Ordinary people will have greater access to justice thanks to Government’s plans for legislation to help claimants receive the funding they need to take on powerful organisations in court.    

Since the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR in 2023, claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a civil case against a well-resourced opponent.  

Third-party litigation funding allows people to bring complex legal cases against powerful organisations when they cannot afford the costs themselves. Under these arrangements, a funder pays for the legal case in exchange for a share of any compensation won.   

The PACCAR judgment, which classed these funding arrangements as “Damages Based Agreements”, made it harder to access to third-party funding and has resulted in a drop in collective action lawsuits. Today, the government is confirming that it will take action to remove this barrier to justice by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, protecting victims and claimants.   

Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said:  “The Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice. Without litigation funding, the Sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal would never have had their day in court. These are David vs Goliath cases, and this Government will ensure that ordinary people have the support they need to hold rich and powerful organisations to account. Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it."   

David Greene, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) said: “This announcement is good news for ordinary people seeking access to justice. However, whilst the government has recognised the urgent need to reverse PACCAR, the proposal to regulate litigation funding agreements as part of the proposed legislation is likely to add considerable delay. We therefore urge the government to introduce an urgent bill to reverse PACCAR, and that the thornier issue of what light touch regulation of litigation funding might look like be considered separately.”

The UK’s legal services industry is worth £42.6 billion a year to the economy, with a highly skilled workforce of 384,000.  

A new framework will ensure that agreements are fair and transparent, so that third-party litigation funding actually works for all those involved.  These changes follow a comprehensive and wide-ranging review by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), published earlier this year. The government will continue to consider the recommendations set out in the CJC review.  

The UK government has pledged to introduce legislation to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, which has left many litigation funding agreements in legal limbo. The Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to bring forward a bill that will clarify that third party litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages based agreements (DBAs) under existing law, a classification that, since PACCAR, has rendered many LFAs unenforceable and raised deep concerns across the funding market.

An article in The Law Gazette reports that the forthcoming legislation will specifically address the fallout from the 2023 PACCAR decision, which had classed typical litigation funding arrangements where a funder receives a share of damages as DBAs, bringing them within regulatory restrictions and making them invalid unless they met DBA regulatory requirements. This has undermined the clarity and enforceability of funding agreements for collective actions and other high value cases.

Industry sources and legal commentators have long advocated for a statutory fix. Over recent months, funders and claimant groups have pointed to the erosion of access to justice while PACCAR uncertainty persists, given that many have been hesitant to underwrite new claims under a model the courts deemed unenforceable. The government’s proposed change to statute rather than judge made law aims to restore the pre PACCAR position and reaffirm that LFAs do not fall within the DBA regime.

If enacted, the bill is expected to provide greater certainty for both existing and future litigation funding arrangements, reinforce the UK’s position as a leading venue for funded litigation, and encourage finance for complex group and commercial claims. Observers note that while the legislative promise is welcome, its timing and detailed provisions will be closely watched by funders, claimants and legal practitioners alike.

Omni Bridgeway has further strengthened its U.S. litigation finance platform with two senior strategic hires in its Washington, D.C. office. In a move signaling expanded capabilities in both international arbitration and antitrust litigation funding, the global legal finance leader appointed Claire-Naïla Damamme and William Vigen as Investment Managers and Legal Counsel. These additions reflect Omni Bridgeway’s continued commitment to deepening in-house legal and investment expertise amid growing demand for sophisticated funding solutions.

Omni's press release states that Claire-Naïla Damamme brings nearly a decade of distinguished international legal experience to Omni Bridgeway, where she will lead the firm’s U.S. International Arbitration initiative. Damamme’s background includes representing sovereign states and multinational corporations across energy, telecommunications, infrastructure, and technology disputes. Her expertise covers the full lifecycle of investor-state and commercial arbitrations, including enforcement before U.S. courts, honed through roles at top global law firms and institutions like White & Case LLP, WilmerHale, and the International Court of Justice.

William Vigen complements this expansion with more than 15 years of trial and litigation experience, particularly in antitrust enforcement and government investigations. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Vigen worked at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and later as a partner in private practice, where he led complex criminal prosecutions and major civil antitrust matters. At Omni Bridgeway, he will spearhead investment sourcing and evaluation in antitrust and related litigation.

According to Matt Harrison, Omni Bridgeway’s U.S. Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, these appointments underscore the firm’s focus on delivering world-class legal finance expertise both domestically and internationally.

A significant legal win for litigation funder Archetype Capital Partners emerged this month in the firm’s ongoing dispute with one of its co‑founders. A Nevada federal judge granted Archetype a preliminary injunction that prevents the ex‑partner from using the company’s proprietary systems for underwriting and managing mass tort litigation while the underlying trade secret lawsuit continues.

According to an article in Bloomberg, Archetype filed suit in September against its former co‑founder, Andrew Schneider, and Bullock Legal Group LLC, alleging misappropriation of confidential methodologies and business systems developed to assess and fund mass tort claims. The complaint asserted that Schneider supplied Bullock Legal with sensitive documents and leveraged Archetype’s systems to rapidly grow the firm’s case inventory from a few thousand matters to well over 148,000, a jump that Archetype says directly undercut its competitive position.

In issuing the injunction, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada found that Archetype was likely to succeed on its trade secret and breach of contract claims. While the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Bullock Legal and dismissed the company from the suit, it nonetheless barred both Schneider and Bullock from distributing proceeds from a $5.6 billion mass tort settlement tied to video game addiction litigation that had been structured using Archetype’s proprietary systems.

The order further requires the return of all materials containing confidential data and prohibits Schneider from soliciting or interfering with Archetype’s clients.

In a development drawing fresh scrutiny to fee arrangements in class action proceedings, law firms involved in the high-profile shareholder lawsuit against BHP have collected nearly three times the legal fees they initially represented to the court. The firms took in approximately $48 million from a $110 million settlement approved in the Federal Court of Australia, despite earlier representations suggesting significantly lower costs.

An article in the Australian Financial Review details how the legal teams initially indicated their fees would constitute a relatively modest share of the final settlement. However, court filings reveal a different outcome, with the firms ultimately securing a much larger cut after a revised funding structure was approved during the settlement process.

The underlying class action was brought on behalf of shareholders following the catastrophic 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil, and partially funded by G&E KTMC Funding LLC, which is backed by Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, two prominent US-based shareholder litigation firms.

The case centered on allegations that BHP failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the dam's operations, leading to sharp share price declines after the disaster. While BHP did not admit liability, the $110 million agreement was one of several global legal settlements related to the event.

The revised fee arrangement was approved as part of a “common fund” order, which allows for legal and funding costs to be deducted from the total settlement on behalf of all group members. The final order was issued without a detailed public explanation for the increased fees, prompting concerns from legal observers and stakeholders about transparency and accountability in class action settlements.

King and Spalding is facing a malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit from former client David Pisor, a Chicago-based entrepreneur, who claims the law firm pushed him into a predatory litigation funding deal and massively overbilled him for legal services. The complaint, filed in Illinois state court, accuses the firm of inflating its rates midstream and steering Pisor toward a funding agreement that primarily served the firm's financial interests.

An article in Law.com reports that the litigation stems from King and Spalding's representation of Pisor and his company, PSIX LLC, in a 2021 dispute. According to the complaint, the firm directed him to enter a funding arrangement with an entity referred to in court as “Defendant SC220163,” which is affiliated with litigation funder Statera Capital Funding. Pisor alleges that after securing the funding, King and Spalding tied its fee structure to it, raised hourly rates, and billed over 3,000 hours across 30 staff and attorneys within 11 months, resulting in more than $3.5 million in fees.

The suit further alleges that many of these hours were duplicative, non-substantive, or billed at inflated rates, with non-lawyer work charged at partner-level fees. Pisor claims he was left with minimal control over his case and business due to the debt incurred through the funding arrangement, despite having a company valued at over $130 million at the time.

King and Spalding, along with the associated litigation funder, declined to comment. The lawsuit brings multiple claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Illinois’ Consumer Legal Funding Act.

An article in Carrier Management highlights a rare direct dialogue between litigation finance leaders and insurance executives aimed at clearing up persistent misconceptions about the role of legal finance in claims costs and social inflation.

Burford Capital’s David Perla and Parabellum Capital’s Dai Wai Chin Feman underscore that much of the current debate stems from confusion over what legal finance actually is and what it is not. The pair participated in an Insurance Insider Executive Business Club roundtable with property and casualty carriers and stakeholders, arguing that the litigation finance industry’s core activities are misunderstood and mischaracterized. They contend that legal finance should not be viewed as monolithic and that policy debates often conflate fundamentally different segments of the market, leading to misdirected criticism and calls for boycotts.

Perla and Feman break legal finance into three distinct categories: commercial funding (non-recourse capital for complex business-to-business disputes), consumer funding (non-recourse advances in personal injury contexts), and law firm lending (recourse working capital loans).

Notably, commercial litigation finance often intersects with contingent risk products like judgment preservation and collateral protection insurance, demonstrating symbiosis rather than antagonism with insurers. They emphasize that commercial funders focus on meritorious, high-value cases and that these activities bear little resemblance to the injury litigation insurers typically cite when claiming legal finance drives inflation.

The authors also tackle common industry narratives head-on, challenging assumptions about funder influence on verdicts, market scale, and settlement incentives. They suggest that insurers’ concerns are driven less by legal finance itself and more by issues like mass tort exposure, opacity of investment vehicles, and alignment with defense-oriented lobbying groups.

Legal Bay LLC, a pre settlement funding firm, has announced plans to significantly expand its focus on wrongful termination and commercial litigation funding in 2026.

According to a recent press release, the company cited a sharp rise in workplace lawsuits tied to return to office mandates, including claims of retaliation, sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and employment discrimination. While Legal Bay has a long track record of supporting plaintiffs in employment disputes, the firm stated that the growing volume and complexity of these cases has created an urgent need for increased resources and capital allocation.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, stated that many litigation funders tend to shy away from large or complicated matters. Legal Bay, by contrast, plans to ramp up its funding support for claimants facing job loss due to alleged wrongful termination. Janish emphasized that the company will dedicate substantial resources in the year ahead to meet the needs of plaintiffs in protracted legal battles.

Legal Bay offers non recourse cash advances, often within 24 to 48 hours of documentation, to plaintiffs seeking back pay, lost benefits, or other damages in connection with workplace disputes. The company’s funding is structured so that plaintiffs owe nothing if their case does not result in a favorable outcome.

A prominent North West-based claimant law firm is setting aside more than £200 million to fund a major expansion in personal injury and assault claims. The substantial reserve is intended to support the firm’s continued growth in high-volume litigation, as it seeks to scale its operations and increase its market share in an increasingly competitive sector.

As reported in The Law Gazette, the move comes amid rising volumes of claims, driven by shifts in legislation, heightened public awareness, and a more assertive approach to legal redress. With this capital reserve, the firm aims to bolster its ability to process a significantly larger caseload while managing rising operational costs and legal pressures.

Market watchers suggest the firm is positioning itself not only to withstand fluctuations in claim volumes but also to potentially emerge as a consolidator in the space, absorbing smaller firms or caseloads as part of a broader growth strategy.

From a legal funding standpoint, this development signals a noteworthy trend. When law firms build sizable internal war chests, they reduce their reliance on third-party litigation finance. This may impact demand for external funders, particularly in sectors where high-volume claimant firms dominate. It also brings to the forefront important questions about capital risk, sustainability, and the evolving economics of volume litigation. Should the number of claims outpace expectations, even a £200 million reserve could be put under pressure.

Katch Fund Solutions, one of the most prominent players in consumer litigation funding, has placed its consumer claims fund into liquidation.

According to Legal Futures, the move comes in response to mounting liquidity pressures caused by prolonged delays in resolving motor-finance claims and increased uncertainty surrounding major group litigation efforts. The Luxembourg-based fund confirmed it is winding down the portfolio and returning capital to investors on a pro-rata basis.

Katch had been a key backer of large-scale consumer legal claims in the UK, supporting firms such as SSB Law and McDermott Smith Law. Both firms ultimately collapsed, with SSB Law owing £63 million including £16 million in interest, and McDermott Smith Law owing £7 million. Katch’s portfolio also included a substantial stake in the ongoing “Plevin” litigation, a group of cases alleging unfair undisclosed commissions tied to the sale of payment protection insurance. That litigation, initially estimated at £18 billion in value, suffered a blow earlier this year when the High Court declined to grant a group litigation order, further delaying resolution timelines.

The firm’s consumer claims fund held over £400 million in assets as of mid-2025, but was hit hard by increasing investor redemption requests. Katch’s team cited concerns that payouts from major motor-finance cases could be delayed until 2026 or later due to regulatory and judicial developments. With limited short-term liquidity options, the fund concluded that an orderly wind-down was the only viable path forward.

Omni Bridgeway is backing a newly launched class action in New Zealand targeting Transpower New Zealand Limited and its contractor Omexom, following a major regional blackout that occurred in June 2024.

According to Omni's website, the outage, which affected approximately 180,000 residents and 20,000 businesses across Northland, was triggered by the collapse of a transmission tower near Glorit during maintenance activity conducted by Omexom.

Filed in the High Court in Wellington by law firms LeeSalmonLong and Piper Alderman, the case alleges negligence on the part of both defendants. The plaintiffs claim that Transpower failed to adequately oversee the maintenance, and that Omexom mishandled the work that led to the tower’s collapse.

The class action is proceeding on an opt-out basis, meaning all impacted Northland businesses are automatically included unless they choose otherwise. Under Omni Bridgeway’s funding model, there are no upfront costs to class members, and fees are contingent on a successful outcome.

The economic impact of the outage has been pegged between NZ$60 million and NZ$80 million, according to various estimates, with businesses reporting power losses lasting up to three days and in some cases longer. In the aftermath of the blackout, Transpower and Omexom jointly contributed NZ$1 million to a resilience fund for affected communities, a figure the plaintiffs argue is woefully inadequate compared to the losses incurred.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) has added Loopa Finance to its membership, marking another step in the trade association’s strategic expansion across Latin America and continental Europe. The announcement highlights ILFA’s continued efforts to support the growth of responsible legal finance and its positioning as the leading global voice for commercial litigation funders.

According to a press release issued by ILFA, the addition of Loopa Finance — formerly known as Qanlex — is seen as a major milestone in expanding the organization’s presence in key regional markets. Founded in 2020, Loopa operates across Latin America and Europe and specializes in litigation and arbitration funding, with a focus on innovative, risk-sharing funding models that utilize analytics and technology. The company’s inclusion brings further regional expertise to ILFA’s growing international network.

ILFA’s Director of Growth and Membership Engagement, Rupert Cunningham, emphasized the importance of Latin America’s rapidly evolving legal finance landscape, noting that Loopa’s entry will help enhance advocacy efforts with national governments and the European Union. Juliana Giorgi, General Counsel for Latin America at Loopa, echoed the sentiment, stating that joining ILFA reflects the company’s commitment to professionalism, transparency, and the development of a responsible funding ecosystem.

This move comes at a time when legal finance continues to professionalize globally, with trade associations like ILFA playing a crucial role in shaping regulatory conversations and establishing best practices. The addition of a cross-border funder like Loopa underscores the increasing global alignment within the commercial legal finance sector and raises questions about how funders will navigate differing regulatory environments while pursuing expansion.

Certum Group, the Texas-based litigation funder known for its mix of funding and risk-transfer tools, has entered the managed services space with the acquisition of a legal support business tailored to mass tort and personal injury firms. The new operation, Certum Legal Solutions, is already providing back-office and pre-litigation support to a number of law firms under a fee-for-service model.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Certum acquired the MSO in October and has since begun offering services including case intake, document management, and discovery support. The platform utilizes both legal and non-legal personnel and incorporates proprietary tools designed to automate medical-records integration and client communication.

The MSO originated from Sbaiti & Company, a New Jersey-based mass tort firm. While it continues to service Sbaiti, the business is expanding to support other firms as well. Certum has indicated that it may eventually pursue equity stakes in client firms, in addition to traditional fee-for-service arrangements.

This development reflects a broader industry trend where litigation funders are exploring alternative vehicles like MSOs to support or invest in law firms while staying within the bounds of legal ethics rules that restrict non-lawyer ownership and profit-sharing. Advisors say funders are diversifying from traditional debt financing toward more integrated operational models that can offer both financial returns and strategic access.

With Certum stepping into the MSO arena, the line between funder and service provider continues to blur. The model could reshape how funders work with firms, particularly in high-volume, complex areas like mass torts. As more funders evaluate similar moves, the legal funding industry may see deeper operational entanglements and longer-term alliances.

The High Court has rejected mining giant BHP’s application for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) that sought to prevent Pogust Goodhead from pursuing lawful evidence-gathering measures in the United States against the former president of the Brazilian redress scheme foundation set up after the Mariana dam collapse.

The Court found no basis to characterise Pogust Goodhead’s use of Section 1782 to seek a deposition of Mr André de Freitas, former CEO of the Renova Foundation[i] as vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable, as argued by BHP.

In November 2024, Pogust Goodhead filed the §1782 application in the District Court of Arkansas seeking limited testimony from Mr de Freitas in relation to Pogust Goodhead’s claim arguing that BHP unlawfully interfered with Pogust Goodhead’s retainer rights and the compensation due to its Brazilian clients.  The U.S. court granted the subpoenas in January 2025.

Since then, BHP has sought to block the deposition by filing motions to quash the subpoenas in April 2025 and seeking an ASI in the High Court. A ruling from the Arkansas court is pending.

In Wednesday’s judgment, Mr Justice Waksman rejected BHP’s request for an injunction that would have halted the U.S. evidence-gathering process, finding no basis to prevent Pogust Goodhead from continuing with its §1782 discovery efforts.

Justice Waksman wrote in his decision: “I agree with PG that the depositions serve a distinct and legitimate purpose, being to better understand Renova’s role in relation to the various settlements and their form.”

Alicia Alinia, CEO at Pogust Goodhead commented: “We welcome the Court’s clear judgment. BHP has repeatedly attempted to obstruct legitimate investigations into its conduct. Mr de Freitas’s testimony is central to understanding how our clients’ rights may have been undermined. It is essential that he gives evidence. Only by hearing directly from those involved can our clients’ rights be properly safeguarded and the full truth established.”

Key Findings

• The court held that English courts do not control how parties lawfully obtain evidence abroad, and that the U.S. court is the appropriate authority to decide the scope and propriety of discovery sought under Section 1782.
• The Court also highlighted BHP’s significant delay in bringing the ASI application — nearly four months after learning of the U.S. subpoenas — which weighed against granting any injunctive relief.
• Any concerns about the scope of the subpoenas, alleged misstatements, or burden on the witness are squarely matters for the U.S. District Court, which has already engaged with the issues in detailed hearings.

As a result, BHP cannot use the English courts to derail the ongoing U.S. process. The parties now await the District Court of Arkansas’s decision on whether BHP’s motions to quash the subpoenas will succeed.

US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.

According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.

The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.

Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.

For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.

A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.

An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.

Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.

This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.

Woolworths Group is facing a new shareholder class action that alleges the company misled investors about the scale and financial impact of underpaying salaried employees. The action, backed by Litigation Lending Services, adds a fresh legal front to the long-running fallout from Woolworths’ wage compliance failures.

According to AFR, at the heart of the claim is the allegation that Woolworths did not adequately inform the market about the risks posed by its reliance on annualised salary structures and set-off clauses. These payment methods averaged compensation over longer periods instead of ensuring employees received correct pay entitlements for each pay period. This included overtime, penalty rates, and other award entitlements.

Recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have clarified that such set-off practices are non-compliant under modern awards. Employers must now ensure all entitlements are met for each pay period and maintain detailed records of employee hours. These rulings significantly raise the compliance bar and have increased financial exposure for large employers like Woolworths, which has tens of thousands of salaried employees.

As a result, Woolworths could face hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation costs. The shareholder class action argues that Woolworths failed to disclose the magnitude of these potential liabilities in a timely or accurate way. Investors claim that this omission amounts to misleading conduct, and that they were not fully informed of the risks when making investment decisions.

Tom Goldstein, the former SCOTUSblog co-founder and prominent appellate advocate, has named Parabellum Capital as the litigation funder at the center of a federal indictment accusing him of misappropriating legal financing to pay off personal debts.

Bloomberg Law reports that in a court filing made last week, Goldstein disclosed that he used advances from Parabellum to cover non-litigation-related expenses, including the purchase of a multimillion-dollar home. The revelation comes amid federal charges alleging that Goldstein misused firm funds to settle gambling losses and personal obligations, then mischaracterized those payments as business expenses. Prosecutors previously referred to an unnamed funder involved in these transactions; Parabellum is now confirmed to be that firm.

Goldstein’s disclosure appears to be part of a strategic legal response to mounting charges of tax evasion and financial misrepresentation. Once a high-profile figure in Supreme Court litigation, Goldstein now faces scrutiny not only for alleged personal financial misconduct but also for the implications his actions may have on the litigation finance ecosystem.

While Parabellum has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the situation highlights a key risk in the litigation funding model: the potential for funds advanced against anticipated case proceeds to be diverted toward unrelated personal uses. Funders traditionally require that capital be deployed for case expenses, legal fees, and expert costs—not real estate acquisitions or debt payments.

This case underscores a growing concern in the legal funding industry: the need for tighter controls, enhanced due diligence, and possibly more explicit regulatory frameworks to ensure that funding agreements are not exploited. As the industry continues to mature, episodes like this could shape how funders vet borrowers and monitor the use of their capital.

At a Fall conference hosted by law firm Brown Rudnick, attendees from across the litigation finance industry voiced growing concern about the sector’s prospects, signaling what may be a turning point for a business long hyped for outsized returns.

According to Yahoo Finance, many in attendance described a drain in new investment and increasing skepticism that big wins, once seen as routine, will materialize. In recent years, funders have aggressively financed high-stakes lawsuits with the expectation that a handful of big verdicts or settlements would deliver significant payouts. But now, as legal outcomes remain unpredictable and returns disappoint, investors appear to be pulling back. Some funders are reportedly limiting new deals, tightening criteria for which cases to support, or reevaluating their business models altogether.

For smaller plaintiffs and everyday plaintiffs’ firms, the contraction in funding availability could prove especially painful. The ripple effects may leave many without access to third-party capital needed to bridge the lengthy wait until verdict. And for funders, the shrinking appetite for risk could mean narrower portfolios and potentially lower returns overall.

The industry’s recalibration may also carry broader implications. Fewer fundings could slow litigation overall. Plaintiffs may see reduced leverage while funders may prioritize lower-risk, smaller-return cases. The shift could further concentrate power among a shrinking number of large, well-capitalized funders.

As the post-conference murmur becomes a chorus, the once-booming litigation finance sector may be entering a more sober phase — where hope for home-run returns gives way to caution, discipline, and perhaps a redefinition of what success looks like.

Litigation funders scored a major win in Europe this week as the European Commission confirmed it will not pursue new regulations targeting third-party funding. In a decision delivered at the final session of the Commission's High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth, Commissioner Michael McGrath announced that the EU executive will instead focus its efforts on implementing the recently adopted Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which governs collective redress actions brought by consumers and investors.

An article in Law.com notes that the move is being hailed as a significant victory by litigation funders, particularly Omni Bridgeway. Kees de Visser, the firm's Chair of the EMEA Investment Committee, described the decision as a clear endorsement of the litigation funding model and a green light for continued expansion across European jurisdictions. Funders had grown increasingly concerned over the past year that the EU might impose strict rules or licensing requirements, following persistent lobbying by industry critics and certain member states.

Supporters of the Commission’s stance, including the International Legal Finance Association, argue that additional regulation would have harmed access to justice. They contend that third-party funding helps balance the playing field, especially in complex or high-cost litigation, by enabling smaller claimants to pursue valid claims that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

Although concerns around transparency and influence remain part of the wider policy debate, the EU’s current position sends a strong signal that existing legal tools and the RAD framework are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. For funders like Omni Bridgeway, this regulatory reprieve opens the door to deeper engagement in consumer and mass claims across the bloc.

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.

The global litigation funding market is experiencing strong growth, yet lingering regulatory uncertainties continue to shadow its trajectory. According to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, the market was valued at approximately US $17.5 billion (AUD $26.9 billion) in March 2025 and is projected to surge to US $67.2 billion (AUD $103 billion) by 2037.

An article in LSJ states that major drivers of this expansion include rising legal costs, complex cross-border commercial litigation, and increased demand from small and mid-sized law firms seeking external funding to build out specialist teams. While funders embrace the growth opportunity, critics raise concerns around transparency, claimant autonomy, and potential conflicts of interest.

In Australia, a notable development occurred on 6 August 2025 when the High Court of Australia in Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd clarified that federal courts may make common fund or funding equalisation orders for the benefit of third-party funders (but not for solicitors) in class actions—except in Victoria, which still allows contingency fees. This decision is seen as a win for litigation funders, providing greater clarity across most Australian jurisdictions. Australia also saw regulatory reform in December 2022 when the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations came into force, exempting litigation funding schemes from the MIS/AFSL regime under specific conditions and emphasising the mitigation of conflicts of interest as a compliance feature.

On the regulatory front, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is considering extending relief instruments that exempt certain litigation funding arrangements from the National Credit Code and financial services licensing until March 2030. Meanwhile in the UK, the proposed Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 seeks to remove the classification of third-party funding agreements as “damages-based agreements” under the Courts & Legal Services Act – a move which proponents say will enable greater access to justice and clear the path for global funders.

U.S. lawmakers are intensifying their efforts to regulate third-party litigation funding, with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introducing the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. This bill mirrors H.R. 2675, which is already progressing through the House, and targets alleged foreign influence in U.S. litigation, particularly from state-owned entities and sovereign wealth funds.

Insurance Journal reports that the proposed legislation would prohibit foreign governments and their affiliated investment arms from financing litigation in U.S. courts. It would also introduce mandatory disclosure requirements, compelling funders to report their arrangements to both the courts and the Department of Justice. Additionally, the bill empowers the DOJ’s National Security Division to review and monitor foreign litigation investments as a matter of national interest.

Supporters of the bill, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), argue that litigation funding sourced from foreign entities presents a tangible threat to national security and economic resilience. APCIA’s senior leadership described it as a “clear and present risk” that could influence legal outcomes and distort the civil justice system.

For the legal funding industry, the implications are significant. If enacted, the law would alter the landscape for funders operating in the U.S. market, especially those reliant on foreign capital. It raises pressing questions about how funders are going to combat this continued assault on the very existence of the industry.

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

The UK‑listed litigation funder Manolete Partners PLC has released its interim financial results for the half‑year ended 30 September 2025, revealing a stable but subdued performance amid an expanding insolvency funding opportunity.

According to the company announcement, total revenue fell to £12.7 million (down 12 % from £14.4 million a year earlier), while realised revenue slipped to £14.0 million (down 7 % from £15.0 million). Operating profit dropped sharply to £0.1 million, compared to £0.7 million in the prior period—though excluding fair value write‑downs tied to the company’s truck‑cartel portfolio, underlying profit stood at £2.0 million.

The business completed 146 cases during the period (up 7 % year‑on‑year) and signed 146 new case investments (up nearly 16 %). Live cases rose to 446 from 413 a year earlier, and the total estimated settlement value of new cases signed in the period was claimed to be 31 % ahead of the prior year. Cash receipts were flat at about £14.5 million, while net debt improved to £10.8 million (down from £11.9 million). The company’s cash balance nearly doubled to £1.1 million.

In its commentary, Manolete emphasises the buoyant UK insolvency backdrop — particularly the rise of Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations and HMRC‑driven petitions — as a tailwind for growth. However, the board notes the first half was impacted by a lower‑than‑average settlement value and a “quiet summer”, though trading picked up in September and October. The firm remains confident of stronger average settlement values and a weighting of realised revenues toward the second half of the year.

The European Commission has stepped back from plans to impose EU‑wide regulation on third‑party litigation funding. At the closing of its “Justice for Growth” forum this week, Commissioner Michael McGrath bluntly stated that stakeholders reported “no need to regulate third‑party litigation funding at EU level”. Instead, the Commission will shift focus toward monitoring how the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) is being implemented across member states.

An article in Law 360 notes that the decision comes after a consultative process and stakeholder feedback via the Commission’s high‑level forum, which included representatives from business, consumer interest groups, and member‑state institutions.

Industry reaction was swift and positive. The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) welcomed the announcement, noting that potential new regulation had created “considerable uncertainty for the sector.” ILFA expressed relief that the “talk of the need for new regulation … appears to be closed.”

Nevertheless, the decision comes at a complex moment. Earlier this year, the Commission published a detailed study on mapping third‑party litigation funding in the European Union, which had outlined three options for regulatory intervention: no regulation, light‑touch regulation, or full regulation. While the choice of “no new legislation” appears to align with the industry’s preference, the heightened scrutiny of the RAD’s implementation could signal more targeted oversight of how funders participate in consumer collective redress actions.

Implications for the legal funding industry: With the Commission refraining from new legislation, funders operating across the EU now have greater regulatory clarity, at least for the near term. But the decision also places the spotlight on national implementation of the RAD and raises questions about whether member states might adopt their own regulatory responses instead.