Burford Capital has set the terms on the refinancing it launched at the start of the week, pricing $300 million of senior secured notes at a coupon of 8.000% and locking in the cost of retiring its nearest maturity.

As reported by PR Newswire, the notes are due 2029 and will be issued by Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary. Burford Capital Limited is guaranteeing the paper, which is secured on a senior lien basis by substantially all of the issuer's assets and by the capital stock of certain subsidiaries, subject to exceptions.

The pricing carries a clear message about the funder's cost of capital. The 8.000% coupon on secured paper sits well above the 6.250% Burford is paying on the unsecured 2028 notes it is redeeming, and the company is putting up collateral to get there. Against that, the transaction takes $100 million of gross debt off the balance sheet, since net proceeds plus cash on hand will retire all $400 million of the 2028 notes.

The offering is expected to close on September 17, subject to customary conditions, with redemption of the 2028 notes to follow as soon as practicable afterwards.

The notes are being placed privately and have not been registered under the US Securities Act, with distribution limited to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A and to non-US persons under Regulation S, in each case also qualified purchasers under the Investment Company Act.

A Singapore ruling upholding a US$490.32 million arbitration award against Tata Power is drawing attention across the arbitration bar for what it says about how far arbitrators must go in disclosing their connections to third-party funders.

As reported by the Deccan Chronicle, the Singapore International Commercial Court on August 26 dismissed all three of Tata Power Company Limited's applications challenging the award, which was issued in favour of Kleros Capital Partners along with legal costs and interest. Kleros pursued the claim with litigation funding from Omni Bridgeway.

Tata Power argued that two members of the tribunal, Prof Lawrence Boo and Stuart Isaacs KC, should have disclosed their appointments in other arbitrations involving Omni Bridgeway-funded parties. It also pointed to Prof Boo's professional and personal association with Mark Hughes, a member of Omni Bridgeway's investment committee.

The court rejected the apparent bias allegations, holding that undisclosed appointments in unrelated matters did not establish bias and that where the circumstances did not give rise to apparent bias, there was no need to decide separately whether a disclosure obligation had been breached. It also declined to treat third-party funders as parties for disclosure purposes.

"How far should arbitrators be required to disclose professional relationships with parties, lawyers and third-party funders, particularly when litigation financiers have economic interests in the outcome?" asked finance expert Biswanth Pradhan, framing the wider question the case raises.

Tata Power has indicated it will appeal to the Singapore Court of Appeal.

One of the larger law firms working the UK motor finance claims market has cut its annual trading loss but is still running deep net liabilities, with its funding costs illustrating how expensive capital has become for volume consumer claims businesses.

As reported by the Law Gazette, Consumer Rights Solicitors Ltd this week filed accounts showing a pre-tax deficit of £6.8 million for the year to August 2025, down from £10.3 million the year before. Turnover rose from £450,000 to more than £3.5 million, largely on recovery of disbursements from cases taken on from other firms.

Net liabilities widened from £11.3 million to £18 million, with £40 million owed to creditors falling due after more than a year. The accounts disclose a £25 million loan facility secured in December 2025 from litigation funder Katch Fund Solutions at 24% annual interest, following a £9 million loan from the same lender on the same terms in October 2024.

The Manchester-based firm values its full claim book at £72 million as at the end of July, but contingent fee work cannot be carried as a balance sheet asset against those liabilities. Auditor Huw Nicholls of Armstrong Watson flagged that the losses, liabilities and outstanding loans indicate a "material uncertainty" over the firm's ability to continue as a going concern.

Director Kavon Hussain said the firm is broadening beyond its Plevin and motor finance book and pursuing group claims through a volume introducer. Motor finance claims remain stayed or slow-moving pending the Financial Conduct Authority's delayed redress scheme.

A coalition of more than 200 corporations and insurers has asked the federal judiciary to write third-party litigation funding disclosure into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, escalating a campaign that has so far played out mostly in state legislatures and individual courtrooms.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the signatories include Johnson & Johnson, 3M, Uber, Meta Platforms, Netflix and Samsung Electronics, a group that between them face a substantial share of the funded mass tort, antitrust and patent claims filed in US courts. Law360 reported that Amazon, Anthropic, Chubb and Walmart also signed on.

The letter asks for two things: the name and contact information of "any person or entity who is not a party in the case but provides funding or has a financial interest in the action," and copies of the funding agreements themselves. The coalition argues that disclosure "would provide courts, litigants, and the public with information that is critical to managing cases and maintaining judicial integrity," and describes the absence of a uniform federal rule as inexplicable given the forum shopping it invites.

The request is directed at the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which is scheduled to meet in October. A subcommittee chaired by Judge R. David Proctor has been studying litigation funding since 2024 without producing a rule proposal.

Several signatories have already acted on their own. Uber has written disclosure provisions into its customer and driver contracts, and Amazon updated its conditions of use to require disclosure in mass arbitration.

A new commentary argues that the debate over funder disclosure in patent cases is not really about transparency at all, but about whether an independent inventor's family retains the value of what the inventor spent a career building.

As reported by IPWatchdog, the piece is written by Scott Moskowitz, founder of Blue Spike and Wistaria Trading and a named inventor on more than 110 patents. His starting point is that patents are inheritable property with twenty-year terms that outlast careers, yet the US enforcement architecture strips their value while owners are alive.

Moskowitz points to empirical work measuring the market reaction to inter partes review petitions, including a one-day abnormal return of roughly -12% following the first Hayman Capital challenge in 2015. A public company absorbs that as a bad quarter. For an inventor whose net worth is a portfolio, he argues, the same drop is a retirement, and the depressed figure becomes the only number available when the estate is later valued.

The commentary contrasts patents with other asset classes. Real estate, operating-company equity and art each have financing vehicles, insurance products and secondary markets. Patents have none at scale, because no lender will take collateral exposed to a PTAB invalidation rate of 61% to 70%.

Against that backdrop, the piece argues that litigation finance filled the gap because nothing else could, and that pending disclosure measures would remove it. It singles out the March 2026 rules suggestion before the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, the USITC's proposed 19 C.F.R. § 210.14a, and S.3826, the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026.

Moskowitz's proposed alternative is symmetry: treat funder disclosure the way Rule 26 and Rule of Evidence 411 already treat insurance, with mandatory disclosure on both sides paired with a restriction on using it to prove the merits.

The High Court has declined to pause the Mariana dam litigation against BHP while a dispute over who represents the claimants is resolved, keeping the case on its existing timetable.

As reported by Legal Futures, the court rejected an application by Bailey Glasser International to stay proceedings. Pogust Goodhead, which acts for more than 400,000 claimants over the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Brazil, characterised the outcome as its first victory in the representation dispute.

The court also directed that the underlying dispute over representation be determined at an expedited hearing on 5 and 6 October. Notably, it rejected Bailey Glasser International's request that the hearing be held in private, meaning the arguments over control of one of the largest group claims in English legal history will be aired publicly.

The ruling preserves the existing case management timetable, including the quantum trial listed for April 2027.

Pogust Goodhead chief executive Alicia Alinia said: "The ruling is an important win for our clients. The court has rejected any attempt to delay this litigation and confirmed that the timetable towards justice remains intact." She added that after almost 11 years, the claimants "deserve clarity, not delay."

The outcome matters beyond the parties. The Mariana claim is among the most heavily funded pieces of group litigation in the English courts, and a prolonged stay would have pushed back recovery timelines for the capital deployed behind it. Bailey Glasser International and the client committee were approached for comment.

Administrators for collapsed litigation lender Woodville have filed their formal statement of proposals, and the arithmetic is stark: unsecured creditor claims of £298,681,307 set against £254,734 of cash in the business.

As reported by the Law Society Gazette, Robert Goodhew and Andrew Stoneman of Kroll Advisory told creditors that Woodville's directors have yet to answer basic questions regarding the use of investor funds. The administrators concluded that rescuing the company as a going concern is not practicable. Administration began on 16 July.

The proposals describe a loan book concentrated on roughly ten law firms and associated entities in Wales and the north-west of England. Only one firm's borrowings appear to be secured. Two of those firms, ASL Boston and McDermott Smith, owe a combined £51.7 million and are themselves in insolvency proceedings.

A further £37 million is owed by parties the administrators describe as connected. That figure includes £17.6 million due from Integrity Protect No 1 Limited, which shares shareholders and directors with Woodville, and £8 million advanced to wholly owned subsidiary Horizon, which entered receivership two weeks before Woodville itself collapsed.

The administrators also flagged that the "performance bonds" issued to retail investors may have been mis-sold or misrepresented, a finding that could shape both regulatory scrutiny and any future recovery claims.

Recoveries so far have been modest. The sale of office furniture raised £650. The administrators' own fee is estimated at £3 million, and they said they are taking advice on enforcement action against directors who have not cooperated with the investigation.

Burford Capital has moved to refinance the nearest maturity on its balance sheet, announcing a private offering of senior secured notes and a conditional call on the full $400 million of notes coming due in 2028.

As reported by PR Newswire, the company plans to issue $300 million in aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes due 2029 through its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, subject to market and other conditions.

The structure is notably more secured than Burford's existing paper. The notes will be guaranteed by Burford Capital and secured on a senior lien basis by substantially all of the assets of Burford Capital Global Finance LLC, along with the capital stock of certain Burford subsidiaries, subject to exceptions.

Proceeds from the offering, together with cash on hand, are earmarked to redeem the 6.250% senior notes due 2028 as soon as practicable after the new deal closes. Burford said it expected to deliver a conditional notice of redemption for the 2028 notes on the same day as the announcement, setting a redemption date of September 24, 2026 for all $400 million outstanding. That redemption is contingent on the successful completion of a $300 million financing.

The offering is a private placement. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the US Securities Act of 1933 or the laws of any other jurisdiction, and will be offered only to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A or to non-US persons outside the United States under Regulation S, in each case limited to qualified purchasers under the Investment Company Act.

Burford is listed on both the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange under the ticker BUR.

Texas is moving closer to requiring parties to disclose outside litigation funding, even though the state's own rules advisory body recommended against the change last year.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee took up rough-draft disclosure scenarios at a meeting last Thursday. One approach would keep funder identities confidential pending an in-camera review by the trial judge. A second would require a judge to make a good cause finding before a party is compelled to disclose who is backing its case.

The renewed discussion follows an unusual sequence. The Texas Supreme Court first asked the committee for guidance on litigation finance roughly two years ago. In August 2025, the committee recommended against any rule change. The justices were not satisfied with that answer and sent the question back, asking the committee to revisit the issue and return with a proposal.

Much of the committee's debate centered on which funding arrangements should fall outside any disclosure requirement. Several members argued for carving out nonprofits that support litigation without expecting a return, as well as family arrangements such as a parent financing a child's case. "That would be off the table, in my mind," said committee vice chair Marcy Hogan Greer of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP.

Judge Melissa Andrews noted that funding disclosures are already required in the Texas Business Court, where they are used mainly for judicial conflict checks and were modeled on the Fifth Circuit's approach.

The committee is expected to take the matter up again in December, when a disclosure proposal could come to a vote. Texas would join a growing list of states acting on funding transparency, following Ohio's registration and disclosure law and North Carolina's ban on third-party litigation funding.

A new opinion piece defends third-party litigation funding as a precondition for small businesses and independent inventors being able to enforce their intellectual property rights, and argues that pending federal disclosure legislation would undercut them.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, the commentary is written by Kristen Osenga, chief policy counselor of the Inventors Defense Alliance and a professor of law at the University of Richmond School of Law. She frames funding as an access-to-justice question for the innovation economy rather than a question of litigation volume.

The piece points to two measures now before Congress: Representative Darrell Issa's Litigation Transparency Act and Senator Thom Tillis's Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act. Osenga argues that mandatory disclosure of funding arrangements would hand well-resourced defendants insight into a plaintiff's financial position and litigation strategy, giving them a means to outlast smaller opponents rather than resolve the merits.

Her economic case rests on the role small firms play in US innovation. Small businesses account for roughly 45% of US GDP, and smaller companies produce approximately 50% more patents per employee than large companies. Without outside capital, she contends, those inventors face infringement by parties who can afford to litigate indefinitely.

The commentary likens litigation funding to the contingency fee arrangement, a long-accepted mechanism for shifting cost risk away from claimants who cannot bear it. "The right to sue is only valuable if you can afford to exercise it," Osenga writes, casting the disclosure debate as one over who retains practical access to the courts.

Pogust Goodhead has escalated its dispute over control of the multi-billion-pound Mariana dam group action against BHP, taking the matter to the High Court rather than accepting the claimant committee's decision to change firms.

As reported by Legal Futures, the firm has applied for declarations that the committee had no contractual authority to terminate its retainer, no authority to direct a change in legal representation, and no authority to prevent it from instructing Quinn Emanuel for the damages phase of the claim.

The committee, made up of 17 members whose identities are confidential, decided in early September to move the claim to Bailey Glasser International, a joint venture between a firm run by former Pogust Goodhead staff and the US firm Bailey & Glasser. Pogust Goodhead had announced in June that it would instruct Quinn Emanuel on damages.

In a statement, the firm said that clients "are being encouraged to walk away from an established litigation structure on the representation that they can simply move to another firm with no material consequences."

The timing raises the stakes considerably. A damages trial listed for 22 weeks is only months away, and the underlying claim has been built on an extensively financed litigation structure whose economics depend on the identity of the firm carrying it to trial. The application asks the court to determine, in effect, who holds the contractual right to control the running of one of the largest group actions in the English courts, and on what terms a claimant committee can override the arrangements that funded it.

A Delaware investment vehicle closely affiliated with Burford Capital is pursuing a debt claim of roughly $109 million against Alberta lawyer Jeffrey Rath and his firm, Rath & Company, alleging default on a litigation funding agreement first entered into in 2018.

As reported by Global News, Diriba Investments LLC claims the firm defaulted two years ago on financing tied to First Nations and COVID-19 litigation, with the outstanding balance now standing at approximately $108.8 million plus interest and costs. Diriba acts as agent for co-funder Western Springs Investments LP, also a Delaware entity. A 2023 amendment expanded the agreement's scope to cover all claimant-side work at the firm, including First Nations treaty claims and litigation over COVID-19 restrictions.

The alleged breaches include failure to provide monthly reports, failure to keep the funders informed, failure to report or remit proceeds, non-disclosure of client terminations, and the granting of competing security to a separate Delaware entity, Vance SPV LLC. Diriba issued a default notice in November 2024 and, in late July 2026, served a formal demand alongside a notice of intention to enforce security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act describing the firm as an "insolvent person."

The supporting affidavit was sworn by Paul Mysliwiec, Burford Capital's deputy general counsel, acting as Diriba's authorized representative. Burford did not respond to requests for comment, and Diriba's Calgary counsel declined to comment.

The claim runs alongside separate actions by the Tallcree and Sturgeon Lake First Nations alleging misappropriation of trust funds, a Mareva injunction freezing $8.5 million, and a court-appointed receiver. Diriba is seeking an expanded receivership mandate at a September 14 hearing in Calgary. The allegations have not been proven in court, and Rath denies wrongdoing.

A businessman and litigation funder has emerged as a recurring figure in the decades-long fight between Nkosana Makate and Vodacom over the "Please Call Me" service, following reporting on the origins of the funding that made the case possible.

As reported by ITWeb, Kevin Brian Jenkins was among an early group that raised R750,000 to help Makate pursue his claim, and until recently worked with Makate's attorney, Wilna Lubbe of Stemela Lubbe. In 2019 the late advocate Christiaan Schoeman told an arbitration that Jenkins introduced him to Makate and helped raise the funds alongside Schoeman, his former wife Wilma Schoeman, Errol Elsdon of Black Rock Mining and Tracey Roscher.

The composition of that original funding group matters because Elsdon is now claiming 40% of Makate's confidential Vodacom settlement, asserting that he provided R4.39 million. Lubbe and Makate contend the figure was at most R8,000. Elsdon testified that he first met Makate in 2011 alongside Schoeman and Jenkins, and that Schoeman signed a funding agreement that year in favour of a company to be nominated later — accepted by most courts as Black Rock, from mid-2013. A 2018 Pretoria High Court ruling by Judge Neil Tuchten placed Jenkins among the initial investors offered "equity in the venture."

Court records show other disputes involving Jenkins. In Odyssey Consultancy v Hurwitz, his company sued Dale Hurwitz over an unpaid fee; the court heard Jenkins had used senior counsel Cedric Puckrin's "name and reputation (and stature as a senior counsel)" to obtain payment, though Judge Ranchod found this "does not amount to the fraudulent misrepresentation" alleged and ruled in Odyssey's favour.

Jenkins resigned as a director of a company he shared with Lubbe on 18 August, days before the publication put questions to her. Lubbe said Jenkins was a client of the firm.

Manolete Partners has told shareholders that trading in the current financial year is running in line with board expectations, with realised revenues ahead of the prior year and continued growth in the value of its forward book.

As reported in a regulatory announcement issued ahead of the company's Annual General Meeting, the AIM-listed insolvency claims financier said: "The Group's trading performance has been positive and in-line with the Board's expectations for FY27. Realised revenues are ahead of the prior year, and the value of the Group's forward book has continued to increase, driven by growth in both the number and average value of new cases signed."

The reference to growth in both case volume and average case size is notable for a funder whose economics depend on the pipeline of insolvency claims it acquires or funds. The company said it intends to provide a more detailed update on first-half trading in early October, following the close of the period, and will announce its Half Year Results as usual in November. All resolutions put to the AGM were subsequently passed.

Manolete describes itself as the UK's leading insolvency claims financing company, operating in a market it values at over £500 million annually. The business has financed and completed more than 1,400 cases. It says it is the only company in the insolvency litigation funding section to have been ranked Band 1 in Chambers on six occasions, and a five-time winner of the 'Insolvency Litigation Funder of the Year' award at the TRI Awards.

The update was issued by Chief Executive Officer Mena Halton and Chief Financial Officer Will Sawyer. Canaccord Genuity acts as the company's Nominated Adviser and Sole Broker.

Roughly £390 million appears to have passed through Woodville Consultants Ltd, the collapsed litigation funder whose failure prompted a Financial Conduct Authority warning about retail investors buying unregulated loan notes.

As reported by the Law Gazette, the business operated from an unremarkable office at 5 Gelliwastad Road in Pontypridd, South Wales, where the blinds are now drawn and no one answers the door. Its loan notes were promoted from Dubai Media City by a self-described certified financial planner who marketed them as "a simple and attractive way to make additional money without a big effort," accompanied by the slogan "Don't wait to invest; invest and wait."

Woodville entered administration on 16 July. Four weeks later the FCA issued a notice stating that "the recent failure of Woodville Consultants Ltd, a litigation funder that raised capital from retail investors through unregulated loan notes, shows the potential risk to investors." The regulator has signalled it wants to close the self-certification loophole that allows individuals to declare themselves "sophisticated" or "high-net worth" investors and thereby access products otherwise restricted from retail distribution. One investor told the publication the loss "will be life-changing for me… Stupid, I know."

Kroll is administering the estate alongside law firm Crowell & Moring, and is investigating whether money from newer investors was used to pay returns to earlier ones. Director Peter James Legge wrote to investors on 8 June stating: "We are now finally live with our funder and are in the process of completing the first drawdown." The administrators' third progress report found that "no such funding/refinancing arrangements appear to have been documented or progressed."

Paul Muscutt of Crowell & Moring said "a number of investigations are ongoing relating to the law firms, including how claims were introduced to the firms and how funds borrowed were applied."

The professional parties behind the UK collective action against Google have agreed to forgo £34 million of their contractual entitlement ahead of a Competition Appeal Tribunal hearing to approve the £260 million settlement.

As reported by Legal Futures, the settlement resolves claims brought on behalf of UK app developers over Google Play Store commission charges, and is agreed without any admission of liability. It represents roughly a quarter of the approximately £1 billion originally claimed. Of the total, £160 million is earmarked for the developer class, with £100 million allocated to lawyers, funders and insurers — down from the £134 million those parties were contractually entitled to receive.

The largest reduction falls on the funder. Bench Walk Advisors committed £27.7 million in capital to the proceedings. Its profit under the settlement drops to £56.2 million from the £82.8 million it could have claimed, producing a multiple of 2.99 times deployed capital. That figure was described in the submissions as "very much at the lower end" of returns in comparable funded competition claims. The after-the-event insurance premium has similarly been cut from £6 million to £4.1 million.

The claim is led by class representative Professor Barry Rodger, instructing Geradin Partners, with Robert O'Donoghue KC acting as counsel. "I remain confident in the class's liability case, and consider that it has good prospects of success at trial," Rodger said, adding that "the proceedings could not have been pursued on their present scale without substantial funding and professional work being provided at risk."

The Tribunal is scheduled to consider approval of the settlement and the associated distribution of proceeds at a hearing this month.

Stockholm-based Litigium Capital has appointed two new directors and expanded its investment committee, in a set of pan-Nordic hires that also marks a change at the top of the board.

According to a press release from Litigium Capital, Heidi Merikalla-Teir and Martin Hansson join the Board of Directors, while Anders Schäfer joins the Investment Committee. Merikalla-Teir, a Finnish national, serves as an arbitrator in domestic and international proceedings and as a mediator in commercial disputes, and was previously Managing Partner of a Finnish law firm and Secretary General of the Finland Arbitration Institute.

Hansson is a Swedish finance professional who has spent two decades investing across listed and unlisted assets. He is Chief Executive Officer of Galjaden Fastigheter and Ramlösa Shipping, and Chairman of the Boards of Latvian Forest Company and Link Property Investment.

Schäfer is a Danish attorney who previously practised at Plesner and Poul Schmith/Kammeradvokaten. He holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, lectures at the University of Copenhagen on competition law, damages and collective redress, and has contributed to European Commission research on litigation funding and class actions.

The appointments coincide with Christian Thiel stepping down as Chairman of the Board after more than five years. "Litigium Capital is now well positioned, and I believe this is the right moment to pass the baton to others who can take the company further," Thiel said. He remains Chairman of the firm's Investment Committee and a shareholder in both the management company and the fund.

Founded in 2020 and authorised as an investment fund manager by Sweden's Finansinspektionen, Litigium Capital is a member of the European Litigation Funding Association.

Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.

The founders of mass tort firm Keller Postman and litigation funder Gerchen Capital Partners have launched Atticor Group, a management services organisation that takes economic exposure to personal injury law firms while leaving the practices themselves in attorney hands.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the venture brings together Ashley Keller and Warren Postman of Keller Postman with Adam Gerchen, chief executive of Gerchen Capital. Atticor describes itself as an AI-enabled platform serving the personal injury and single-event legal market, and provides administrative and back-office services to firms that contract with it.

The structure is the familiar one. Rather than acquiring a law firm, the MSO holds the operations that support it and supplies those services for a fee, allowing outside capital to participate in firm economics without running into the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership that applies in most US states. The stated purpose here is to finance technology upgrades that individual plaintiffs' firms would struggle to fund from cash flow.

More than six firms have signed on, according to the report, and the platform is described as well capitalised with an acquisition pipeline in place. Gerchen Capital closed its sixth fund at $600 million last year.

The launch is notable for who is behind it. Atticor places a mass tort firm's founders and an established commercial funder on the same side of a structure that several states are now moving to restrict, with Illinois and California both legislating this year on investor influence over law firms.

The Singapore International Commercial Court has upheld an arbitral tribunal's refusal to award third-party funding costs, rejecting arguments that denying such recovery offends public policy or amounts to a procedural failing reviewable under the Model Law.

As reported by the Wolters Kluwer Arbitration Blog, the decision in *DTH and another v DTF and others* [2026] SGHC(I) 5 arose from a joint venture dispute arbitrated under the SIAC Rules. The tribunal awarded the applicants approximately US$14.7 million but declined to award roughly US$14.6 million in funding costs, leaving them with minimal net recovery.

The applicants advanced two grounds. The first was that refusing funding costs conflicted with Singapore's public policy of promoting access to justice for impecunious parties. The court disagreed, holding that access to justice framed that narrowly does not rise to the level of public policy, and noting that Singapore's own SICC Rules expressly prohibit the recovery of third-party funding costs. A domestic rule barring recovery makes it difficult to characterise the same outcome in arbitration as contrary to national policy.

The second ground was that the tribunal had failed to comply with the agreed arbitral procedure. The court held that costs determinations fall outside the scope of procedural review under the Model Law, because they are substantive outcomes rather than questions of process. Framing an unfavourable costs result as a procedural defect does not convert it into a reviewable one.

On the underlying analysis, the tribunal had excluded the funding costs because certain fees were calculated as a percentage of the resolution amount rather than by reference to the principal advanced, placing them outside the statutory definitions governing third-party funding.

The ruling underscores that funders and funded parties in Singapore-seated arbitration cannot assume recovery of funding costs, and that how a funding agreement structures its return may determine whether those costs are recoverable at all.

Pogust Goodhead has publicly rejected the decision to replace it as solicitors for claimants in the multi-billion pound group action against BHP, arguing that the client committee that voted to terminate its retainer had no authority to do so and warning that the move puts claimants' costs protection at risk.

As reported by Legal Futures, the dispute follows the appointment of Bailey Glasser International (BGI) to take over conduct of *Município de Mariana and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd*, the claim brought for more than 420,000 Brazilian claimants arising from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam.

BGI said its "priority is continuity for the claimants," adding that it "does not expect the change of legal representation to have any significant effect on the overall litigation timetable" and acknowledging "the work done by Pogust Goodhead in bringing the case to the High Court in London and securing the landmark ruling on liability."

Pogust Goodhead disagrees. The firm said the "client committee has no authority to terminate Pogust Goodhead's representation on behalf of the wider group of claimants in the proceedings," and that it "remains the solicitor of record and continues to act in claimants' best interests." It described the litigation as continuing "as normal."

The firm's sharpest warning concerns after-the-event insurance, which was secured through Pogust Goodhead on the basis that it acted in the matter. By moving to displace it, the firm said, "the committee risks placing claimants' costs protection in jeopardy and exposing them to significant financial liabilities."

The commercial backdrop is substantial. Pogust Goodhead announced a partnership with Quinn Emanuel in June 2026, alongside $150 million in funding from Gramercy Funds Management arranged through the two firms for the next stage of the litigation. BGI is a joint venture between Edward McCourt & Company — owned by former Pogust Goodhead senior partner Jeremy Evans — and US firm Bailey & Glasser, with Hausfeld & Co supporting in London. Partners Faranak Ghajavand and Callum Walters previously worked at Pogust Goodhead.

Liability was established at the Stage One trial in November 2025 and can no longer be challenged after the Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal in May 2026. Evidence in the Stage Two trial on causation and quantum is listed from April to December 2027, with closing submissions in March 2028.

Carta Law, the AI-native law firm serving private capital, has announced four senior appointments across its Compliance and Contracts practices, deepening its bench as asset managers turn to technology-backed managed services for legal and compliance work on both sides of the Atlantic.

According to a press release from Business Wire, Noah Levine joins as Legal Director, leading the firm's Compliance function for North America. Levine spent three years as Managing Director and Senior Compliance Counsel at Angelo Gordon, previously held compliance roles at Two Sigma and Dune Real Estate Partners, and most recently served as Deputy General Counsel and Compliance Officer at Madison International Realty.

Karin Porstendörfer joins as Compliance Director and Head of Inbound KYC, based in Luxembourg. She was previously Head of AML/CFT at Carne Group, where she built and led fund compliance programmes across European jurisdictions, and brings 18 years of audit, compliance and forensic experience to the firm.

Carta Law also promoted two of its own. Chrystel Marincich becomes Managing Director, Contracts Americas, having joined two and a half years ago from Kirkland & Ellis, where she was a Partner, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Kenneth Howe becomes Managing Director, Contracts Europe and APAC, and will lead the build-out of the Contracts function in Europe after a career in private practice at Simmons & Simmons and Gowling WLG.

The appointments follow Carta Law's launch in May 2026 after Carta's acquisition of Avantia, which paired AI-native legal and compliance workflows with Carta's platform for private capital. The firm now serves more than 200 asset managers, including approximately 30% of the world's largest funds, and operates across the US, UK and Europe.

"Noah and Karin bring first-hand experience of the compliance challenges facing sophisticated asset managers, while Chrystel and Kenny have played a major role in building our Contracts practice," said James Sutton, General Manager of Carta Law.

Bailey Glasser International has taken over conduct of the multi-billion pound group claim against BHP arising from the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in Mariana, Brazil, replacing Pogust Goodhead as solicitors for the claimants.

According to a press release from Bailey Glasser International, the firm was appointed in *Município de Mariana and others v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and another* following a decision of the Client Committee dated 28 August 2026, with Hausfeld & Co LLP supporting the conduct of the litigation in London. The vote to terminate Pogust Goodhead's retainer and appoint BGI was unanimous among the Committee's members.

The release states that the decision followed "confidential matters identified by the Client Committee about Pogust Goodhead's conduct of the case," which were "repeatedly communicated to Pogust Goodhead, including by way of a formal notice."

The claim is one of the largest group actions in English legal history, brought for more than 420,000 Brazilian claimants. Liability was established at the Stage One trial, and after the Court of Appeal refused BHP permission to appeal in May 2026 it can no longer be challenged. The Stage Two trial on causation and quantum is listed from April 2027 to March 2028.

Faranak Ghajavand, Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes at BGI, said the firm's priority is "continuity for the claimants, with the case proceeding without disruption," adding that senior members of the existing counsel team will return to the matter.

The terms of the claimants' representation are unchanged, with fees payable only if the case succeeds. BGI is the first international venture of US firm Bailey & Glasser LLP, and is a trading name of Edward McCourt & Company LLP.

A principal at commercial litigation funder GLS Capital has argued that courts should resolve document discovery disputes using baseball arbitration, the winner-takes-all format used to settle professional baseball salary disputes, as a way of containing a cost that routinely strains case budgets.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Mick Biehl explains that in baseball arbitration each side submits a proposed figure and the arbitrator selects one of them outright, without splitting the difference. Because the decision-maker picks the more reasonable of the two positions, both parties have an incentive to moderate their submissions rather than anchor at extremes.

Applied to discovery, the mechanism would work the same way. Rather than conventional motion practice, each side would submit its last written position on the disputed request or response, and the court would adopt one party's position in full instead of crafting a middle path.

Biehl, a former litigator, identifies three ways the format would reduce spend. Parties would draft narrower initial requests and avoid boilerplate objections, knowing aggressive positions are unlikely to be selected. Negotiations starting from more reasonable positions would be likelier to resolve without judicial involvement. And the all-or-nothing risk would deter marginal motions to compel.

The savings, on his account, come less from the hearings themselves than from what precedes them: the rounds of meet-and-confer conferences, emails, amended requests and discovery hearings that accumulate before a dispute reaches a judge.