Rival clubs, players and agents weighing compensation claims against Manchester City may struggle to secure after-the-event insurance until the club's appeal is resolved, according to a specialist litigation insurance underwriter.

As reported by Insurance Business, Rocco Pirozzolo, managing director and underwriting director at Harbour Underwriting, said the live appeal creates uncertainty that underwriters are unlikely to price. "With a live appeal, this creates uncertainty, and so I expect underwriters would want to wait for the outcome of the appeal," he said.

The Premier League announced on 29 September that an independent commission had found the club in breach of more than 100 of its rules, upholding 114 of the 115 charges brought in 2023 following an investigation that began in 2018. Manchester City lodged an appeal on 1 October and denies wrongdoing.

Pirozzolo noted that Burnley's earlier award against Everton gives underwriters a roadmap for this type of claim, but that tying a rule breach to lost results and lost revenue remains the difficult part. Causation and quantum are the key tests for ATE underwriters assessing whether a claim is insurable.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham are reported to have lodged notices in 2024 reserving the right to claim compensation, while players and agents are said to be exploring loss-of-earnings claims tied to bonus payments.

A three-member appeal board will hear the case and may dismiss or allow the appeal, remit it to the commission, or alter any sanction. Under Premier League rules the hearing should be held within 12 weeks of being lodged, with a decision due within 30 days of its conclusion.

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) has reported that it is tracking at or above all of its FY27 operational targets, with first-quarter completions returning well above the funder's recent historical average.

As reported by GlobeNewswire, the alternative asset manager's Investment Portfolio Report as at 30 September 2026 records 20 full and partial completions generating A$135.8m in investment proceeds at a 3.9x multiple on invested capital. That compares with a two-year trailing average of 2.5x, and the completions converted at 102% of carrying fair value.

Management fees rose 24% year-on-year to A$10.7m, and the group received A$9.4m in cash carried interest, with a further A$8.6m accrued on Series II funds but not yet distributed. Omni Bridgeway also completed the final close of its Funds 4 and 5 Series II at the full US$1 billion target during the quarter, which it expects to push management fee growth towards the higher end of its indicated FY27 range.

New commitments totalled A$87.1m across nine new investments, up 23% on the prior corresponding quarter, adding A$81.2m in new fair value. The pipeline comprised 46 agreed exclusive term sheets representing an estimated A$416.6m in potential new commitments, up from A$317.8m a year earlier.

Cash operating expenses of A$15.7m tracked below the FY27 budget range of A$72.5m to A$75.0m, with a cost coverage ratio of 68% for the quarter. Chief Executive Officer Raymond van Hulst pointed to the 46 exclusive term sheets and a significant number of late-stage investments in the portfolio.

Two new collective claims filed at the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal this month target Visa and Mastercard over multilateral interchange fees, and the role of litigation funding has become a central point of contention between the parties.

As reported by The Paypers, the larger of the two claims — valued at approximately £5bn — was filed in late October by law firms Harcus Parker and Hausfeld and is funded by Bench Walk Advisors, the London-headquartered litigation finance firm established in 2017. The proposed class representative is Stephen Allen, a British businessman and former travel sector executive who has pursued several collective actions against the card schemes since 2021.

The claim covers interchange fees charged to UK businesses since October 2020. If the Tribunal grants a collective proceedings order, an estimated one million UK businesses, organisations and charities with annual revenues below £100m would be included automatically unless they opt out, with individual claims potentially worth several thousand pounds. Larger businesses would need to opt in.

A separate claim seeking more than £700m was filed on 8 October by Ann Pope, a former Senior Director at the Competition and Markets Authority, represented by Geradin Partners. It covers roughly 126,000 UK businesses over card-not-present transactions between the UK and the EEA, where consumer debit fees allegedly rose from 0.2% to 1.15% and consumer credit fees from 0.3% to 1.5%. Funding arrangements for that claim have not been disclosed.

Mastercard described the £5bn claim as speculative and part of what it called a growing trend of opportunistic funder-backed litigation, adding that it reflects the type of case targeted by the UK government's proposed reforms to opt-out class actions. Visa said interchange remains critical to a secure digital payments ecosystem.

Family offices are increasingly treating litigation finance as a diversification tool, drawn by returns that are largely uncorrelated with public markets at a time of rising inflation and interest rates.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appeal rests on three characteristics: appetite for risk, patience for investments of uncertain duration, and the absence of correlation to other holdings. Kelly Daley, founder of Celsia Capital, described family offices as a "uniquely good fit" for the asset class, noting that most operate on evergreen horizons with few external constraints — unlike LP-backed funds, pension plans and endowments working to fixed terms.

Thomas Mellor, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said insurance-backed structures, in which an asset is insured and then borrowed against, have widened the pool of capital available to the market. Over the past seven to eight years the ecosystem has expanded to the point where family offices are "just one of the many other market participants who became part of" it.

The scale of that capital is substantial. More than half of the 351 respondents to Citi Wealth's Global Family Office Report 2026/2027 manage over $500 million, and Deloitte projects roughly 75% growth in the number of family offices between 2019 and 2030, against $9.5 trillion in family wealth.

The interest arrives as institutional fundraising remains slow. Corbin Capital's $342 million litigation finance fund took nearly two years to close, underscoring why funders are looking to capital sources that can commit without a fixed exit date.

Justice Michael Lee has appointed two barristers as contradictors to scrutinise the commission a litigation funder is seeking from a record A$750 million settlement of two Toyota class actions — the largest funder commission ever sought in an Australian class action.

As reported by Lawyerly, the appointment marks a change of heart by the judge, who will now have independent counsel test Balance Legal Capital's proposed A$244 million share before deciding whether to approve it. Contradictors are appointed precisely because a commission application would otherwise go unopposed, with both the applicants and the respondent supporting approval.

The proceedings concern allegedly defective diesel particulate filters and have already produced significant precedent. In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344, the Federal Court made the first aggregate damages award under section 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act in favour of a funded litigant, with roughly 260,000 vehicle owners in the class. At that stage the funder had sought a commission of up to 25%.

The contradictor mechanism has materially reduced funder returns before. In the Robodebt class action, a contradictor argued that A$23 million was the appropriate commission against the funder's A$71 million request from a A$548.5 million settlement — a reduction of close to two-thirds.

The outcome will be closely watched by funders active in the Australian market, where commission approval has become the principal point at which courts exercise control over the economics of funded class actions.

A funded class action filed in Australia's Federal Court alleges that Meta Platforms exposed children to harmful content on Facebook and Instagram and kept them engaged through addictive design features. It is understood to be the first Australian case to attribute harm to social media platforms.

As reported by Al Jazeera, the action is funded by Litigation Lending Services and was filed by MinterEllison on behalf of eight plaintiffs who say they were harmed while under the age of 18. The funder said it was backing the claim for Australian families who "would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant."

The Federal Court in Sydney has issued a suppression order restricting publication of the statement of claim and the identities of the applicants. A Meta spokesperson said the company is "aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously," with HSF Kramer acting for the defence. MinterEllison partner William Nolan said the proceeding "raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia."

The funding structure reflects standard Australian practice, where class actions are typically backed by third-party funders taking a percentage of any recovery rather than run on contingency by the firm itself. The case follows Australia's December 2025 minimum-age rules, which require platforms including Facebook and Instagram to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts, and Meta's agreement in August to pay up to $17.1 billion to resolve claims brought by a coalition of US state attorneys-general.

The matter returns to court on November 3.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met on October 21 and again stopped short of committing to a nationwide rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding, leaving the question unresolved more than a decade after it first reached the committee.

As reported by MLex, two pieces of research shaped the discussion. A Federal Judicial Center study by Emery Lee reviewed funding disclosures filed in the District of New Jersey between June 2021 and June 2026 and identified few clear trends. Earlier work had found funding concentrated in patent cases before a single judge in the District of Delaware.

The proposal before the committee comes from the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice, submitted on March 10. It would amend Rule 26(a)(1)(A) to require parties to identify any nonparty funder and produce the funding agreement. The International Legal Finance Association filed an opposition on October 7, docketed as Rules Suggestion 26-CV-42, pointing to the committee's own agenda book, which acknowledged that disclosure "may provide the opposing party with a guide to exhausting its opponent's resources."

Pressure continues to build outside the rulemaking process. A September letter signed by 214 companies, among them Amazon, Google, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Meta and Ford, argued that Rules 17, 7.1 and 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) already compel analogous disclosures. In Congress, Senator Chuck Grassley introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 (S.3826) in February, and Representative Darrell Issa has advanced a House counterpart. Individual courts have moved independently, with both the Western District of Louisiana and the Delaware Superior Court adopting local disclosure rules.

For context on pace, Rule 16.1, the federal rule governing MDL management, took seven years from proposal to adoption.

The law firm holding the largest book of UK motor finance claims has called for a temporary blanket ban on all advertising for such claims, arguing that duplicate representation must be resolved before consumers are marketed to further.

As reported by Legal Futures, Courmacs Legal — a North-West firm acting for 1.6 million clients across four million claims — wants the duplicate claims problem fixed first. The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that more than a million complaints have multiple representatives, with instances of consumers signing the same claim with as many as 20 different representatives. Those consumers risk incurring multiple termination fees. Courmacs stopped its own marketing a year ago.

The firm also called on the joint taskforce on motor finance claims — comprising the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the FCA, the Advertising Standards Authority and the newly renamed Information Commission — to examine the FCA's own advertising posture, noting that regulator representatives "made public statements threatening to pull its redress scheme while also still advertising to consumers that they must trust in the redress scheme."

Speaking at the Claims Futures conference, managing director Darren Smith said the taskforce "is absolutely right to have been cracking down on aggressive practices and poor handling of motor finance claims," but that "more drastic action is needed immediately if the industry can be seen as trustworthy, transparent and truly putting the consumer's interest first." He urged other firms to support the ban and proposed a roundtable involving the FCA, SRA, consumer organisations and industry.

An FCA spokesman said: "We are defending our scheme as the best way to compensate consumers. Whatever the outcome of the legal challenges, consumers' complaints would still need to be dealt with."

Class actions before the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal counted more than 750 million members by the end of last year, an increase of 80 million over the prior twelve months, with a cumulative claimed value exceeding £151 billion.

As reported by Legal Futures, research from law firm CMS found the total value rose by almost £17 billion on 2024. The composition has also shifted: opt-out claims now account for £85.6 billion against £65.6 billion for opt-in actions, reversing the previous pattern in which opt-in claims made up the majority. Membership has climbed steadily, from 560 million in 2023 to 671 million in 2024 and 752 million last year.

For the first time, big tech is the most exposed defendant sector, surpassing the stated value of the Mariana Dam litigation by approximately £8 billion. Natural resources and energy, financial products and automotive follow. CMS expects the trend to continue and to generate new claim categories, including social media addiction and claims relating to artificial intelligence.

The European Class Action Report 2026 recorded 38 UK claims issued last year, recovering from 33 in 2024. The report describes the UK as "one of the highest, if not the highest, risk jurisdictions in Europe," citing a well-developed claimant bar with close ties to US plaintiff firms, broad disclosure rules, "a sophisticated litigation funding market" and procedural mechanisms that facilitate class actions.

The UK accounted for 36% of European class actions last year, more than double its nearest rival Portugal. Italy followed at 12%, then Austria and the Netherlands. Competition claims remain the most common category, alongside a clear increase in product liability and personal injury filings.

The regulatory map for third-party litigation funding has shifted decisively toward disclosure, with more than 20 states now requiring some form of transparency around outside capital in litigation. With the state-level picture largely settled, attention is turning to the federal courts.

As reported by Insurance Business, a new issues brief from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) documents the pace of legislative activity. "Litigation funding has operated in the shadows for too long," said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, adding that "transparency in litigation funding is the logical next step."

North Carolina's HB 315 is the most restrictive measure enacted to date, banning litigation investment outright and carrying civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Other 2026 laws — Ohio HB 105, Mississippi SB 2747, Tennessee HB 2108 and Utah HB 280 — focus on registration and disclosure requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and limits on funder control over litigation decisions.

Federal action has been slower. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced in February but has not advanced. In March, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice petitioned the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee for a uniform disclosure standard, drawing support from more than 200 major US companies, including dozens of insurers. The request may be taken up at the committee's October 21 meeting. The Western District of Louisiana introduced a standing order in September, though most federal judges continue to decide disclosure case by case.

Triple-I and the Casualty Actuarial Society estimate legal system abuse added between $231.6 billion and $281.2 billion to liability insurance losses over the past decade. Swiss Re puts the global litigation funding market at roughly $17 billion, projected to reach $31 billion by 2028.

Chariot Claims has closed a $10 million Series A round to expand a platform that sources and pre-qualifies consumer claims for mass arbitration, bringing total funding to $15.7 million.

As reported by LawNext, the round was led by Silverton Partners, with general partner Mike Dodd participating, alongside Indicator Ventures, Lightbank, Neon Fund, ZVC, Rosecliff, Alumni Ventures, FJ Labs, Graph Ventures and Vermilion. The company previously raised a $3.6 million seed round led by Indicator Ventures in April 2025.

Founded in 2023 as ClaimClam and rebranded in 2025, the company is led by chief executive Zim Hang. It generates more than 200,000 pre-qualified claims a month across roughly 80 active corporate cases. Chariot Claims is not a law firm.

The business is built on a participation gap. Only about 4% of harmed consumers file claims, and the company reports that its users recover an average of roughly $460, compared with the $32 average identified in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of class action distributions.

Proceeds will fund investment in artificial intelligence and expansion into children's data privacy, financial privacy and healthcare privacy claims, as well as defences against corporate retaliation. The company has more than doubled its headcount.

The raise reflects continued investor appetite for claim aggregation infrastructure, which sits adjacent to litigation finance and increasingly competes with it for the same consumer-facing claim volume.

The long-running rugby concussion group litigation has been pulled back from collapse after an eleventh-hour £1.5m payment satisfied a court-ordered costs liability owed to World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, commercial litigation funder Asertis remained in place after the claimants changed law firms, meaning the costs order could be met. Had the payment not been made, the claims of roughly 1,000 former players would have been at risk.

The payment follows a reprieve granted in August, when Senior Master Jeremy Cook handed down a 13,500-word judgment granting relief from sanction in principle after Richard Boardman's Rylands Garth was replaced by KP Law. The claims of Phil Vickery and Steve Thompson had previously been ruled strike-out-worthy. Defendants had sought more than £2.8m in total, with Rugby Union costs assessed at £2.5m across World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU, and 60% ordered on an interim basis.

The litigation is not out of danger. Some 377 claimants still face automatic dismissal unless medical records are provided by the end of the month.

The episode is a clear illustration of a funder's role beyond case capital. Where a claimant group incurs an adverse costs order mid-proceeding, the funder's willingness to stand behind it determines whether the litigation continues at all. Asertis's decision to remain committed through a change of solicitor preserved a case begun in 2022.

Mixed martial arts fighters suing the UFC over alleged wage suppression are pushing back against the organisation's effort to obtain information about the litigation funding behind their case, characterising the request as a distraction from the merits of the antitrust claims.

As reported by Law360, the fighters' opposition follows the UFC's move earlier this month to press a Nevada federal judge to pull back the curtain on who is financing the proceedings. The dispute arises in Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al, No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The October 15 report was written by Alex Lawson.

The case was filed in June 2021 by Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway against Zuffa and Endeavor Group Holdings, and covers fighters competing from 2017 onward. It is the successor to Le v. Zuffa, which settled for $375 million covering bouts between December 2010 and June 2017 and received final approval from Judge Richard F. Boulware in February 2025 without any accompanying changes to the UFC's business practices.

Funding discovery has become a standard defence tactic in large antitrust and class proceedings, and the fighters' objection tracks arguments made by claimants elsewhere: that the identity of a funder is irrelevant to liability. The case has already generated other discovery friction, including a sanctions motion in February over alleged evidence destruction.

The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld a Chancery Court ruling rejecting claims that hedge fund manager Casey Gard and affiliated entities improperly shifted a litigation finance business away from a company he co-owned with attorney Brett K. Findler.

As reported by Law360, the October 16 decision ends Findler's challenge to the lower court's liability findings. Findler and Priority Pre-Settlement Funding LLC had urged the justices to revive claims that his former partner quietly moved the funding business into hedge funds that the partner controlled. Counsel for Gard countered that Findler knew about the arrangement, agreed to it, and helped implement it.

The court heard oral argument on October 14, two days before issuing its ruling. The matter was reported by Law360's Jarek Rutz.

The dispute is a reminder that ownership and control questions inside funding platforms can be as contested as the underlying claims those platforms finance. Pre-settlement consumer funding businesses are frequently built around a working relationship between a lawyer who sources cases and a capital provider who prices them, and the economics of that relationship are often documented informally. Where the capital later migrates to a different vehicle, the question of who consented to what becomes the whole case.

Delaware's appellate courts have become an increasingly common venue for litigation finance disputes, with the Superior Court adopting a rule earlier this month permitting limited discovery of funding agreements.

Two discrimination class actions brought on behalf of First Nations families in Queensland have been formally discontinued after the proceedings lost their litigation funding, bringing a three-year case to an end without any determination on the merits.

As reported by the National Indigenous Times, the actions were launched in 2023 in the Federal Court against the Queensland child safety department and were financed by Therium Litigation Finance Atlas. Therium terminated its support in September 2025. WGC Lawyers, which ran the proceedings, was unable to secure replacement funding and filed a discontinuance application in April.

Justice Craig Dowling noted that significant attempts had been made to find alternative backing. In September, he determined that discontinuance would not be unfair, unreasonable or adverse to the interests of group members. The case was disbanded Wednesday, with the official notice of discontinuance filed Friday.

Group members had sought compensation, a public apology, a consultation process aimed at restoring family relationships, and trauma-informed training for departmental staff. A grandmother identified as Cindy criticised the lack of communication with claimants as the case unwound.

Separate proceedings run by Shine Lawyers in Western Australia and New South Wales are unaffected.

The outcome illustrates how closely group proceedings in Australia remain tied to the commercial appetite of a single funder. Therium has been in run-off since 2023, and its withdrawal left a 2023-vintage action with no realistic path to trial despite court-acknowledged efforts to replace the capital.

ASX-listed Shine Justice has marked its 50th year with a return to profitability and an international mass torts strategy that depends heavily on third-party litigation funding.

As reported by TipRanks, the firm now operates across Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States, with practice concentrations in personal injury, class actions and international mass torts.

Results presented on August 28 showed adjusted revenue up 7.8% to A$220.4 million and adjusted EBITDA up 13.9% to A$44.7 million. Net profit after tax attributable to members reached A$9.3 million, up from A$0.6 million, while operating cash flow held steady at A$19 million. Net work in progress rose 0.9% to A$366.6 million, and the company declared a fully franked dividend of A$0.04 per share. Offsetting that, Shine booked an A$11.2 million provision following an adverse U.S. court decision in a legacy class action now under appeal, and reported six in-principle settlement agreements worth more than A$219 million.

The company describes a hub-and-spoke model in which a U.S. hub sources large mass tort cases and exports them to spokes in Australia, New Zealand and Asia, with balance sheet risk minimised through litigation funding. Shine has secured up to A$40 million for talcum powder litigation and expects further backing for comparable claims in New Zealand and Thailand.

Simon Morrison has moved from managing director to a senior role focused on international mass torts, with Carolyn Barker taking over as group chief executive. Chief financial officer Marc Devine guided to high single-digit personal injury revenue growth of about 8% in FY27.

Listed litigation funders are facing renewed scrutiny as fair-value accounting pushes losses from adverse court and arbitration outcomes into earnings well before any cash changes hands.

As reported by Traders Union, reversals at Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management and others have intensified questions about valuation models that treat lawsuits as financial assets.

One recent flashpoint was a Paris-based ICC tribunal's dismissal of a $680 million claim against Nigeria that Burford had funded. The claim, brought by Sunrise Power, concerned a 2020 settlement the tribunal found had been signed by ministers who lacked authority to bind the state without presidential approval. Recoverability concerns were compounded by Sunrise Power's minimal assets and by cost penalties. Burford has separately absorbed the reversal of a $16.1 billion YPF judgment and a $2.4 billion write-down, while LCM has recorded a High Court loss alongside a 99% decline in its share price.

Under IFRS 9 and ASC 820, model-based unrealised gains and losses flow directly into reported earnings, tying marks to share prices, compensation and debt capacity. Net asset value therefore rests on probability-weighted assessments over which management retains significant discretion.

The scrutiny is not new. Muddy Waters alleged in 2019 that Burford "manipulates its performance metrics and abuses the latitude afforded it under fair value accounting," and the company later restated results for FY2019 through FY2022 following an SEC initiative. Burford has also reported a material weakness in internal controls affecting fair value measurement of capital provision assets, though it has pointed to $518.3 million in cash realizations year to date as evidence that timing, not deterioration, drives the volatility.

Apple has asked a federal court in San Diego to overturn or retry the largest patent verdict on record in the United States, a $5,721,961,750 award that carries a substantial litigation funding stake.

As reported by PYMNTS, a jury found on September 25 that the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches infringes two haptics patents held by Taction Technology. Apple is asking U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson to set aside the findings or order a new trial, and could then take the dispute to the Federal Circuit.

Taction sued in 2021 over patents describing tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations. Apple had the case dismissed in 2023, but the Federal Circuit revived it last year after finding the dismissal rested on an unwritten requirement that improperly prevented Taction from relying on certain expert testimony. Apple maintains that the Taptic Engine is "fundamentally different from Taction's technology." Jurors found the infringement was not willful, removing the basis for treble damages.

Burford Capital is entitled to roughly a quarter of the award, or about $1.4 billion, split roughly evenly between its balance sheet and its investment funds. Burford has cautioned that the figure is likely to be altered in post-trial proceedings and that the parties could settle for considerably less. Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP were identified as funders in the proceedings. Apple sought unsuccessfully during the case to compel disclosure of the funding arrangements — an issue a federal rules committee is scheduled to take up on October 21.

Josh Wander, co-founder of private investment firm 777 Partners, has signaled in a court filing that he intends to change his plea in the federal fraud case accusing him of cheating lenders and investors out of almost $500 million. Wander had previously pleaded not guilty and was scheduled to appear Thursday at a hearing before a judge in Manhattan.

As reported by Bloomberg, the filing points to a negotiated resolution in a prosecution that had been set for trial this month.

Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Wander in October 2025 in federal court in Manhattan, charging wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy. Most of the counts carry a maximum of 20 years. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton alleged that Wander used 777 Partners to cheat private lenders and investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars by pledging assets the firm did not own and by falsifying bank statements.

Prosecutors brought superseding charges in July 2026, to which Wander also pleaded not guilty. Those counts allege he diverted most of a $20 million loan into his own brokerage account and used phony bank statements to conceal that he had drained a restricted account tied to a different lender. The superseding indictment added a witness-tampering count, alleging Wander sent a former analyst a photograph of himself with his young child to discourage testimony.

Former 777 chief financial officer Damien Alfalla pleaded guilty to four felonies in October 2025 under a cooperation agreement. Wander had also applied to the Justice Department for a presidential pardon ahead of trial.

Ireland has brought its collective redress regime into operation with a new set of court rules and its first substantive judgment, yet the country's continuing prohibition on third-party litigation funding still stands between qualified entities and viable claims.

As reported by Arthur Cox, S.I. No. 488 of 2026 took effect on 12 October, inserting Order 15, rules 40 to 46 into the Rules of the Superior Courts and setting out the procedural framework for representative actions under the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023. A separate instrument, S.I. No. 465 of 2026, exempted qualified entities from court fees from 11 September.

The firm's Richard Willis, Joanelle O'Cleirigh, Kate O'Donohoe, Edel Curry and Peter Woods also point to the first substantive judgment under the Act, *Irish Council for Civil Liberties v Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited* [2026] IEHC 640, delivered by Mr Justice Mulcahy.

Despite the procedural progress, the authors identify the funding prohibition as a material obstacle to the regime functioning as intended. Qualified entities must finance proceedings without recourse to commercial funders, a constraint that significantly narrows the range of claims that can realistically be brought. Recommendations from the Law Reform Commission on third-party funding remain outstanding, leaving the question of whether Ireland will relax its position unresolved as the new rules come into force.

Third-party funding agreements are not automatically void in the Philippines despite the country's long-standing hostility to champerty, according to a new analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning in *RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corp v Ross*.

As reported by Asia Business Law Journal, Anthony Jacoba, Jermiss Mishania Muarip and Rex Emmanuel Apad of Manila firm Ocampo & Suralvo write that the Court's November 2023 decision stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition. Instead, a funding arrangement falls foul of Article 1409 of the Civil Code only where its terms are grossly disadvantageous to the funded party, leaving the enforceability of each agreement to turn on its specific commercial terms rather than on the existence of funding itself.

The authors note that the champerty doctrine in the Philippines developed principally as a constraint on lawyers, who are barred from acquiring an interest in the subject matter of litigation they handle. A funder that is not counsel sits outside that prohibition, which the authors argue creates space for institutional capital to support arbitration claims.

Disclosure is already part of the local framework. The 2021 Arbitration Rules of the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center require parties to disclose pre-existing funding arrangements, aligning Philippine practice with the transparency expectations now common across major arbitral institutions. The authors suggest the combination of a narrow champerty rule and a disclosure obligation gives funders a workable, if still untested, route into Philippine-seated disputes.

German claims vehicle Financialright Claims GmbH has asked a Delaware federal judge to revive its lawsuit against a Burford Capital affiliate over an allegedly fraudulently induced arbitration agreement, arguing that an arbitral tribunal has now confirmed the court's authority to decide the dispute.

As reported by Law360, Financialright urged the court to reopen the case on the basis that the tribunal has resolved the threshold question that led to the action being stayed. The motion follows a partial final award dated 26 September 2026 in LCIA Case No. 246335, which the parties received on 2 October, as disclosed in a supplemental brief Financialright filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Burford's pending petition, No. 25-1269.

The dispute arises from a 2017 capital provision agreement under which Burford German Funding financed Financialright's acquisition and prosecution of German antitrust claims brought by hauliers against truck manufacturers. Financialright alleges it did not learn until late 2022 that the law firm Hausfeld held a part ownership interest in Burford German Funding through a separate entity, German Litigation Solutions LLC. Its Delaware complaint seeks a declaration that the arbitration clause in the funding agreement is invalid and unenforceable.

In August 2025, the District of Delaware granted Burford German Funding's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending the London-seated LCIA proceeding. Docket entries show Financialright filed its opening brief in support of reopening on 7 October, followed by a supporting declaration on 8 October.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has stayed Which?'s collective proceedings against Apple until 16 November 2026 after the consumer group terminated its litigation funding agreement with Litigation Capital Management and began searching for a replacement funder.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the UK's largest consumer organisation is seeking a new funder for its collective action against Apple following LCM's indicated plans to close. Orders published by the Tribunal set out the sequence in detail.

According to the Order (Stay) made by Mr Justice Waksman on 9 October 2026, the class representative told the Court of Appeal on 17 September that it was not in a position to defend Apple's appeal against the Tribunal's refusal to strike out the portion of the claim brought on behalf of non-paying iCloud users. In a letter dated 28 September, the class representative confirmed it had not obtained funding from LCM Funding UK Limited to defend that appeal, had given LCM notice that it had breached the litigation funding agreement, considered the breach incapable of remedy, and had exercised its right to terminate the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the non-paying user claim withdrawn and stayed the proceedings until 4pm on 16 November while the class representative pursues a new funder and after-the-event insurance. A further order of 14 October requires the class representative to notify the Tribunal and Apple of any material funding developments as soon as reasonably practicable. A case management conference is listed for 27 November to address funding, withdrawal and costs.

Simpson Millar LLP, one of the UK's largest consumer law firms and a flagship investment for specialist legal-sector capital provider Doorway, has reported an annual loss of £5 million and net liabilities of £41.8 million, even as it completed two seven-figure acquisitions over the summer.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, financial statements for the firm, which operates seven offices across England and Wales, show losses narrowing from £9 million in 2024 to £4.93 million in calendar 2025, with turnover up 11.5% to £24.6 million. As at 31 December, net liabilities stood at £41.8 million, up from £36.9 million, with amounts owed within one year of £88 million.

The LLP's immediate parent is Doorway Holdings Limited and its ultimate parent is Doorway 4 Law Limited, described in the accounts as a specialist equity provider to the legal sector. Both have committed funding to support the business. In 2018 the LLP entered a £25 million five-year loan agreement with Doorway 4 Law, extended during 2023 to £32 million with the maturity deferred and no set repayment date.

The firm has pursued cost savings in recent years, exiting certain private client markets in 2022 to concentrate on public and inquiry work. Its principal business is now personal injury, including clinical negligence, holiday sickness, industrial disease and road traffic accidents. Headcount fell 18% to 294 during the year, with 18 fee earners and 46 administrative staff cut, while investment in marketing continued in order to rebuild case stocks.

Acquisition activity has continued regardless. In June the group bought the trade and assets of Wirral-based Fife PI Limited from Forster Dean for £750,000 in cash plus a performance-related payment of £669,000. In July it acquired the personal injury practice of Manchester firm Clear Law Limited for £900,000 in cash, with a further contingent payment of £1.85 million agreed.

Hedge funds have stepped up acquisitions of legal claims tied to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires after a legislative push to restrict the trades lost momentum, with pricing on individual claims ranging from as little as 3 cents on the dollar to roughly 60 cents.

As reported by HedgeCo.Net, citing Bloomberg, the transactions involve subrogation rights, which allow an insurer that has paid out on a policy to pursue a third party such as a utility for its losses. Rather than wait years for litigation to conclude, insurers can sell those rights to investors at a discount in exchange for immediate cash.

According to broker Cherokee Acquisition, claims arising from the Eaton fire are being acquired at 55 to 60 cents on the dollar, while Palisades claims, viewed as riskier because liability is harder to establish, are trading at 3 to 5 cents. Cherokee director Bradley Max said there is "plenty of appetite for buyers and sellers," that most hedge funds active in the market are targeting returns in the low-to-mid teens, and that transactions are typically funded within a couple of weeks. He said Cherokee recently acquired roughly $100 million of Palisades-related claims for less than 10 cents on the dollar.

California adopted a law in 2025 requiring insurers to offer utilities a right of first refusal before selling claims to investors, but it stopped short of banning hedge fund purchases outright. Max said the rule has had little effect on demand.

The fires caused an estimated $40 billion in insured losses. A bellwether jury trial in the Eaton fire litigation is scheduled for January 2027. The spread between Eaton and Palisades pricing illustrates how sharply investors are discounting liability risk, while the legislative impasse has removed, for now, the prospect of the opportunity being closed off entirely.

The High Court has ruled that the claimant committee in the Mariana dam litigation had no authority to terminate its retainer with PGMBM, formerly Pogust Goodhead, or to instruct a rival firm in its place, resolving a control fight that had put the funded claim's management in doubt.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Mr Justice Waksman delivered an oral judgment finding that the committee could not terminate the collective conditional fee agreements or litigation management agreements covering roughly 420,000 claimants, and therefore could not appoint Bailey Glasser International to take over the next phase. "It is plain to me that Pogust Goodhead's construction is preferred," the judge said, adding that the committee "had no power to instruct BGI." He ordered £300,000 in costs on account within 14 days.

The claim arises from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil's Mariana municipality. The High Court found in November 2025 that the collapse was foreseeable and that BHP was strictly liable, with a phase 2 trial on quantum listed for next year.

Waksman acknowledged the committee's criticisms, including the departure of the counsel team over a fees dispute, the instruction of Quinn Emanuel while PGMBM remained on the record, and concerns about the firm's funder, Gramercy. The court heard at an earlier two-day hearing that PGMBM estimated claimants would face around £2 billion in costs exposure if the contracts were terminated.

PGMBM chief executive Alicia Alinia called the ruling a "decisive victory," saying "our clients are not commodities to be transferred between law firms." Humphries Kerstetter, acting for the committee, said it would analyse the judgment before deciding its next steps. Permission to appeal was sought at the hearing, which continues on consequential matters.

Three very different UK litigation funders have failed or stopped writing new business within six months, prompting a public disagreement among industry figures over whether the sector is facing structural problems or a run of isolated misfortunes.

As reported by ICLG, the orderly run-off announced by AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management follows the administrations of Fenchurch Legal in April and Woodville Consultants in July. LCM recorded a net realised loss of A$63.9 million (£33.7 million) on concluded investments, with seven of its eight completed cases ending in losses, a post-tax loss of A$165.7 million (£87.3 million) and net liabilities of A$53.6 million (£28.2 million).

Neil Purslow, chairman of the executive committee of the International Legal Finance Association, cautioned against losing sight of the sector's gains in access to justice and UK competitiveness when weighing what he called "recent exceptional cases." He attributed LCM's difficulties to "how it underwrote and concentrated its risk," and noted that Woodville and Fenchurch were not funders in the traditional sense, since they lent to law firms and claims businesses rather than contracting with claimants.

Crescient co-founders Louise Trayhurn and Simon Southwood identified problems of "governance as well as financial and operational gearing," adding that litigation funding and debt "have never been happy bedfellows." Bellevue Law senior consultant Faye Moore said the failures were "not that surprising" given litigation's inherent risks: "if you bet big, you stand to lose big."

CMS partner Kenny Henderson took a contrary view, noting that no funder has withdrawn from a collective proceedings order class action because of PACCAR and that a significant number of funded claims have been filed in 2026. Purslow said the sector now needs certainty on PACCAR and implementation of the Civil Justice Council's light-touch regulatory principles.

The cumulative value of opt-out class actions across Europe's highest-risk jurisdictions has surpassed €200 billion, and filings have resumed growth after a one-year dip, according to CMS's European Class Action Report 2026.

As reported by Scottish Legal News, the number of class actions filed across Europe rose to 107 in 2025 from 99 in 2024, still below the 2023 peak but pointing to renewed activity. In the UK, the total value of class actions climbed to €179.52 billion from €159.55 billion. Across the three leading opt-out jurisdictions — the UK, the Netherlands and Portugal — the combined value of opt-out claims reached €203.45 billion, up from €173.09 billion.

The growth since 2020 is steeper still. UK opt-out claim values have risen almost fivefold, from €21.65 billion to €101.66 billion, while the three-jurisdiction total has increased nearly tenfold from €22.52 billion.

Consumer and competition claims remained the largest category at 37% of filings, with product liability and personal injury at 14% and data protection at 13%. CMS expects the EU Product Liability Directive's implementation to broaden the scope for claims involving software and AI systems.

Kenny Henderson, a partner at CMS, said the €200 billion figure "would have been unthinkable just a few years ago," and that for large corporates operating in Europe, class actions are "an established and increasingly interconnected litigation risk." The report identifies litigation funding as a principal area to watch, noting that courts across Europe are paying closer attention to the relationship between funders and claimants, with significant judicial guidance expected in the coming years.

Pinsent Masons has warned that a new opt-out consumer class action regime in England and Wales could end up serving claimant law firms and litigation funders more than the consumers it is meant to compensate.

As reported by Out-Law, the firm has submitted its response to the Law Commission's scoping questionnaire on consumer class actions ahead of the 30 October deadline. The Law Commission is examining, at the UK government's request, whether a dedicated collective regime would strengthen consumer law enforcement; unlike competition claims, consumer law claims currently have no bespoke mass claims mechanism.

In its submission, the firm questioned whether such a regime would address a genuine unmet need. "Far from enabling access to justice, prioritising litigation over more appropriate mechanisms of redress could result in an explosion of speculative consumer law claims being brought for-profit with little to no benefits for those represented," it said. "This approach provides little in the way of justice, but large rewards for funders and lawyers."

The firm also argued that creating any new opt-out regime now would be premature, given that substantive consumer law enforcement reforms only took effect last year and that a separate consultation on the competition opt-out regime remains ongoing. On the existing regime's record, it said damages are "accessed by only a small number, and these damages are dwarfed by the returns for funders and lawyers," cautioning against "conflating 'access to justice' with 'access to litigation'."

If a regime does proceed, Pinsent Masons proposed guardrails including stricter regulation of third-party litigation funding, robust certification rules, an early strike out mechanism for abusive claims, and costs controls.

A Welsh law firm specialising in motor finance redress claims has been placed into administration while carrying an outstanding charge in favour of Woodville Consultants Limited, the litigation funder that itself collapsed in July.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Swansea-based Fairplane Solicitors Limited, which also traded as The Refund Lawyer, began insolvency proceedings with administrators from Kroll Advisory Ltd appointed on 1 October. The firm is understood to be undergoing an orderly closure, with clients protected under its succession plan. The Refund Lawyer brand was set up exclusively to pursue claims for mis-sold commissions and excessive interest charges on vehicle finance, and Fairplane had worked on mis-sold finance claims on a no-win, no-fee basis for a decade.

Abridged accounts for the year to March 2025 showed total net liabilities exceeding £900,000. Assets were assessed at more than £23 million, but cash reserves stood at just £35,000 and longer-term debts had risen 23% over twelve months. Headcount grew from 21 to 28 across the same period. The Solicitors Regulation Authority said it is liaising with the firm and would consider action only if client interests were at risk.

Woodville, also based in south Wales, was placed into administration in July, with Kroll likewise appointed. Its administrators have expressed "significant concerns as to the realisable value of the loan book," reporting last month that the funder concentrated lending on 10 law firms and associated entities, primarily in Wales and northwest England, and that loans to only one firm appeared to be secured. Funding may in some cases have supported general working capital rather than case costs.