An inventor rights advocacy group has told the federal rules committee that a mandatory third-party litigation funding disclosure rule would hand well-capitalised defendants a tactical advantage over independent inventors trying to enforce their patents.

In a letter filed as Rules Suggestion 26-CV-40 with the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated 7 October, the Inventors Defense Alliance reaffirmed its opposition to disclosure requirements of the kind urged on the Committee last month by 214 companies and organisations. That proposal would require parties in federal civil litigation to disclose the name, address and telephone number of any nonparty, other than counsel of record, that directly or indirectly provides funding for the action and holds a financial interest in it.

The group's chief policy counselor, Kristen Osenga, argued that patent litigation costs make outside financing a practical necessity for smaller claimants, citing AIPLA data putting median costs for high-stakes patent cases at roughly $3 million to $5 million, with sophisticated multi-patent disputes exceeding $10 million per side. Disclosure of funding terms, the letter said, would give defendants "a roadmap for pursuing a war of attrition against smaller plaintiffs."

The submission also attacked the proposal's scope as unworkable. Read broadly, it argued, "directly or indirectly" could capture a teacher whose pension fund invests in an SEC-registered fund that finances a startup's infringement suit — someone who may not know the lawsuit exists. The Alliance urged that any rule adopted be "surgically precise."

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules is scheduled to consider the funding disclosure proposals at its meeting later this month.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has lent his support to a Republican effort to change the tax treatment of third-party litigation funding, telling a congressional committee that he regards the industry as a structural problem rather than a legitimate asset class.

As reported by Transport Topics, Bessent told the House Financial Services Committee on 15 September that "I have long believed that [third-party litigation financing] is a malignancy within our legal and financial system," responding to questions from Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.). Flood pressed Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to examine how income from litigation finance investments is taxed, including arrangements involving foreign investors, arguing that "these transactions allow investors to take ordinary income from litigation recoveries and convert it into capital gains income through financial fiscal engineering." Bessent said he looked forward to working with lawmakers on the issues raised.

The underlying legislation is the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act (H.R. 3512), sponsored by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), with an identical Senate companion from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Both are backed exclusively by Republicans; the Senate bill has eight co-sponsors across six states, while House co-sponsors represent 20 states. Under the proposal, any person who controls, receives or holds proceeds from a covered civil lawsuit would have to withhold tax equal to 50% of the applicable percentage of payments owed to a funder. Covered agreements include options, forward contracts, futures, short positions and swaps. Agreements providing less than $10,000 for an individual lawsuit would be exempt.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has urged the administration and Congress to close what its senior vice president of federal and political affairs, Jimi Grande, characterised as a loophole.

Pre-settlement funder Legal-Bay has welcomed the proposed $800 million abuse settlement involving the Archdiocese of New York while warning claimants that the plan's fast-track payment option may undervalue their claims.

As reported by The Mountaineer, the proposal would be paid in two installments — roughly $615 million up front and a further $185 million within about 15 months — covering an estimated 1,300 claims brought under New York's Child Victims Act. Claimants would be able to accept a flat quick-pay amount of $250,000 or submit to an individual evaluation under a points-based matrix that has not yet been released publicly.

Legal-Bay chief executive Chris Janish said the figure represents meaningful progress. "For survivors who have waited years to be heard, an $800 million proposal is an important step toward resolution," he said. He cautioned, however, that the quick-pay election may not deliver fair value for claimants whose circumstances would score higher under individual review, and noted that the matrix remains unpublished, leaving claimants to weigh a certain sum against an unknown alternative.

Janish added that non-recourse funding advances can help plaintiffs avoid accepting an early payment for liquidity reasons alone. Legal-Bay provides pre-settlement advances that are repaid only if the underlying claim resolves successfully.

The company has tracked the Archdiocese proceedings closely, having flagged in April that the case had reached what it described as a critical crossroads for claimants awaiting resolution.

Litigation finance is moving from a niche alternative allocation to a recognised corner of specialty private credit, according to Luke Darkow, a portfolio manager at Aperture Investors.

As reported by ABF Journal, Darkow argues that institutional investors are no longer treating legal assets as an exotic curiosity but as a potential source of returns uncorrelated with public markets. "Litigation finance is no longer merely an alternative curiosity," he writes. "It is increasingly viewed as a potential diversifier within their current portfolios."

The case rests partly on the sheer size of the underlying market. U.S. legal services generated roughly $375.7 billion in revenue in 2024 and are projected to reach $427.9 billion by 2029, a compound annual growth rate of 2.64%. Darkow, who says he has personally deployed more than $1.25 billion into litigation finance over his career, frames that spend as a large and persistent financing need rather than a cyclical opportunity.

Aperture's own approach is built around lending to law firms rather than backing individual cases. The firm structures direct loans secured by diversified pools of legal fee receivables, blending post-settlement receivables with near-settlement matters. Darkow contends that this structure reduces the binary outcome risk that has historically made single-case investments difficult for institutional allocators to underwrite, because repayment depends on the performance of a portfolio of claims rather than one verdict.

Aperture, which reported roughly $600 million in litigation finance assets under management earlier this year, is among a group of credit managers positioning law firm lending as a distinct private credit strategy.

New York's new consumer litigation funding statute has not removed the risk that a funding agreement will be recharacterised as a usurious loan, according to a commentary published this week by three lawyers at Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, partners Reid Skibell and Joseph Gallagher, with associate Colleen Piasenti, argue that the Consumer Litigation Funding Act — effective 17 June 2026 — gives funders a statutory framework but not a safe harbour. The Act defines consumer litigation funding as non-recourse and caps the funder's total recovery at 25% of the claimant's proceeds. Non-recourse treatment is what keeps a funding agreement outside New York's 16% civil usury ceiling, and the authors contend that courts will look past the label to the economics of the deal.

They point to the July 2026 decision in *Denemark v. New Chapter Capital, Inc.* as the cautionary example. There, a funder advanced legal fees to a party in a matrimonial dispute at a stated 12% interest rate, secured by a UCC-1 lien on marital property and supported by a guaranty that triggered repayment if the spouses reconciled or if either spouse died. The court concluded the structure left the funder recovering in virtually every realistic scenario, making the arrangement a loan in substance at an effective rate of roughly 19%, and voided it.

The practical lesson, the authors suggest, is that risk-reduction devices meant to protect a funder's downside can be the very features that strip away non-recourse status.

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed that an Australian court delivered judgment against a funded insolvency claim in which the company had invested A$2.9 million of shareholder capital directly from its own balance sheet.

As reported by Investegate, the AIM-listed funder confirmed on Wednesday that the claim was unsuccessful. LCM said the matter was funded entirely on balance sheet rather than through one of its third-party investment vehicles, meaning the full A$2.9 million exposure sits with shareholders rather than fund investors.

The company said a policy of after-the-event insurance is in place to mitigate its adverse costs risk arising from the judgment. ATE cover typically responds to a successful defendant's costs order, which in Australian proceedings can represent a material liability on top of the funder's own sunk investment. LCM added that it is reviewing the judgment and assessing potential next steps alongside its legal representatives, language that leaves open the possibility of an appeal.

The disclosure arrives at a difficult moment for the funder. LCM announced in September that it would enter an orderly run-off following a full-year loss of A$165.7 million, and has since been working through its existing book rather than writing new business. Adverse outcomes on balance-sheet positions carry more weight in that context, since realisations from the legacy portfolio are the primary source of value available to shareholders.

The announcement was made by chief executive Patrick Moloney and chief financial officer David Collins. Cavendish acts as the company's nominated adviser and broker.

Insolvency litigation funder Manolete Partners has reported record realised revenue for the six months to 30 September 2026, alongside a record pipeline of signed but unresolved cases, in a trading update issued on Tuesday.

As reported by Investegate, realised revenue for the first half of the 2027 financial year came in at £17.4 million, up 23% from £14.1 million a year earlier. The company's forward book — the estimated future revenue from cases already signed — rose to a record £69 million at 30 September, against £67 million at the March year-end and £56 million twelve months ago. New cases signed in the half carried a forecast revenue value of £17.3 million, a 26% increase on the prior year.

The AIM-listed funder completed 161 cases in the period, up from 146. Cash collection moved the other way: gross cash receipts fell £1.7 million to £12.8 million, and net debt rose £2.1 million to £13.6 million from £11.5 million at the end of March. Manolete separately announced a £3 million settlement in a large insolvency claim on 2 October, after the half-year closed.

Chief executive Mena Halton said the company had performed strongly in the first half, pointing to the record revenue and the continued growth in the forward book.

Market expectations for the full year sit at £30.6 million of revenue and £1.5 million of adjusted realised profit before tax. Manolete will publish full half-year results on 19 November, with an investor presentation the following day.

Delaware's Superior Court has adopted a civil rule that allows parties to seek narrow discovery about third-party litigation funding arrangements, while keeping the funding agreements themselves out of reach.

As reported by Reed Smith, new Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b)(3), titled "Litigation-funding agreements," took effect on 30 September 2026 and applies to civil matters before the court. The rule defines a covered arrangement as one between a party and a counterparty other than that party's attorney, in which the counterparty agrees to pay litigation expenses and holds both a contractual right to repayment contingent on the outcome and a contractual right to control aspects of the litigation.

Where the definition is met, opposing parties may obtain discovery in four areas: whether such an agreement exists, the identity of the counterparty, how the arrangement satisfies the definition, and the extent of any control or settlement-approval rights. The rule expressly bars discovery of the agreement itself, of information a party supplied to the funder, and of attorney work product. Control provisions may be ordered produced only for cause, and funding agreements remain inadmissible at trial.

The rule follows recommendations issued in 2023 by a Delaware Supreme Court committee, which was set up after the state legislature encouraged a study of transparency in third-party litigation funding. Reed Smith partners Brian M. Rostocki and Nicholas R. Rodriguez wrote the analysis.

Delaware's federal court has drawn attention for its funder-disclosure standing order; the Superior Court rule now extends a narrower, codified version of that inquiry into the state's civil docket.

Omni Bridgeway has reached the full US$1 billion target for the second series of its flagship funds, the ASX-listed funder announced on Wednesday, taking the group's assets under management to A$5.9 billion.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the close marks the second time Omni Bridgeway has raised US$1 billion for a single vehicle, following the first such fund in 2019. The company said 99% of investors in the prior series reinvested, with repeat backers accounting for more than half of the new capital and the average commitment running above US$100 million. More than US$300 million has already been deployed into investments.

The structure is equity-funded rather than debt-financed, and Omni Bridgeway itself is taking roughly a 20% general partner co-investment alongside outside institutions. Chief executive Raymond van Hulst told Bloomberg Law that the sector's failures have tended to involve managers funded with borrowings, noting that Omni Bridgeway carries no debt and therefore faces no mismatch between the duration of its liabilities and the long tail of its cases.

The raise lands against a mixed backdrop for listed funders. Omni Bridgeway recorded A$712 million in new commitments in its 2026 financial year and reports 822 completed investments through 30 June 2026 at a portfolio-wide 2.4x multiple on invested capital, with past results including the A$475 million Robodebt settlement and a A$440 million Brisbane floods class action resolution. Ares Management acquired a stake in the funder's investment portfolio in December 2024.

The fund will back single cases and portfolios across intellectual property, antitrust, group claims and arbitration in multiple jurisdictions.

TeddyHoldings.AI, a legal services platform incubated by holding company Tucker's Farm Corporation, has raised $60 million in seed funding and passed $25 million in revenue, adding to the outside capital now moving into law firm aggregation.

According to a press release from Teddy AI, the company describes itself as a compliance- and client-focused, partner-oriented legal services vehicle. It is keeping its specific focus, leadership and cap table confidential for now. The round drew roughly $115 million in equity interest over three weeks of fundraising calls before closing at $60 million, with traditional limited partners, including an endowment manager, among the backers.

Kyle Tucker, founder of Tucker's Farm's private equity arm and formerly of Apollo and Viking, was candid about the limits of the legal rollup thesis. "We think most law firms are tough businesses - key man risk, project-based revenue, a ton of AI risk," he said. He added that the firm is also skeptical of personal injury rollups outside "the top brands/machines," citing concerns over long-term returns on capital and the sustainability of cash flow.

Tucker said Teddy "is not an AI company," and that technology will be used only to the extent it serves clients. The company will revisit the size of a Series A round depending on its reinvestment needs.

Tucker's Farm, which began as a goat dairy in 1994, aims to acquire $100 million to $200 million of long-term assets each year through acquisitions and reinvestment in the lower-middle market.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has added its voice to the trucking industry's campaign for mandatory disclosure of third-party litigation funding, arguing that defendants in nuclear verdict cases should be told who is financing the claims against them.

As reported by Land Line, OOIDA wants outside funding of lawsuits disclosed as a matter of course rather than contested case by case. The association's position puts owner-operators and small fleets alongside the larger carriers that have driven the disclosure debate to date, and reframes it as a concern for the smallest operators rather than only for well-capitalised defendants.

The piece, written by Keith Goble, is pegged to Ohio's new funding law, which takes effect on 6 October. The statute requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements and bars funding from foreign governments, foreign corporations and foreign investors outright. State Representative Meredith Craig, a Smithville Republican, said that "for too long, foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens."

Michigan is moving on a broader measure. House Bill 5281 would require disclosure of funding agreements, establish a registration regime for funders operating in the state, prohibit commissions, referral fees and other payments between funders and attorneys or healthcare providers, and bar foreign entities from financing Michigan litigation. State Representative Mike Harris, a Waterford Republican, described the current arrangements as "shadow cash" moving through the civil justice system.

The article does not put a figure on how much outside capital is financing trucking claims, which remains the central gap in the industry's argument for disclosure.

Claimants in the long-running rugby brain injury litigation have been left with a £2.8 million costs bill payable to the defendants by the end of October, with no clarity yet on who will actually pay it.

As reported by NR Times, Senior Master Cook attributed the delays that generated the costs to what he described as the "contradictory and misguided approach" taken by Rylands Garth, the firm that originally ran the group action. KP Law has since taken over the claimants' case and must meet outstanding disclosure obligations by 31 October.

The litigation is funded in full by Asertis, which has financed the entire action over six years, including the neurological testing required to establish each claimant's condition. The report notes that it remains unclear whether the £2.8 million falls to the funder, the former firm, or the claimants themselves, a question with direct consequences for a claimant group that includes seven rugby union players who have died since the action began.

Hundreds of claimants have already been struck off the group register as the case has progressed, and Paul Downes KC has warned of the consequences of further procedural failures. The costs order is the latest in a sequence of adverse developments for the action, which was presented as a landmark test of governing bodies' duty of care in contact sport.

For funders, the case illustrates how a cost liability generated by the conduct of a law firm rather than the merits of the underlying claims can land on a funded book, and how little clarity English procedure offers about where that liability ultimately sits.

Krasha Financial Services has announced plans to launch a dedicated litigation finance platform aimed at the Indian market, with first deployments targeted for the fourth quarter of the 2026-27 financial year.

As reported by India CSR, the platform will fund commercial litigation, arbitration, insolvency claims and award enforcement. Krasha has set a minimum claim size of US$10 million and will cap funded matters at a five-year expected duration, a structure designed to filter out the long-tail cases that have historically made Indian litigation difficult to underwrite. The company said it is in advanced discussions with a UK-based legal finance firm about a strategic partnership, which would give it access to established underwriting practice in a more mature market.

Krasha's chief financial officer, Avdhesh Singh, framed the opportunity around the scale of unresolved Indian litigation, citing more than 50 million pending cases across the court system. The company pointed to global litigation finance market estimates of roughly US$29 billion in 2026, rising to about US$43 billion by 2031, and referenced Burford Capital's reported 26% internal rate of return as a benchmark for the asset class.

The litigation finance platform will sit separately from Krasha's existing neo-financing business, which has a deployment target of ₹1,200 crore for FY2026-27. The group also runs Prism Strategy, a Category II alternative investment fund of roughly US$60 million to US$70 million. Krasha was founded in November 2023.

India has no dedicated statutory framework for third-party funding, and the launch will test how far a domestic funder can build an underwriting model without one.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has told the proposed class representative in a £6.3bn claim against Amazon that the terms it agreed with its litigation funder are constraining its ability to act in the interests of the class, and signalled that certification will be difficult unless those terms are changed.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the Tribunal warned that the funding agreement held by the Association of Consumer Support Organisations is "tying its hands," and indicated that the application faces an uphill battle at certification unless ACSO amends terms it has already agreed with its funder. The hearing took place before the Tribunal on 5 October.

ACSO, a trade body that represents 86 claimant law firms, applied in August 2025 for a collective proceedings order on an opt-out basis on behalf of more than 45 million UK consumers who purchased goods from third-party sellers on Amazon's marketplace. The claim period runs for six years to 14 August 2025. ACSO has instructed Stephenson Harwood, with Ben Lask KC and Luke Kelly of Monckton Chambers as counsel and Brattle Group providing economic analysis. ACSO has described its backer as a reputable member of the Association of Litigation Funders but has not named it publicly.

Amazon has urged the Tribunal to reject the claim, arguing that it duplicates existing proceedings and that it would generate outsized returns for the lawyers and funders involved. The Tribunal's concern about the funding terms adds a second obstacle alongside that duplication argument, and places the economics of the funding arrangement at the centre of whether a 45 million-member class is certified at all.

Deminor's newest Dutch hire has said many sound business-to-business disputes in the Netherlands go unpursued because of cost, risk or resource constraints, pointing to an opening for litigation funders.

As reported by Litigation Finance Insider, Wouter de Jong discussed his move into funding in an interview published on 4 October. De Jong joined Deminor as Senior Legal Counsel in its Utrecht office after more than 14 years in disputes, including eight as a patent litigator in private practice and six as Head of Litigation at a major international company, as Deminor announced in September.

He said litigation funding is less unfamiliar to Dutch companies than it was 15 years ago but remains poorly understood. Two misconceptions recur with clients: the non-recourse "no cure, no pay" structure, and the extent to which Deminor offers litigation expertise beyond capital. He credited the Netherlands' legal system, efficient proceedings and strong judiciary for producing meaningful outcomes within reasonable timeframes.

De Jong also highlighted intellectual property. The Unified Patent Court, he said, lets patentees resolve disputes across larger territories in a single forum, and he has seen rising local inquiries about patent funding. Patent cases demand deeper underwriting of the technology and the scope of protection, making them slower to assess than typical commercial disputes.

The interview signals where Deminor expects growth from its Dutch presence, which opened in June as its tenth office worldwide: single-claim commercial and IP disputes, rather than the collective actions for which the Dutch market is better known.

A senior investment manager at Loopa Finance has argued that litigation finance regulation should safeguard transparency and independence without restricting pricing, access to capital or the industry's ability to innovate.

As reported by Litigation Finance Insider, Marina Gouveia, Senior Investment Manager at Loopa Finance, said in a commentary published on 4 October that standards-based oversight is preferable to prescriptive statutory rules. She identified transparency, independence, contractual clarity and the integrity of proceedings as the priorities.

Gouveia noted that the market spans single-case funding, portfolio financing, award monetisation and law firm or corporate structures, and that sophisticated corporate clients and individual consumers have very different needs. A uniform regime, she suggested, would fit neither well. She also warned that return caps could make some claims less commercially attractive to finance, particularly those needing large upfront costs or long proceedings, which could narrow access to justice.

She accepted that some regulatory goals are legitimate, including managing conflicts of interest, ensuring parties understand their agreements, verifying that funders have the resources to perform, and protecting claimants' control over strategy and settlement. Her preferred route is standards that evolve through courts, arbitral institutions, counsel and funders as new risks emerge, rather than legislation attempting to anticipate future products.

The piece names no specific jurisdictions or bills. It arrives as regulators in the UK, EU and several US states continue to debate disclosure and oversight rules, and it reflects the self-regulation approach funders such as Loopa have promoted through bodies including the European Litigation Funders Association.

Pogust Goodhead, trading as PGMBM, has said it is opposing an application to hold today's High Court hearing on who represents more than 400,000 claimants in the Mariana Dam litigation under seal.

According to a statement issued by PGMBM, lawyers acting for the Mariana Client Committee served an application on Monday asking the court to hold the hearing in private. A PGMBM spokesperson said the firm believes the move "flies in the face of access to justice" for the claimants affected by the disaster, and described transparency for clients as fundamental. PGMBM said it is urgently asking the judge to reject the application in the public interest.

The hearing is an expedited two-day session on 5 and 6 October to decide which firm should act for the claimants. As Legal Futures reported, the High Court earlier refused a request to stay the proceedings and directed that the representation dispute be determined at that hearing, rejecting calls for it to be held in private. The dispute pits PGMBM against Bailey Glasser International, which the Client Committee has sought to instruct in its place.

The statement did not say how the court has responded to the new application, and the application itself was supplied to media only as an attachment. PGMBM's account is one side of a contested matter, and the Client Committee's lawyers have not been quoted.

The fight over the case, a claim against BHP over the 2015 Fundão dam collapse, has drawn attention across the litigation funding market because control of a mass claim of this size determines how funders, lawyers and claimants are aligned ahead of the quantum trial listed for April 2027.

With the Solicitors Regulation Authority's consultation on third-party funding now closed, an after-the-event insurer has argued that the existing disbursement funding market will not satisfy the standards the regulator is contemplating.

As reported by Legal Futures, the SRA is considering new professional conduct standards that would require solicitors to maintain independence from funders and to tell clients that funders are not regulated by the SRA. The proposals would also require funding information to be given to clients in clear, plain language, covering redress options and how to claim on legal expenses insurance, and would require firms to document their assessments of third-party funding arrangements and report regularly to the SRA.

The 10-week consultation closed on 17 September. The piece, contributed by Allianz Legal Protection, argues that tighter regulation is likely as the SRA seeks to reduce the risk of further large-scale law firm failures.

On the funding mechanics, the article contends that current arrangements leave firms exposed. Drawdown facilities supported by ATE insurers typically cover only around 25% to 30% of a firm's total disbursement funding requirement, while partnerships with medical agencies generally offer deferment periods of two or three years. Because both are capped or time-limited, the article argues they rarely cover a firm's full disbursement funding need.

Allianz Legal Protection's proposed answer is to provide full disbursement funding as an insured benefit within the ATE policy itself, with payment made as disbursements are incurred rather than through a separate funding facility.

The piece is sponsored content from an insurer with a product to sell. Its underlying point is nonetheless relevant to the industry: if the SRA proceeds, consumer-claims firms will have to document and justify their funding arrangements to the regulator, and the structures they currently rely on will be assessed against that standard.

Over 800 current and former shareholders in Home REIT have brought claims in the High Court against the company, its directors and its former advisers, in one of the larger UK shareholder actions to be issued this year.

As reported by City AM, the claims are being run by Harcus Parker and name Home REIT and its directors alongside Alvarium Home REIT Advisors, the former investment adviser, and Alvarium Fund Managers, the former alternative investment fund manager, together with other parties connected to the company.

The shareholders allege that Home REIT misled investors about the security of its rental income, the financial strength of its tenants, the social impact it claimed to deliver, and the acquisition, use and valuation of its property portfolio. The claims are pleaded as statutory securities claims for misleading reports and accounts, together with deceit and negligent misrepresentation.

Harcus Parker partner Nate Barber said the claimants' case "is that what investors were told did not reflect the reality," adding that "what has happened since is extraordinary" and that shareholders "are entitled to understand how that happened." Home REIT said it "notes today's announcement" and would comment further "at an appropriate time."

Home REIT raised more than £850 million from investors between 2020 and 2023 to acquire accommodation for homeless people. Short-seller Viceroy Research raised concerns about the portfolio in late 2022, the Serious Fraud Office later opened an investigation, and the shares were suspended for roughly three years before resuming trading in April 2026.

No litigation funder is identified in connection with the claims. Opt-in shareholder actions of this scale typically require substantial book-building and adverse costs cover, making the financing structure behind the claim a point of interest as the proceedings advance.

Manolete Partners has completed another substantial insolvency claim, announcing the settlement of a large case for £3 million and confirming that board expectations for the year remain unchanged.

As reported by Investegate, the AIM-listed funder said in a regulatory announcement on 2 October that the case was successfully completed in late September 2026. The settlement forms part of the company's expected realised revenues for the current financial year, alongside realisations from the rest of its portfolio.

Manolete described itself in the announcement as the United Kingdom's leading insolvency claims financing company and attributed the outcome to its operating model, noting that it purchases and manages nearly all of its cases rather than passively funding them. The company credited its expertise in managing and progressing complex litigation and in asset preservation.

The announcement did not name the case, the insolvent estate or the defendants, and gave no guidance on when cash from the settlement will be received. No management commentary accompanied the release, which lists chief executive Mena Halton and chief financial officer Will Sawyer as contacts.

The disclosure follows a £3.4 million settlement in a separate large insolvency claim that Manolete reported in August, and continues a pattern of discrete case-level announcements that give the market visibility on realisations between formal reporting periods. Manolete's half-year results are due in November.

Manolete's model sits somewhat apart from the broader commercial litigation funding market. Rather than financing a claimant's own action in exchange for a share of proceeds, it typically acquires insolvency claims from administrators and liquidators outright and prosecutes them in its own name, which places realisation timing and case management risk directly on its own balance sheet.

A new analysis frames 2026 as the year state legislatures, rather than Congress, took the lead on third-party litigation funding, and advises in-house counsel to treat funding discovery as a standard part of litigation strategy rather than an exceptional step.

As reported by Best Lawyers, North Carolina became the first state to prohibit third-party litigation funding outright when Governor Josh Stein signed House Bill 315 on 22 June. The measure passed close to unanimously, is enforced by the state attorney general, and also gives private parties a right of action against violators.

Ohio has taken the regulatory rather than prohibitionist route. House Bill 105, signed on 7 July, takes effect on 6 October and introduces broad funding reforms addressing the role of funders in litigation strategy, discovery and settlement. The piece, written by Justin Smulison, reports that Michigan, Missouri and Tennessee are drafting comparable legislation with a particular focus on foreign-backed funding.

At the federal level, three vehicles remain in play. Senator Charles Grassley's Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced on 11 February as S. 3826. Representative Darrell Issa's Protecting TPLF From Abuse Act, H.R. 7015, was introduced on 12 January and remained at committee stage as of July. Separately, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice have proposed amending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to require disclosure of nonparty funding interests.

The practical guidance for general counsel is granular: build funding discovery into standard case strategy in disclosure-statute jurisdictions, search for UCC-1 financing statements filed by suspected funders, review deposition testimony about payments made to plaintiffs during litigation, and treat unusual discovery objections as a signal worth following.

Petersen Energia and Eton Park have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina over the 2012 renationalisation of oil producer YPF, filing a petition for certiorari that keeps alive the single largest asset in commercial litigation finance.

As reported by Reuters, the petition was filed on 1 October by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. It presents two questions: whether a foreign sovereign can invoke its own domestic law to force claims into its own courts despite jurisdiction being established under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and whether U.S. courts should defer to a sovereign's reading of its own law when that reading is advanced for the first time on appeal. The petition argues the Second Circuit's decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and has created a split among the federal appellate courts.

The Second Circuit overturned the award in March by a 2-1 majority, holding that the claimants' contract claims failed as a matter of Argentine law and belonged in Argentine courts. That ruling also vacated the June 2025 order requiring Argentina to turn over its YPF shares. The court denied a request for rehearing en banc in June.

Burford Capital, which funded the Petersen and Eton Park claims, said after the reversal that it would take a partial non-cash write-down of its YPF litigation assets and had flagged that the write-down could constrain its capacity to issue new debt and make new investments. Burford has also said it remains optimistic about an eventual positive outcome, pointing to the availability of international arbitration while acknowledging a meaningful delay in expected cash proceeds.

A spokesperson for Argentina's Treasury Solicitor's Office said the filing "constitutes a procedural step that had already been anticipated by the Argentine Republic and on which we are already working." The Supreme Court grants only a small share of petitions, and there is no fixed deadline for a decision on whether to hear the case.

The Supreme Court of Queensland has stayed an insider trading class action after ordering the plaintiff to post $630,000 in security for costs across seven defendants, finding there was reason to believe the company could not meet an adverse costs award.

As reported by Insurance Business Australia, the plaintiff, Blue Dog Group, never produced financial statements or management accounts despite repeated requests from the defendants about who was funding the case. The plaintiff's solicitor offered only general assurances that security would be provided "where it ought to do so."

Notably, no litigation funder is involved in the proceeding. That absence is central to the outcome: with no funder standing behind the claim, the defendants' costs exposure ran to the plaintiff company's own balance sheet, which was never disclosed. The court found there was reason to believe Blue Dog could not pay the defendants' costs — a proposition the plaintiff did not seriously contest.

The proceedings have been stayed and disclosure paused until security is posted.

The decision is a reminder that funding transparency cuts both ways. Defendants increasingly press for disclosure of funding arrangements as a route to security applications, and an unfunded corporate plaintiff that declines to open its books may find that silence treated as evidence of impecuniosity. For claimants without institutional backing, the practical effect is that a security order can stop a class action before the merits are reached.

More than 1,000 additional claimants in England and Wales have joined a group action against cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao, bringing the total to roughly 2,700 consumers globally. KP Law, which is running the claim, describes it as the first of its kind in the United Kingdom.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the announcement coincided with the Financial Conduct Authority opening its authorisation gateway for the UK's new crypto asset regulatory regime, which comes into force on 25 October 2027. Binance is expected to apply under that regime.

The claim was filed in the High Court in June, and claims issued now exceed £250 million. Claimants allege that Binance sold high-risk leveraged and derivative products — including leverage, futures and options — to UK users without FCA authorisation between late 2019 and early 2020. They contend those products are specified investments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which may only be sold by authorised persons.

Binance has more than 300 million customers worldwide. Individual claimants are reported to have lost sums ranging from tens of thousands to millions of pounds.

KP Law partner Hannah Sharp noted that Binance Markets Limited was barred from carrying on regulated activity in the UK in 2021.

No litigation funder is identified in connection with the claim. Opt-in group actions of this scale nonetheless depend heavily on book-building and costs cover, making the financing arrangements behind the claim a point of interest as the case progresses.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has revoked the collective proceedings order in Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway, ending a claim first filed in 2021. The proceedings had been stayed since June of last year, when original class representative David Courtney Boyle died from Parkinson's disease, and no replacement representative was ever secured.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, a CAT judgment published this month confirms that no new class representative came forward and that the CPO has been revoked. The GTR Collective Proceedings website states the claim was decertified on the basis of a CAT order made in April, and that the site will close shortly.

The failed search for a successor illustrates how dependent opt-out competition claims are on funding and insurance. Walter Merricks CBE announced plans to step into the role in November of last year, but withdrew his application in January after failing to secure after-the-event insurance. In May, he was ordered to make an interim payment of £70,000 towards the defendants' costs.

A costs hearing in the underlying proceedings has been adjourned to the next available date after 6 November.

A GTR spokesperson said: "GTR welcomes the end of the proceedings. We have always been clear that we acted lawfully and fairly towards our passengers."

The outcome underscores the structural fragility of CAT collective actions in which the class representative's position rests on securing adverse costs cover, and the practical difficulty of substituting a representative once a claim has already been stayed.

Burford Capital director Charlie Rooke argues that litigation funding in the United Kingdom has moved past the question of what legal finance is and into a narrower conversation about where a company's capital is best deployed.

As reported by Non-Billable, Rooke said the market "has moved from conversations around 'what is legal finance?' to 'how can legal finance support this particular case?'" He described a client base that increasingly includes well-capitalised businesses rather than claimants who cannot otherwise proceed, noting that Burford is "increasingly talking to large corporations about whether it makes sense to spend their own money on litigation or deploy that capital elsewhere."

Rooke, who spent six years as a commercial litigator at Freshfields before moving in-house at Royal Bank of Canada and joining Burford in 2022, sits on the firm's London underwriting team with a focus on competition disputes, including collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

On underwriting, he said the analysis reduces to three questions: "do we think the case is going to win? If it does, when will it win? And how much will it win?" He added that Burford is overlaying its institutional experience with "an AI database containing information from the investments we've looked at across different jurisdictions, types of case, claimants, defendants and law firms."

Rooke also linked funding to changing law firm economics, suggesting capital can sit behind conditional fee arrangements, discounted rates with success uplifts and damages-based agreements. External investment in law firms has been possible for years, he said, "but I think AI is going to turbocharge that."

Australian litigation funder CASL is supporting a shareholder class action against hearing implant manufacturer Cochlear, filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria over the company's fiscal 2026 profit guidance. Cochlear has confirmed it was served with the claim and says it will defend the proceedings.

As reported by Health Services Daily, the proceeding is being run by plaintiff firm Echo Law with CASL funding, and covers investors who acquired an interest in Cochlear shares between August 15, 2025 and April 21, 2026 inclusive. The claim alleges breaches of continuous disclosure obligations and misleading or deceptive conduct.

The class period opens on the day Cochlear issued FY26 underlying net profit guidance of A$435 million to A$460 million, representing growth of 11% to 17%, and closes the day before that figure was withdrawn. On April 22, 2026, the company cut guidance to A$290 million to A$330 million, citing softer third-quarter sales and heightened uncertainty over fourth-quarter Middle East sales. The shares fell 40.7% in a single session, the largest one-day decline since listing, erasing more than A$4 billion of market capitalisation.

The claim alleges that conditions not reflected in the original guidance included slower growth in hearing healthcare markets, declining US consumer sentiment, difficulties in the Nucleus Nexa rollout in the United States and Germany, softer trading from January onward, and lower gross margins alongside restructuring costs.

Cochlear said it "denies the allegations set out in the claim and will be defending the proceedings," attributing the downgrade to factors that were not foreseeable when guidance was given.

Lawyers acting for United Petroleum have referred two litigation funders to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, alleging that marketing material shown to prospective investors overstated the value of a franchisee class action against the fuel retailer.

As reported by ICLG, King & Wood Mallesons has referred Knightsbridge Litigation Funding and UP Capital to the regulator over an online investor briefing and follow-up emails that described a "pleaded value" of A$222 million for the claim and pointed to possible returns of up to 400%. Court filings seen by the publication do not contain that aggregate figure.

The underlying proceeding, *FNH United and others v United Petroleum Franchise and others*, was filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria in October 2022 and alleges misleading and deceptive and unconscionable conduct in connection with the allocation of Pie Face stock to franchisees. A 200-page amended statement of claim was filed in October 2024.

United Petroleum's barrister, Sam Rosewarne, told the court that "the market at large is being told this is a claim with a pleaded value," and the judge described the funders' conduct as "of concern."

A court funding notice filed in April recorded that Knightsbridge had entered a funding agreement and then assigned its rights and obligations to UP Capital, with Hong Kong-based Golden Crane acting as a co-funder. The Knightsbridge material offered a unit trust for wholesale investors, with capital held by Equity Trustees. The claimants were ordered to provide A$3.7 million in security for costs in April 2025.

Levitt Robinson Solicitors acts for the claimants, with TF Grundy as Victorian agents.