what’s happening in the broader economy.” In terms of the future of litigation funding and the potential for the market to continue to grow, Bogart pointed out that between legal fees and litigation judgments there is a “multi-trillion dollar a year global market” and that whilst the industry is already “booming”,  there is still “a lot of room to run here” for litigation funders.

In response to a question on the criticisms of litigation funding and the suggestion that funders may look to prolong the duration of cases, Bogart pointed out that Burford is just like any other investment firm that is “looking for high quality assets that are going to produce a reasonable return in a short period of time.” Bogart emphatically rejected what he described as “false concerns” by opponents of third-party funding, and stated plainly: “we’re absolutely not in the business of being interested in prolonging duration or in bringing forward things that are not ultimately going to yield a good result for our shareholders”.

The full interview can be found on Burford Capital’s website.

The benefits of litigation funding in providing the necessary financial resources to individuals to seek justice are clear, however, there are still those in the legal industry who are concerned that the third-party funding model is incentivising the wrong sort of behaviour from law firms.

An article in Legal Futures provides an overview of comments made by Jennifer Ackers, deputy executive director of investigations and enforcement for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), at a recent industry conference. At the event, Ackers raised a variety of concerns that the SRA has around the relationship between litigation funders and law firms in the housing sector.

Ackers suggested that whilst third-party funding has opened more opportunities for firms to pursue housing disrepair claims, the SRA has also found “unstable business models that are really being driven through that third-party funding arrangements”. Ackers went on to highlight “inappropriate relationships” between funders, ATE insurers and experts; describing how the flow of money between these parties is “driving poor behaviours and wrong incentives for firms and solicitors.”

Ackers provided more examples of concerning behaviour in the consumer claims sector, arguing that in situations where clients are signing funding agreements directly with funders, the SRA “would challenge whether that can ever be in clients’ best interests.” On a broader scale, Ackers suggested that the SRA’s review found that there were law firms who have been “prioritising their commercial interests when taking on that litigation funding without giving sufficient thought to clients’ interests”. 

Ackers’ comments can be read in further detail in the full Legal Futures article.

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.

A class action brought in the Federal Court of Australia has reached a resolution less than two years after it began, as a settlement has been approved between investors and the former auditors of a deceased fraudster.

Reporting by The Canberra Times covers a $3.5 million settlement in the class action brought against the auditors that were engaged by Melissa Caddick, an Australian financial adviser who defrauded investors prior to her disappearance and death in November, 2020. The settlement is the latest money recouped by Caddick’s investors, having already received $7.25 million following the sale of her assets by liquidators between 2023 and 2024. The class action targeted Caddick’s auditors on allegations that they had failed in their duties to audit their client’s self-managed superannuation funds, and had breached the Corporations Act.

The class action had been launched in September 2023 with Mackay Chapman representing 32 of Caddick’s former investors, with litigation funder Therium providing the financing for the lawsuit. Following the approval of the $3.5 million settlement by Federal court Justice Brigitte Markovic, Mackay Chapman will receive around $1 million in legal costs whilst Therium will be allocated a funding commission of $492,000. After disbursement costs, the claimants will receive the remaining $1.73 million from the settlement.

Michael Chapman, director at Mackay Chapman, described the settlement as “a great outcome for the group members”, and that his firm’s legal costs were recouped at discount to ensure that 50 per cent of the overall settlement was returned to the investors. 

The settlement agreement did not contain any admission of liability by the auditors. The full settlement approval order with additional details on the disbursement of funds can be read here.

As LFJ has reported over recent weeks, the push for new rules governing litigation funding across several U.S. states has gained traction in 2025, with Georgia now set to impose new legislation that includes several restrictions on third-party funding in the state. 

An article in the Georgia Recorder covers the news that the state’s legislature has voted to pass a bill designed to impose new restrictions and oversight on third-party litigation funding in Georgia. Senate Bill 69 was passed by a vote of 98-69 in the House of Representatives, following amendments made in the committee stage, and has since returned to the Senate where a vote on the amended bill passed with 52 Yea votes. The bill, along with Senate Bill 68 which is part of the wider tort reform legislative package, will now go to the Governor to be signed into law.

The amendments made in the House Subcommittee of Rules on Lawsuit Reform include provisions for the state’s Department of Banking and Finance to deny funders’ applications to register. Furthermore, disclosure requirements have been updated to include any stakeholder who has a 10% or greater stake in a litigation funder, as well as clarified language in the sections dealing with foreign entities involved in third-party funding.

James Burchett, the House Majority Caucus Whip, said that the bill aims to address absence of any “provisions whatsoever that outline regulations on litigation financing,”  and will seek to “put some guard rails and regulation on the industry.” Voting in opposition to the bill, Minority Caucus Chair Tanya Miller argued that the bill “attempts to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist”, and that the bill is “part of a broader propaganda playbook designed to protect big business and the insurance industry at the expense of everyday Georgians.” 

Miller further highlighted that during the evaluation of the legislation by the House’s committees, “not a single case in Georgia was identified to justify this legislation.” 

When shareholders suffer losses as a result of corporate governance failures by large financial institutions, investors often require the support of litigation funders in their efforts to seek justice and secure compensation from these multinational giants. 

An announcement from Woodsford revealed that a group of institutional investors bringing a group claim against Standard Chartered, with litigation funding provided by Woodsford, have received a favourable judgment in the High Court. The judgment handed down by Mr Justice Michael Green dismissed Standard Chartered’s application to strike out a portion of the group claim, which means that the claim can now proceed towards its scheduled trial in October 2026.  

The claim focuses on allegations that the bank failed in its corporate governance around its dealings with Iran and Iranian-linked institutions that were subject to US sanctions, resulting in financial losses suffered by shareholders. 

Standard Chartered applied to strike out “Common Reliance” claims of 949 of the funds that are participating in the group claims, with these funds representing 68% of the claimants funds that account for over £760 million of the claim value. Green J’s judgment examined the prior ruling on a strike out application in a similar claim, Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and ors v Barclays plc [2024], but found that he had “doubts about the correctness” of that decision. 

In his conclusion on the common reliance claims, Green J wrote: “There are factual matters that, in my view, require determination and the expert evidence might assist in understanding the extent to which the Published Information would have affected the market price and its influence therefore on the decisions made by the Claimants.”

Signature Litigation acted for the claimants, instructing Graham Chapman KC, Shail Patel KC and William Harman of 4 New Square.

The full judgment from Green J in Various Claimants v Standard Chartered can be read here.

As the world of legal finance continues to expand, it is no surprise that new companies are offering services that can connect the multitude of parties looking to get involved in third-party funding.

A post on LinkedIn announced the launch of Litigation Capital Solutions, a new litigation finance venture designed to connect investment opportunities from funding platforms with institutional and other investors. The company aims to work with law firms, funders and insurers via a portfolio of solutions including capital raising opportunities, due diligence services, and stakeholder alignment.

Following its launch, Litigation Capital Solutions is already engaged in capital raising projects across a range of investment opportunities, up to a total value of £130 million.

Litigation Capital Solutions was founded by Matthew Gwynne and Edwin Harrap, who bring a wealth of experience in financial services, capital raising and specialist funding. Gwynne’s career highlights include six years at Investec in private banking, over two years as Head of Credit Structuring in the UK for Standard Chartered Bank, and most recently serving as Director, Business Development and Client Relations for SpectraLegal. Harrap began his career at KPMG before moving on to Deutsche Bank where he served as Director for Emerging Markets Structured Credit Trading; and joins this new venture from Alantra where he spent six years as a Director.

More information about Litigation Capital Solutions can be found on the company’s website. 

As LFJ covered last week, the group proceedings being brought against motor finance providers over commissions paid to dealers is attracting a significant amount of interest across the legal funding industry, with the possibility of lucrative settlements to come. 

An article in Financial News features an interview with investment fund manager Nicola Horlick, who discusses her focus on litigation funding for the high-profile motor finance claims in the UK. Horlick, founder and CEO of Money&Co, explained that her company is currently raising funds to lend to law firms that are working on the car finance commission claims. Speaking about the significance of these claims to the wider legal funding industry, Horlick argued that “this is the biggest thing that is likely to happen in litigation funding in the next 15 years.”

The emphasis placed on raising funds for these claims has caused Horlick to pause her plans to launch a digital bank in 2025, with the fund manager explaining that they “don’t have the bandwidth to do the fundraise for that and the bank”. Horlick went on to state that fundraising for the claims “has to be the priority”, and that in the time before these claims begin to reach settlements, “we need to help clients amass as many claims as possible.”

As industry observers examine which jurisdictions are ripe for growth in terms of the adoption of litigation funding, there is just as much interest in markets with growing demand for litigation insurance products.

In a recent announcement, Ignite Specialty Risk revealed that the litigation risk insurer has expanded its service offering to include the European Economic Area (EEA). As part of this expansion, Ignite will be able to provide insurance products including After The Event (ATE), and single risk and portfolio Capital Protection Insurance (CPI) to customers in the EEA. 

The company highlighted that this move has been driven by the increased demand for litigation risk insurance in the EEA, following on from the European Union’s implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD). Ignite’s Co-founder and Head of ATE, Jamie Molloy, expanded on this point and said that “the growing demand for specialist litigation insurance in the region reflects the increasing importance of accessible risk-transfer solutions.”

Byron Sumner, CEO and Co-founder of Ignite, provided the following comment on the launch of services to the EEA: “Building on our US expansion in 2024, we are thrilled to bring our innovative products to EEA-based insureds. Last year, US-based institutional financiers and law firms began using our products to facilitate meaningful risk transfer and improve access to justice. By entering the EEA, we aim to deliver customised solutions that address the unique challenges of cross-border disputes. This strategic step reinforces our commitment to empowering businesses and legal teams with the tools to manage litigation risks effectively.”

The legal fight between Burford Capital and Argentina over the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company has continued to demonstrate challenges when it comes to judgment enforcement and collection. Although there have been few development since Argentina filed its appeal against the US court’s ruling, a new insight with a key figure at the litigation funder has revealed that the Argentine government is not showing any signs of compromise. 

An article in the Buenos Aires Times provides new insights into the ongoing struggle for Burford Capital to collect on the $16.1 billion award in the YPF case, as Gerardo Mato, who was hired by the funder to act as a mediator with Argentina, has said that there have been no meetings with representatives from the Argentine government. The article provides a behind-the-scenes view of the fight to recover the award, citing quotes from an interview with Mato conducted at Bloomberg’s offices in Buenos Aires.

In the interview, Mato explained that whilst they had “contacted the authorities at the Economy Ministry and legal authorities”, there had been no form of reciprocal communication from Argentina. Mato stated that “there have been no talks for now with the government”, and as of this moment, “no type of negotiation has been established yet.” 

As for the funder’s strategy moving forward with efforts to open a productive dialogue with the Argentine government, Mato argued that “Burford isn’t in any rush on this issue” and that “the best tool that we have is patience.” Whilst all parties await the Appeals Court’s final ruling on Argentina’s appeal against the award, Mato argued that negotiating prior that decision would “benefit the government”. Instead, Mato suggested that if the court provides a favourable ruling to Burford, then Argentina will “have to pay the totality of the suit.” 

If previous years saw an increase in the amount of discussion and debate around the regulation of litigation funding in the United States, then 2025 has already proven to be the year when many states are moving forward with plans to introduce new rules governing the use of third-party funding.

An article on Red Lake Nation News covers the introduction of new legislation in the Minnesota legislature, with bills brought forward in both the House and Senate aiming to impose new restrictions on third-party litigation funding in the state. The Consumers in Crisis Protection Act, which was introduced in the Senate as SF 2929 and in the House as HF 2677, seeks to introduce new rules governing the use of both consumer and commercial litigation funding agreements in Minnesota court cases.

The current draft of the legislation, authored by Senator Judy Seeberger and Representative Bernie Perryman, includes a wide range of rules governing both the composition of funding agreements and the activities of funders within the state. Similar in content to legislation introduced in other states, the bill mandates the disclosure of litigation funding agreements to all parties involved in the lawsuit, and requires that litigation funders register with the state. 

The bill also tackles the issue of foreign states’ involvement in domestic litigation, as it prohibits litigation funders from “entering into a commercial litigation financing agreement with a foreign entity of concern or a foreign country or person of concern.” The legislation would also require funders to provide the state with annual report which would include: the number of lawsuits funded by the company and a summary of the amounts of funding provided.

Senator Seeberger provided the following comment on the bill: “As legislators, we are acutely aware of the challenges our constituents face, including the cost of insurance. This bill will help shine a light on the funding sources that are driving huge awards in civil lawsuits, something we all pay end up paying for in higher insurance premiums.”

The current version of the Consumers in Crisis Protection Act can be read on the Minnesota Legislature’s website.

The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) announced it has welcomed RESOLVE Forensic as its newest Associate Member. With the addition of this new member, AALF now boasts a total of 21 Associate Members in addition to its eight Funder Members.

The announcement was made in a post on LinkedIn. RESOLVE Forensic is a specialist forensic accounting, business valuation and dispute consulting firm, providing their expertise to support law firms and clients in resolving commercial disputes. The company works across a wide range of sectors including construction and real estate, energy and climate, financial services, and retail. The company was founded in 2024 and is based out of Sydney, but provides services to clients across Australia and the Asia Pacific.

Hugo Loneragan, managing principal at RESOLVE Forensic, provided the following comment on the announcement

“Many thanks Pip Murphy and The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia, we are excited to join the association and are looking forward to working with other talented litigation and dispute professionals in what is shaping to be a busy year ahead!”

More information about RESOLVE Forensic can be found on its website. More details about AALF and its members can be found here.

The High Court’s ruling in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd earlier this month, which permitted the motor finance claims to proceed on a single claim form, not only signaled a major victory for claimants seeking compensation, but also may prove to have a lasting impact on the future of these group claims.

In an interview with The Law Society Gazette, Craig Cooper, managing director of Barings Law, discusses the recent High Court ruling on the future of the motor finance commission claims. In the interview, Cooper explains the significance of this ruling not only for the motor finance claims but also for future group proceedings, and discusses the challenges raised by working on a claim that has such a high public profile and attracts a lot of media scrutiny.

On the High Court ruling, Cooper highlights that “by allowing these cases to proceed as eight omnibus actions, rather than requiring individual filings, the court has acknowledged the need for efficiency and fairness in addressing large-scale consumer grievances.” Cooper explains that this collective approach will allow consumers to seek justice “without the burden of navigating the legal process alone”, and as a milestone for future claims will underline “the courts’ willingness to streamline complex cases where common legal and factual issues exist.”

Given the high levels of media interest in the motor finance claims, Cooper recognises that Barings Law’s approach has had to “ensure clarity and accuracy in all communications, emphasising the significance of the ruling while maintaining a balanced and professional stance.” Acknowledging the importance of the wider conversation around these claims, Cooper says that “transparency and accessibility have been key in shaping the public narrative and reinforcing the broader implications of the judgment.”

Whilst funded class actions are most commonly seen in prominent legal funding markets such as the UK, US and Australia, we are increasingly seen large scale group claims being brought in European jurisdictions with the support of litigation funders.

An article in Handelsblatt covers one of the largest class action lawsuits brought in Europe, as Unilegion has filed a lawsuit in the Dortmund Regional Court seeking €200 million in damages over allegations of price fixing in the sale of pesticide by a cartel of agricultural wholesalers in Germany. The claim being brought against the ‘pesticide cartel’ is representing  over 3,2000 farmers, and follows a 2020 investigation by the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) which imposed €157 million in fines on eight wholesalers. 

The agricultural companies found to have been involved in this price-fixing between 1998 and March 2015 are: AGRAVIS Raiffeisen AG , Hanover/Münster AGRO Agrargroßhandel GmbH & Co. KG, BayWa AG, BSL Betriebsmittel Service Logistik GmbH & Co. KG, Getreide AG, Raiffeisen Waren GmbH, Raiffeisen Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG, and ZG Raiffeisen eG.

The lawsuit is being supported by legal representation from the Hamburg office of Taylor Wessing, whilst third-party funding has been secured from Augusta Ventures. A similar class action lawsuit representing German farmers is being brought by Bäuerliche Geschädigtengemeinschaft (BGG), with funding in that case being provided by Transatlantis.

More information about the Pesticide Cartel case can be found on the Unilegion website.