NorthWall Capital has rocketed past €2.9 billion in assets under management after pulling in an additional €1.6 billion of institutional capital in 2025 alone. The London-based alternative credit manager says the surge reflects allocators’ intensifying hunt for scaled, multi-strategy platforms as Europe’s banks retrench and borrowers seek bespoke sources of credit.

A press release from NorthWall Capital details first-close totals across four distinct strategies. The flagship Credit Opportunities fund secured €731 million—already eclipsing its prior vintage—while the newly launched Senior Lending vehicle raised $503 million, translating to roughly $750 million of deployable firepower once leverage is applied. Asset-Backed Opportunities collected €252 million for collateral-rich loans in sectors underserved by traditional lenders, and the specialist Legal Assets platform locked down $169 million to extend the firm’s law-firm lending programme.

Founder and CIO Fabian Chrobog said the fundraising validates “the consistency of our approach” and NorthWall’s ability to craft solutions that resonate with investors and counterparties alike. With headcount slated to hit 40 by year-end, the firm plans to lean further into complex, situational credit born of bank deleveraging, regulatory shifts and sponsors’ need for certainty of execution.

Sen. Thom Tillis’s Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, now folded into the Senate Finance Committee’s draft reconciliation package, would graft a stand-alone Chapter 50B onto the Internal Revenue Code and impose a punishing 40.8 percent flat levy on “qualified litigation proceeds.” The Schulte Roth & Zabel (SRZ) alert warns that the proposal overrides flow-through taxation, sweeps in virtually any entity—from partnerships and S-corps to sovereign wealth funds—and could chill ordinary-course lending by labeling collateralized credit facilities as “litigation financing agreements.”

A LinkedIn post from SRZ partner Boris Ziser underscores the breadth of the draft: the tax would hit domestic and foreign investors alike, deny offsetting losses, and trigger a 20.4 percent withholding obligation on plaintiffs and law firms that disburse any proceeds. Exemptions are narrow—fundings under $10,000 or debt-like arrangements capped at the greater of 7 percent or twice the 30-year Treasury yield—while long-standing preferences such as the portfolio-interest exemption and sovereign immunity would be swept aside. SRZ calculates that investors routing recoveries through a corporation could face an effective federal rate approaching 65 percent after dividend taxation, and even partnership structures would see double taxation because partners’ basis would not increase for proceeds taxed at the entity level.

Beyond funders, the bill’s catch-all definition of “litigation financing agreement” risks ensnaring securitizations, DIP financings, subrogation purchases, and other credit instruments whenever a borrower is a named litigant. By applying to taxable years beginning January 1, 2026—without grandfathering—it could retroactively erode returns on capital already deployed.

What it means for the market: If this language survives reconciliation, funders may rethink U.S. deployment models, while credit investors could demand covenants shielding them from inadvertent 40.8 percent exposure. The proposal also revives the broader policy debate: will Washington’s next move be bespoke tax regimes for other “disfavored” financial niches, or a push toward clearer, industry-wide regulation?

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has sparked a fierce backlash from MAGA influencers online, who are taking issue with Sen. Tillis' newly introduced legislation that aims to slap a 41% tax on third-party litigation finance agreements. Critics warn the measure would effectively choke off capital that plaintiffs rely on to challenge deep-pocketed corporations, tilting the playing field back toward defendants.

An article in the Daily Caller argues the proposal “hogties” a tool that ordinary Americans use to combat what author Will Hild brands “woke capitalism.” By raising the cost of capital, the bill could dissuade funders from backing suits against headline-making defendants—Bank of America, Uber and Nationwide are cited as companies that stand to gain if litigation funding dries up.

The Daily Caller's article was quickly snapped up by a cadre of right-wing influencers who have begun sounding off on the alleged harms this bill would cause for ordinary Americans.

Robby Starbuck, the influential 'anti-woke' crusader, posted on X: "How does a little guy stand any chance if they go up against a woke megacorp? Nearly the only way is litigation financing where a wealthy 3rd party funds the suit. As written now @SenThomTillis’ bill is a mega corporations dream."

Jenna Ellis took things a step further, accusing Sen. Tillis of deception: "Tillis has deceptively marketed his bill as taxing “foreign” litigation funding — when in reality it subjects all litigation funders to a 41% levy — intended to drive away investors. The effect would be that Americans fighting woke corporations will lose one of the few tools needed to fight back."

Kurt Schlichter added: "Every American has a right to bring a lawsuit. It’s nobody’s business how they fund it. And lawsuits are hugely expensive. This is a way to keep people from suing - it doesn’t start bad lawsuit. It stops good ones."

It seems we have a mini-Republican civil war brewing over the issue of legal funding. Sen. Tillis is a Republican, but that hasn't stopped the MAGA faithful from backing legal funding in a bit to help them take down 'woke corporations.'

LFJ will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Boutique disputes firm CANDEY has made a strategic addition to its partnership ranks, bringing on former Burford Capital executive Robin Ganguly. With a career that spans high-stakes litigation and cross-border insolvency work at Linklaters and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Ganguly also brings deep expertise from the litigation funding and insurance sectors—making him a key hire as CANDEY expands its risk-sharing capabilities.

A press release from CANDEY highlights Ganguly’s trajectory through Burford, where he led the global insolvency practice, followed by litigation risk roles at Aon and The Fidelis Partnership. At Fidelis, Ganguly underwrote high-value legal risk and managed transactional insurance solutions, further honing his understanding of bespoke risk mitigation in complex disputes.

His arrival coincides with the firm’s recent launch of CANDEY CAPITAL (BVI) Limited, a litigation fund dedicated to financing claims arising from insolvency and distressed situations. This latest addition rounds out CANDEY’s offering, which already includes CFAs, DBAs, and litigation insurance. Ganguly’s hire, coupled with the insolvency expertise of CANDEY partner David Harby, signals a deliberate effort to deepen the firm’s footprint in asset recovery and contentious insolvency.

“CANDEY is a firm that has risk-taking in its DNA,” said managing partner Ashkhan Candey. “Robin’s experience in funding and insurance significantly enhances our offering.”

Marking a significant expansion of its European footprint, Geradin Partners has announced the opening of new offices in Berlin and Cologne, bolstered by the arrival of Thomas Höppner from Hausfeld and Thomas G. Funke from Osborne Clarke.

According to a press release from Geradin Partners, this move positions the boutique competition firm to deepen its pan-European practice and strengthen its presence in Germany’s critical antitrust and tech regulation landscape. Höppner, who was Hausfeld’s first German partner in 2015, played a leading role in establishing the firm’s German operations. He brings with him a team that shares his “challenger mindset,” a hallmark of both his time at Hausfeld and his vision for the future at Geradin.

Funke, previously a partner at Osborne Clarke and well-regarded for his litigation prowess, joins to co-lead the German offices. Together, the two lawyers are expected to expand Geradin’s work on complex antitrust litigation and regulatory matters, particularly as European enforcement ramps up in the tech sector. Founding partner Damien Geradin said the hires “solidify our ability to offer top-tier competition and regulatory advice across Europe.”

As Europe’s legal and regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the German expansion of Geradin Partners may point to broader shifts in the litigation and legal funding ecosystem—where cross-border capability, strategic litigation, and competition expertise are becoming essential assets.

The U.S. litigation finance sector may soon face a substantial tax hike under a proposal folded into the latest version of Senate Republicans’ tax and healthcare legislation. The provision, championed by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), introduces a 41% levy on profits from litigation finance investments—a move projected to raise $3.5 billion over a decade.

An article in Bloomberg Law details how the measure was added to President Trump’s budget bill (H.R. 1) and could significantly deter investor interest in the $15.2 billion industry. Investors, who back lawsuits in exchange for a cut of potential settlements or verdicts, value litigation finance for its uncorrelated returns. But critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue the practice inflates settlement values and prolongs litigation timelines.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the industry’s leading trade body, is actively opposing the Tillis proposal. ILFA argues that the measure would stifle access to justice by disincentivizing critical funding for claimants unable to afford litigation. The tax plan, while currently included in the bill, is far from finalized: Senate negotiations remain ongoing, and any final version must still be reconciled with the House’s earlier passage.

What makes the Tillis approach noteworthy is its departure from previous regulatory efforts focused on disclosure requirements. Instead, it leverages the tax code to curb litigation funding indirectly—prompting alarm across the industry. According to attendees at a recent litigation finance conference in New York, the proposal has already triggered coordinated responses among major funders, including efforts to boost ILFA membership and advocacy.

The proposed tax underscores a renewed push to rein in litigation finance via unconventional channels. As political winds shift, funders may need to rethink their strategies—not only to protect investor returns, but also to defend the sector’s role in enabling access to the courts.

Thousands of Belgian businesses may be eligible for compensation following revelations of a sweeping price-fixing scheme involving the country’s top private security providers. From 2008 to 2020, industry giants Securitas, G4S, and Seris colluded to inflate prices and carve up the market, depriving clients of competitive rates. The Belgian Competition Authority confirmed the scheme in July 2024, levying a landmark €47 million fine and acknowledging widespread harm to companies and institutions relying on security services.

An article in LitFin outlines how the litigation funder is spearheading a class action to secure damages for affected parties. LitFin estimates total damages could exceed €800 million, with any organization that contracted private security during the cartel period—whether for routine guarding or specialized services like airport security—potentially eligible to join the claim.

LitFin’s approach eliminates financial barriers by covering all legal and procedural costs in exchange for a share of any recovery. With 21 competition class actions already underway across the EU, the firm brings established expertise to this ambitious claim.

A brewing legal rift in one of the UK’s largest consumer class actions has escalated, as litigation funder Innsworth Capital seeks judicial review of the £200m Mastercard settlement approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Innsworth, which financed the long-running Merricks v Mastercard case, is contesting the tribunal’s distribution structure, claiming it unjustly limits the funder’s return to less than half its investment, while allocating over £30m to a third-party charity.

An article in the Global Legal Post reports that Innsworth’s challenge centers on the May ruling, which capped its return at £22.8m—just 0.5× its £45.6m outlay—while setting aside the remaining balance of a £54.4m discretionary fund for either top-up class member payments or donation to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF). Innsworth alleges the tribunal made legal and procedural missteps, including misapplying Australian case law and failing to account for the commercial risk it bore in a case once valued at £14bn.

The funder argues that a return of 1.5× was both contractually contemplated and supported by precedent, and that the tribunal denied it a fair chance to respond to the proposed settlement mechanics. Its filing calls attention to what it deems an “arbitrary and irrational” allocation that favors a charity over the party that funded the claim’s pursuit.

The timing of Innsworth’s action is notable, following the Civil Justice Council’s June 3 report urging statutory regulation of funders and a legislative fix to PACCAR. The outcome of this judicial review could influence how courts and legislators assess funder profits—and reshape expectations around post-settlement fund allocations in collective redress cases.

A shadowy new television ad has thrown fresh fuel on the fire surrounding third-party litigation funding, signaling a sharp escalation in efforts to reshape the industry’s tax treatment. The 60-second spot, airing nationally, takes aim at litigation financiers and the plaintiffs’ bar, aligning with a Republican-backed push to impose a steep 41% tax on litigation finance profits through an upcoming federal appropriations bill.

According to Bloomberg Law, the ad features dramatic visuals and pointed messaging designed to raise public concern about the role and influence of litigation funders in the civil justice system. While the ad does not disclose its sponsor, its timing and tone suggest it is part of a coordinated campaign to build momentum behind proposed tax reforms that would treat funder profits as ordinary income rather than capital gains.

At the heart of the policy debate is whether litigation funders should continue to benefit from preferential tax rates typically reserved for long-term investment income. Proponents of the tax hike argue that funders are not passive investors but active participants in the legal process who should face a higher tax burden. Critics, meanwhile, warn that the proposal would discourage funding for meritorious claims and restrict access to justice, especially in costly litigation where plaintiffs cannot afford to proceed without external financing.

The ad spot represents a new front in the political battle over litigation finance, which has faced increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, regulators, and industry opponents. It follows recent moves by groups like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which have endorsed similar tax reforms aimed at reining in the sector.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has thrown its support behind the “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act,” a proposed bill aimed at increasing tax and regulatory scrutiny of third-party litigation funders. APCIA is advocating for the legislation’s inclusion in the federal reconciliation package, underscoring the insurance industry’s mounting concern over the financial and legal impact of third-party litigation funding (TPLF).

An article in Insurance Business Magazine reports that the APCIA is backing the measure as part of its broader efforts to rein in what it views as predatory funding practices. The association argues that TPLF arrangements can distort the legal process by incentivizing unnecessary litigation, driving up settlement costs, and fostering conflicts of interest between funders and claimants.

The proposed legislation would require litigation funders to pay taxes on returns previously treated as capital gains, thereby classifying their profits more akin to business income. This shift could significantly affect the financial calculus for funders, particularly those operating in high-volume, high-return sectors of mass tort and class action litigation.

The APCIA’s stance aligns with a broader pattern of resistance from the insurance industry, which has increasingly blamed litigation funding for contributing to “social inflation”—the rising costs of claims due to expanded legal theories and larger jury awards. With the insurance lobby stepping up its pressure, this bill could serve as a litmus test for how the federal government chooses to address the growing influence of litigation finance.

If passed, the legislation could reshape the risk-reward profile for funders and usher in a new era of compliance obligations. The legal funding industry will be watching closely to see whether this signals the start of a more aggressive regulatory push from Washington.

A landmark collective action against Google has cleared a key legal hurdle in the UK, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certifying a £1.04 billion lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of UK app developers.

The class action, spearheaded by Strathclyde University competition law professor Barry Rodger and backed by litigation funder Bench Walk Advisors, accuses Google of abusing its dominant position by imposing excessive commissions on app sales through its Play Store.

The case filing outlines that the CAT has issued a collective proceedings order, allowing the case to move to trial. The claim targets exorbitant commissions, alleging these charges unfairly burden UK app developers—many of them small- and medium-sized enterprises—by effectively locking them into the Play Store ecosystem through restrictive contractual and technical practices.

The case adds to mounting regulatory and legal scrutiny of Google’s Play Store practices worldwide. The European Commission recently issued preliminary findings under the Digital Markets Act, the UK’s CMA is assessing Google’s “Strategic Market Status,” and U.S. courts have already found the tech giant in breach of antitrust laws. The timing of the CAT’s ruling puts further pressure on Google, particularly as similar legal actions, including a new suit by Korean developers, continue to emerge globally.

A panel convened by S&P Global has flagged litigation funding as a growing concern for casualty insurers, warning that its rapid rise could be fueling systemic inefficiencies and potential abuse in the legal system.

An article in Reuters details the findings from an S&P insurance panel that expressed concern over how the increasing role of third-party litigation funding is contributing to the volume and aggressiveness of legal claims. Panelists noted that while there is “no sign of the apocalypse,” litigation funders’ influence is prompting a cautious stance from casualty insurers, who are facing escalating claim costs, longer litigation cycles, and a rising number of so-called nuclear verdicts.

The panel advocated for comprehensive tort reform, citing litigation funding as a key driver of what they see as a dysfunctional tort system. They warned that without structural legal changes, insurance markets could see greater volatility and pricing pressure. While the exact impact of litigation funding on claims frequency remains contested, S&P analysts are increasingly viewing it as a structural headwind for insurers navigating a tougher underwriting environment.

The remarks come amid broader industry scrutiny of litigation finance’s influence on legal outcomes and market dynamics. With funders enabling claimants to pursue extended or higher-value litigation, insurers argue the funding model skews incentives and inflates settlements. Calls for greater transparency around funding arrangements and closer regulatory oversight are growing louder within insurance circles.

This latest critique adds momentum to the ongoing debate over litigation finance’s long-term impact. As third-party funding becomes more entrenched across jurisdictions, questions remain about how insurers, lawmakers, and courts will respond—and whether litigation finance will continue reshaping the contours of legal risk.

Therium Capital Management has enlisted Fortress Investment Group to take over the management of the bulk of its litigation portfolio, marking a significant operational shift for one of the industry’s most prominent players. The move comes as Therium continues to restructure its business following reported job cuts earlier this year.

As reported by The Lawyer, Fortress will now serve as sub-adviser, overseeing the day-to-day handling of most of Therium’s funded cases. The collaboration is framed as a bid for greater efficiency and operational streamlining, rather than a full exit from case management. Sources indicate that existing litigation funding agreements between Therium and law firms will remain unchanged, suggesting the funder aims to preserve continuity for its clients and counterparties.

Therium has been a key figure in shaping modern litigation finance, with a global footprint and involvement in numerous high-profile disputes. This development raises compelling questions about how prominent funders are navigating a post-PACCAR environment, and if there will be other similar restructurings on the horizon.

A consequential legal battle now before the UK Court of Appeal could have sweeping implications for litigation funders operating in the UK and beyond. The case centers on the enforceability of funding agreements that calculate funder returns as a multiple of the capital invested—a model widely used across the industry.

An article in the Law Society Gazette outlines how the appeal follows a High Court ruling that refused to strike out a claim challenging such a funding structure. The challenge argues that these agreements, which are not pegged to the damages recovered but instead to the amount of funding provided, could fall afoul of the UK's statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). If upheld, funders using a multiple-of-capital return model might be required to comply with the more stringent regulatory framework governing DBAs—potentially rendering many existing contracts unenforceable.

The outcome could reverberate across the legal funding landscape, particularly in collective actions, where such return structures are commonly deployed. Industry observers note that a ruling against funders would necessitate a wholesale reevaluation of how litigation finance deals are structured, priced, and disclosed, especially in the UK market.

Funders and legal practitioners alike are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a test of legal clarity and commercial viability for the sector. The decision may also influence legislative and regulatory discussions already underway in the UK about how best to govern third-party funding.

This case underscores the regulatory and judicial uncertainties that still shadow the legal funding market, even as it matures. A ruling from the Court of Appeal could either reinforce current market practices or trigger a paradigm shift in funder-client agreements.

Siltstone Capital is taking its premier litigation finance conference, LITFINCON, global. The firm announced that its marquee event will now be hosted in three strategic locations—Houston, Singapore, and Amsterdam—marking a significant milestone in the evolution and internationalization of the litigation finance industry.

According to PR Newswire, the expansion builds on LITFINCON’s rapid growth since its inception in 2022, with the goal of fostering high-level dialogue among funders, lawyers, and investors worldwide. Each location was chosen for its significance in global legal markets: Houston remains the conference’s home base and a hub for U.S. litigation and energy disputes; Singapore offers access to the booming Asia-Pacific arbitration scene; and Amsterdam provides a gateway to European class actions and collective redress mechanisms.

Siltstone’s managing partner, William McMichael, emphasized that the global expansion is not just about geography but about shaping a more connected and mature litigation finance ecosystem. “We’ve seen the appetite for knowledge-sharing and networking among global stakeholders,” said McMichael. “LITFINCON Global is a response to that demand and a reflection of the sector’s continued growth.”

The conferences are scheduled to take place between late 2025 and early 2026, with Houston slated for February, Singapore in November, and Amsterdam to follow shortly after. Each event will retain LITFINCON’s hallmark focus on practical insights, deal-making, and candid conversation among industry insiders.

This expansion underscores the legal funding industry’s increasing globalization and mainstream acceptance. With funders and legal professionals seeking more sophisticated, cross-border opportunities, LITFINCON’s global footprint could shape the next phase of market development and standard-setting in litigation finance.

Viren Mascarenhas has officially launched Mascarenhas Law PLLC, a new boutique specializing in arbitration—covering construction, commercial, investment—alongside U.S. litigation and public international law. As a seasoned arbitrator and founding partner, Mascarenhas positions the firm to navigate complex cross-border and domestic disputes.

In a post on LinkedIn, Mascarenhas links to his new website, mascarenhaslaw.com, which states that the firm’s launch marks its commitment to delivering focused, high-caliber dispute resolution services across multiple legal domains. The full-service boutique offers expertise in construction arbitration and contractual disputes, commercial arbitration, investment treaty claims, U.S. court proceedings, and matters tied to international law. The announcement also highlights that Mascarenhas sits as an arbitrator, underscoring deep procedural insight and strategic acumen.

Mascarenhas Law exemplifies the growing trend toward smaller, specialist firms in the dispute resolution space. Its focus on both arbitral advocacy and arbitral leadership reflects evolving demands for flexible, expert-driven practices. The firm's launch could influence the boutique arbitration ecosystem by prompting more focused offerings and nuanced cross‑border competency in both advocacy and tribunal service.

Noah Wortman has joined the newly launched Walgate Litigation Management as Head of Strategy, collaborating closely with Steven Mash under the umbrella of Fladgate LLP. The firm focuses on delivering comprehensive administrative and strategic support for group claims, primarily in securities litigation. Its mission is to streamline case viability assessment, funder and ATE insurance submissions, institutionally sourced investment, and administrative operations—all designed to relieve fee earners and enhance case success rates.

In a LinkedIn post, Wortman notes that Walgate offers end‑to‑end services across the full life cycle of group litigation—from identifying and vetting actionable securities cases, through securing and managing funding relationships, to handling the administrative burdens that accompany progressing claims. With support from Fladgate’s Dispute Resolution team, the entity aims to ensure that strong claims against corporate misconduct—such as securities fraud, market manipulation, and regulatory violations—are supported to fruition.

Wortman emphasizes the venture’s commitment to access to justice, explaining that Walgate creates “pathways to recovery for global investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct.” By constructing a book of institutional investors and facilitating seamless collaboration between funders, insurers, and legal teams, Walgate seeks to remove financial and operational barriers that often stymie large-scale group actions.

This launch reflects a broader industry trend toward specialized litigation management firms that integrate strategic funding relationships with operational execution. Walgate’s model signals a shift toward greater institutional involvement in securities class actions and demonstrates how law firms are partnering with funders to scale group litigation capabilities.

Tensions between the litigation finance and insurance sectors escalated this week, as Burford Capital accused insurance giant Chubb of anti-competitive conduct for allegedly blacklisting entities affiliated with litigation funders. The clash centers on Chubb’s reported efforts to pressure law firms, brokers, and asset managers to distance themselves from litigation finance players, claiming such associations encourage excessive litigation.

An article in the Financial Times reports that Chubb, one of the world’s largest commercial insurers, has taken a hardline stance against third-party litigation funding (TPLF). The insurer allegedly warned that business relationships with firms connected to litigation funding could jeopardize access to its insurance services. In response, Burford Capital, the world’s largest litigation financier, has challenged Chubb’s actions as potentially violating antitrust laws by leveraging its dominant market position to suppress competition and restrict access to legal finance.

Burford argues that litigation funding serves a critical role in facilitating access to justice, especially for under-resourced claimants confronting well-capitalized defendants. The firm emphasized the legality of TPLF arrangements and framed Chubb’s actions as an overreach aimed at stifling a legitimate and growing financial sector. The dispute highlights deepening fault lines between two industries with starkly divergent views on the societal and economic impacts of litigation funding.

This confrontation arrives amid heightened scrutiny of TPLF, with insurers and some policymakers portraying it as a driver of “social inflation”—increased litigation costs and larger jury verdicts. Funders, on the other hand, maintain that these claims are overblown and self-serving.

The implications for legal finance are significant. If Chubb’s actions prompt regulatory review or litigation, it could shape the future of insurer-funder relations and the broader policy environment for litigation finance. The episode also raises the question: will other insurers adopt similarly aggressive stances, or will Burford’s challenge curb the momentum of this growing backlash?

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.

A new opinion piece pushes back against recent cultural and political rhetoric characterizing third-party litigation funding as a partisan instrument, arguing instead that it remains a neutral financial tool in the legal system.

An article in the Consumer Choice Center emphasizes that while some political actors and commentators have portrayed litigation funding as a means to challenge so-called “woke” corporations, such framing misconstrues the role and function of funders. According to the piece, litigation funding serves a straightforward purpose: to provide capital to litigants—be they individuals or entities—who lack the resources to pursue claims. The authors argue that this mechanism is neither inherently ideological nor driven by political outcomes.

The article calls for clearer regulatory standards and heightened transparency to avoid potential abuses and maintain public trust. It warns against allowing litigation finance to be co-opted by political narratives, which could derail substantive policy debates around disclosure, ethical boundaries, and market oversight.

In a landscape increasingly shaped by culture wars, this intervention underscores a foundational point: litigation finance is not a proxy battlefield for partisan interests, but a tool with the potential to improve access to justice—provided it is governed with clarity and care.

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal advocates for closing tax loopholes that allow foreign investment funds to avoid U.S. taxes on profits earned from financing lawsuits against American companies. The editorial argues that the current tax code inadvertently incentivizes predatory litigation funding practices by exempting foreign investors from taxation on lawsuit proceeds, thereby disadvantaging domestic businesses.

The article contends that this exemption creates an uneven playing field, enabling foreign entities to profit from U.S. legal actions without contributing to the tax base. It suggests that such practices not only strain the judicial system but also impose additional burdens on American companies, which must defend against potentially frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits financed by these untaxed foreign investments.

The editorial calls on Congress to reevaluate and amend the tax code to eliminate these exemptions. By doing so, it aims to deter exploitative litigation funding and ensure that all investors, regardless of nationality, are subject to the same tax obligations when profiting from the U.S. legal system.

The piece emphasizes that such reforms would promote fairness and protect domestic businesses from undue legal and financial pressures.