Express Legal Funding announced it has reached its fifth year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), underscoring a commitment to best practices in an often-polarized pre-settlement space. For a company that brands itself around transparent pricing and consumer education, the ARC imprimatur doubles as a marketing and compliance asset—especially as statehouses revisit disclosure, APR caps and contract clarity.

An announcement in PR Newswire positions the milestone within a “rapidly growing” lawsuit-cash-advance market. While the release is light on metrics, the message tracks with the broader U.S. consumer-funding narrative: pressure from insurers and tort-reform groups on one side; advocates and funders emphasizing access to liquidity and non-recourse safety on the other.

For plaintiff firms, vendor due diligence remains a reputational imperative; for consumers, independent accreditation—however voluntary—can serve as a quick proxy for baseline standards when shopping funding offers. The strategic subtext is clear: as more states contemplate rules around discoverability, disclosures and rate structures, firms that can point to consistent adherence to codes like ARC’s may enjoy smoother law-firm relationships and fewer regulatory headwinds.

With regulatory skirmishes likely to continue at the state level, recurring membership signals (ARC or otherwise) will matter more.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article stated that Express Legal Funding reached its fifth consecutive year as a member of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. Express Legal Funding reached its fifth year, but not consecutively. We regret the error.

A new salvo in the UK’s collective actions saga puts third-party funding in the spotlight. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has criticized aspects of mass-consumer practices—specifically around funding and referral fees—raising uncomfortable questions for claimant firms and their financial backers. The latest flashpoint again involves Innsworth, the funder behind the long-running Mastercard litigation brought by class representative Walter Merricks CBE, where wrangling over settlement distribution and funder economics has spilled into public view.

An article in The Times reports that the watchdog sees “poor practices” in parts of the market and notes escalating tensions tied to the £200 million Mastercard settlement—well below the claim’s original £14 billion headline—prompting Innsworth’s threatened action over the deal’s terms. The piece underscores the funding dynamics now woven into virtually every major UK mass claim, from opt-out competition cases to data-privacy suits; the SRA’s framing suggests a harder regulatory edge on fee flows and governance in arrangements that align firms, funders and marketing affiliates.

Beyond the immediate case drama, two structural trends are converging. First, post-PACCAR contract examination has left funders and class reps renegotiating economics and disclosure with tribunals watching closely. Second, political and judicial appetite for “light-touch” oversight (rather than price caps) remains in flux, even as market size and claimant outreach expand.

If the SRA proceeds from cautionary statements to targeted enforcement, firms may re-paper referral arrangements and introduce additional ring-fencing around funder influence to avoid conflicts.

Pogust Goodhead has emphatically denied that it is controlled by litigation funders, insisting it retains full “forensic independence” in the high‑profile claim over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse.

As LFJ recently reported, the class action firm, representing hundreds of thousands of victims in a potential £36 billion lawsuit against mining giant BHP, is under scrutiny following the recent ousting of its co‑founder and chief executive, Tom Goodhead, at the behest of its primary financier, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in The Law Society Gazette reports that Pogust Goodhead maintains it enjoys “forensic independence” from its principal backer. Opponents—including BHP and its counsel, Slaughter and May—have raised serious concerns about governance, questioning whether Gramercy now exerts undue influence over strategic decisions—an arrangement that could run foul of English and Welsh rules reserving case control for qualified lawyers.

In response, Pogust Goodhead reiterated that it remains “fully independent, with complete control over the strategy and direction of every case” and that its renewed governance structures strengthen its capacity to act in its clients’ best interests. Gramercy, for its part, denied any ownership or management control of the firm.

Looking ahead, this unfolding governance dispute raises critical questions for the future of litigation funding: How will courts view funder-linked control over claimant law firms? Could the outcome limit or reshape access-to-justice models reliant on third-party financing? As this case nears a key ruling, the legal funding industry may be on the cusp of a regulatory watershed.

A new joint study by the Insolvency Law Academy and Burford Capital sheds light on how legal finance is gaining traction as a strategic tool in the India's insolvency processes. By enabling distressed entities and professionals to monetize contingent assets without exhausting limited estate resources, legal finance has the power to enhance liquidity and improve recovery outcomes for creditors.

An article by Burford Capital unveils how legal finance-backed structures can convert contingent claims into tangible value, supporting corporate continuity and delivering stronger creditor returns. The study highlights India’s unique factors: abundant untapped recoveries from avoidance claims and disputed receivables, widespread capital shortages faced by insolvency professionals, and the need for prompt liquidity solutions. It also references real-world case studies showcasing how legal finance facilitated strategic wins for firms like Hindustan Construction Company and Patel Engineering.

On the regulatory front, judicial rulings—such as in Tomorrow Sales v. SBS Holdings (2023)—have explicitly recognized the legitimacy of legal finance in India’s litigation ecosystem. Meanwhile, updates to the IBC now permit the assignment of “not readily reali[z]able assets” during liquidation, laying groundwork for integrating legal finance into the insolvency framework. Nonetheless, the regulatory landscape—including aspects of FEMA compliance and fund repatriation—remains cautiously permissive.

Emerging operational structures include direct estate financing, SPV‑based claim ring‑fencing, and creditor assignments for immediate value. The report urges a “light‑touch” regulatory approach, alongside the development of codes of conduct and educational efforts to arm insolvency professionals and creditors with the know‑how to deploy legal finance effectively.

Looking ahead, as India’s insolvency infrastructure matures, legal finance is poised to play a central role—unlocking value in distressed assets, bridging funding gaps, and aligning with global best practices.

Burford Capital’s new push to take minority stakes in U.S. law firms is already meeting resistance from tort-reform advocates and insurer-aligned groups, who argue the structure could blur loyalties inside the attorney-client relationship. The plan, described by Burford’s chief development officer Travis Lenkner as “strategic minority investments” to help firms scale, would rely on managed service organizations (MSOs) that house back-office assets while leaving legal work to a lawyer-owned entity. Supporters cast it as a lawyer-friendly alternative to private equity; skeptics see a back-door end-run around state bars’ bans on non-lawyer ownership.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that critics, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute’s William Large, warn MSO-style deals could tilt decision-making toward investors focused on “big verdicts,” threatening firm independence and client interests. Only Arizona permits direct non-lawyer ownership today, and while Utah and Washington, D.C., have loosened rules at the margins, most states still enforce bright-line prohibitions.

The debate has sharpened as disclosure and licensing regimes proliferate: at least 16 states now require some level of third-party funding transparency. The Insurance Journal piece also notes a recent Texas Bar ethics opinion that green-lights MSOs for law-firm services under narrow conditions, though it doesn’t answer the broader question of outside investors’ influence. For its part, Burford says it understands the ethical guardrails and intends to be a passive investor focused on firm growth and operational support.

For the legal finance industry, the MSO path signals a pivotal test. If bars and courts accept these structures, capital could flow directly into firm operations—potentially accelerating portfolio origination, technology spend, and fee-earner leverage. If regulators balk, expect renewed calls for explicit rulemaking on ownership, disclosure, and control—alongside creative alternatives (credit facilities, revenue shares, and hybrid portfolios) to replicate MSO-like benefits without the governance controversy.

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.

A new opt-out competition claim aims squarely at Amazon, alleging price-parity tactics inflated costs for more than 45 million UK consumers. The Association of Consumer Support Organisations has filed for certification in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, instructing Stephenson Harwood with counsel from Monckton Chambers. The claim asserts Amazon’s marketplace policies restricted third-party sellers from offering better prices elsewhere—costs that, ACSO says, consumers ultimately bore.

The Global Legal Post notes a third-party litigation funder—confirmed as a member of the Association of Litigation Funders—is bankrolling the action, with identity to be revealed at certification. That disclosure posture aligns with the CAT’s funder-transparency expectations post-PACCAR while preserving competitive sensitivity during the early phase. On the defense side, Amazon labeled the case “without merit,” and emphasized consumer benefits and seller support on its platform. For claimant-side practitioners, the case illustrates how funders continue to underwrite large opt-out competition claims notwithstanding shifting case law on damages-based LFAs; structures are adjusting, not retreating.

If certified, the case will test funder appetite for big-ticket consumer competition matters amid the UK government’s newly announced review of the collective actions regime. It could also influence how funders structure returns (percentage vs. multiple, hybrids) to thread the needle between tribunal oversight and commercial viability. Watch for whether the CAT’s scrutiny of fees and “just and reasonable” outcomes further standardizes funding terms across UK opt-out claims.

A Texas bankruptcy judge has voided a $2.3 million litigation funding agreement between GLS Capital and a Chapter 11 liquidation trust, in a decision that may reverberate across the bankruptcy and legal funding sectors.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that Chief Bankruptcy Judge Stacey G. Jernigan ruled the funding deal—entered into by trustee David Gonzales—was an "abuse of discretion," finding it failed to benefit creditors and lacked proper court oversight. The deal gave GLS the right to nearly $7 million in repayment (a 3x return), plus 12% of any proceeds beyond that, and included a $75,000 broker fee. Judge Jernigan noted that the financing appeared structured in a way that made it difficult for creditors to receive any meaningful recovery, commenting that “it’s hard to see how the juice will ever be worth the squeeze.”

The judge was particularly troubled by the trustee’s failure to seek prior court approval and disclose the agreement, which she found to be a serious breach of duty. As a result, she not only voided the agreement but also removed Gonzales from his trustee position. GLS Capital and the trustee have both signaled plans to appeal.

Ken Epstein, a litigation finance broker and former investment manager at Omni Bridgeway, suggested this ruling is more of an outlier than a trendsetter. While he acknowledged that courts may struggle with understanding litigation finance, he emphasized that most funders approach these agreements with appropriate safeguards.

Burford Capital—a leading litigation funder with a market cap around $3 billion—is currently in talks with several U.S. law firms to acquire minority stakes. The firm sees opportunity amid shifting ownership regulations in the legal market.

An article in Pymnts notes that because most U.S. states prohibit non-lawyers from owning law firms due to ethical rules, Burford is proposing a structure known as a Managed Service Organization (MSO). Under this model, a law firm splits into two entities: one lawyer-owned entity handles legal work, while the MSO—potentially investor-owned—manages back-office services. This structure allows capital injection without breaching ownership restrictions.

Burford co‑founder Jonathan Molot declined to name the firms in talks and revealed no specific investment commitments yet—expectations depend on opportunities.

This move isn't framed as a private equity takeover. Instead, Burford presents itself as a "lawyer's orientation and mentality," intending to offer capital, governance, and strategic guidance—such as investing in AI and operational infrastructure—via board participation.

One of LFJ's most popular posts is this 2020 piece from Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital, on the sizing of the commercial litigation funding industry. William Weisman from Parabellum Capital has just published an updated version for 2025.

Writing in NatLaw Review, Weisman notes that the commercial litigation funding industry is often misrepresented as a burgeoning asset class—typically pegged at a headline figure of $16 billion. But that AUM total is misleading. According to Westfleet Advisors, which publishes the most comprehensive annual analysis, the true picture is far smaller. In 2024, U.S. commercial litigation funders had $16.1 billion in assets under management—yet actual new annual commitments totaled only $2.3 billion, down roughly 16% from 2023 and 20% from 2022.

What's more, in terms of AUM, mainstream asset classes dwarf litigation funding. Public equities command about $60 trillion, commercial real estate about $27 trillion, and private credit around $1.6 trillion. In contrast, commercial litigation funding sits at just $16 billion—making it more than 100× smaller than private credit, 200× smaller than private equity, and 1,500× smaller than commercial real estate.

While undeniably valuable for small to mid-sized businesses pursuing meritorious claims they couldn’t otherwise afford, the industry’s overall reach is extremely limited. It raises important questions about the appropriateness of broad regulation targeting an industry that remains a rounding error in global finance.

This analysis highlights a central tension: while litigation funding plays a critical role in access to justice, its modest scale suggests policymakers should avoid heavy-handed regulation. Instead, targeted, tailored rules—focused on transparency and case-level risks—may be more appropriate and proportionate for such a specialized and niche market.

Steven Cooklin, founder and CEO of Manolete Partners, has stepped down after a remarkable 40‑year tenure in the litigation funding sector, marking the end of a defining leadership era for the firm. In his 16 years guiding Manolete, Cooklin steered the company through its foundation in 2009, its 2018 IPO, and multiple waves of market turbulence, not least the Covid‑related slump in insolvency proceedings that severely impacted litigation funding operations.

The Global Legal Post reports that Cooklin’s departure aligns with Manolete’s renewed financial vigor, with the company having refinanced its debt with HSBC, delivered record revenue of £30.5 million for the year ended 31 March, and invested in 282 new UK insolvency cases. A landmark moment was the firm’s first cartel claim settlement in the Trucks Cartel litigation, netting £3.2 million.

Stepping into Cooklin’s role is long‑time managing director Mena Halton, who joined Manolete in 2014 and has been at the forefront of its legal strategy. With roots at Dentons and Rothman Pantall, Halton is celebrated for her expertise in contentious insolvency matters.

Manolete’s strategic repositioning comes at a pivotal time—Halton takes over a firm that has restored momentum and financial stability. Her leadership credentials suggest a seamless transition and promising path forward.

Cooklin reportedly remains a major shareholder and will be available to advise the board.

In a pivotal decision likely to reshape Singapore’s litigation finance landscape, the country’s High Court has affirmed that third-party funding is permissible beyond its historically narrow confines. The judgment, delivered in DNQ v DNR (2025), broadens legal finance's potential use in civil cases unrelated to insolvency or arbitration, marking a significant milestone in the jurisdiction’s approach to access-to-justice tools.

An article on Burford Capital's blog notes that the case involved a claimant pursuing enforcement in Singapore of a £31 million UK family court award. Facing financial hardship, the claimant secured funding from a professional litigation financier. The defendant moved to strike out the case, arguing the arrangement violated public policy by being champertous. But the court disagreed.

Presiding Senior Judge Tan Siong Thye upheld the funding agreement, finding it did not offend the principles of justice or procedural fairness under the Vanguard test. Crucially, the judge ruled that statutory reforms to Singapore’s Civil Law Act did not negate common law exceptions that allow for such funding arrangements.

The court outlined three factors favoring the agreement: the claimant’s lack of resources absent funding, the reasonableness of the funder’s return (potentially up to 56%), and the claimant’s continued control over litigation strategy. The judgment also clarifies that litigation funding is not confined to the specific scenarios listed under section 5B of the Civil Law Act, such as insolvency or arbitration, thus opening the door to broader use in commercial disputes.

This decision signals increasing judicial acceptance of litigation finance in Singapore’s courts and is likely to embolden funders exploring opportunities in the region. As jurisdictions around the world re-evaluate the role of third-party funding, Singapore’s High Court appears poised to join a growing chorus endorsing its value in supporting equitable legal outcomes.

An article in Carrier Management reveals that third-party litigation funding (TPLF) could impose up to $50 billion in direct and indirect costs on the U.S. casualty insurance industry over the next five years. The estimates come from a model developed by EY actuaries Mike McComis and Abbi Bruce, who presented the findings at the Casualty Actuarial Society’s recent reinsurance seminar. Their “top-down” model—built using funders’ reported returns, AUM growth, and case resolution timelines—pegs direct costs between $13 billion and $18 billion, with an upper-end projection of $25 billion. Including indirect impacts like prolonged litigation and increased advertising by law firms, the estimate swells to $50 billion.

The report startled even seasoned executives. Hartford CEO Christopher Swift, during a Q2 earnings call, bristled at a question about TPLF’s effects, lamenting how it has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” EY’s McComis was more measured but no less pointed, declaring TPLF “the most significant and measurable driver of social inflation.” He cited modeled trends showing TPLF’s rising burden on insurers—up to $3.5 billion in direct costs annually by 2028—and warned that actuaries should not ease off assumptions around escalating claim severity.

With litigation funders averaging annual returns of 25-30% and succeeding in 85-90% of cases, the capital influx is shifting settlement dynamics, increasing legal costs, and pressuring insurer loss ratios. EY’s analysis found the commercial liability industry could see a 4.5 to 7.8 point spike in loss ratios due to TPLF alone.

As disclosure mandates expand, insurers may need to develop internal models to track and respond to TPLF-backed cases more effectively. For legal funders, the report underscores the mounting attention—and scrutiny—coming from the actuarial and insurance sectors. If EY’s projections bear out, litigation funding’s influence on premium pricing and loss trends may soon be impossible to ignore.

A combination of court reforms and project delays is pulling more Gulf disputes into the third-party funding orbit, with global and regional players sharpening their focus on the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

An article in AGBI quotes Burford Capital’s Dubai-based team describing demand as having “risen sharply over the past two years,” and says the funder is now actively underwriting and funding more claims, especially in the UAE. Construction leads the pipeline—unsurprising given persistent schedule overruns and cost blowouts—while banks and other institutional claimants are increasingly tapping funding to preserve working capital or monetise awards.

Local entrant WinJustice reports a 60% jump in case assessments over the last year, with a sweet spot that starts around $1 million in onshore courts and $5 million in offshore forums; returns are typically a 30%–35% share of recoveries or a hybrid model. And LFJ just reported on UAE-based Lexolent's first successful investment conclusion.

The AGBI piece also flags a gradual easing of the region’s historic enforcement frictions, with Dubai courts recognising multiple foreign judgments in the past two years—an important de-risking signal for capital providers eyeing cross-border value recovery. The growing Gulf focus is consistent with funders’ search for scalable commercial matters backed by robust assets and clearer enforcement pathways.

For underwriting teams, the “construction-plus” mix—JV disputes, shareholder fall-outs, and complex debt recoveries—offers diversified routes to exit, particularly where arbitral awards can be recognised and enforced across jurisdictions. Pricing discipline will matter: as local awareness rises and new funders enter, competitive pressure could compress nominal returns even as deployment opportunities expand. For in-house teams in the region, dispute finance is evolving from last-resort cost cover to a balance-sheet tool—one that can hedge risk, front settlement leverage, and unlock liquidity tied up in slow-moving claims.

If enforcement keeps improving and banks continue to monetise judgments, expect more Gulf allocations, more bespoke structures (including potential Sharia-aligned variants), and a faster maturation of the MENA legal-finance market.

The UK’s class action market continues to expand—even as filing volumes ebb—according to fresh figures that underscore the centrality of third-party funding to collective redress. A new CMS report pegs the value of pending UK class actions at nearly €155bn for 2024, with competition and consumer matters still driving the docket and Big Tech among the most frequent targets.

An article in The Global Legal Post notes that the UK is now the world’s second-largest litigation funding market and highlights several leading funders—Burford Capital, Bench Walk Advisers, Innsworth Capital and Fortress Investment Group—by activity and claim size. While the number of new European class actions declined year-over-year, the quantum concentrated in the UK continued to climb, split roughly evenly between opt-in and opt-out regimes. Sector concentration remains pronounced: energy and natural resources lead by value, followed closely by technology (including matters touching Apple and Google), with financial products and auto also well-represented.

The report’s authors attribute the UK’s outsized totals to a combination of procedural tools, claimant-side innovation and the expanding funding sector, even as defense-side voices question the methodology behind headline-grabbing member counts and valuations. For practitioners, the picture is a market maturing in structure and scale: funders allocating larger tickets to fewer, higher-confidence claims; law firms refining certification strategies; and defendants recalibrating settlement models to the realities of funded, high-quantum collective actions.

For funders, today’s snapshot reinforces two parallel truths: first, that capital demand remains robust despite reduced filings; second, that scrutiny is intensifying—from courts calibrating settlement fairness to policymakers reviewing collective redress frameworks. Expect portfolio construction to tilt further toward competition and consumer claims with clear distribution mechanics and scalable damages modeling, while defense-side pushback may spur greater transparency around economics and class outcomes.

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has allowed Fair Civil Justice (FCJ) to intervene in the “Boundary Fares” collective action against Stagecoach South Western Trains—a case backed by Woodsford—squarely over who should receive any undistributed settlement funds. The class representative, Justin Gutmann, and funder Woodsford opposed the move, arguing FCJ’s stance risks cutting across the court-approved settlement framework and the interests of the class.

An article in CDR reports that FCJ now has permission to submit recommendations on distribution of unclaimed sums, a question that has taken on outsized importance amid slower-than-expected claims uptake. FCJ’s position emphasizes directing residual money away from claimant-side costs and toward consumer-benefiting destinations, including the Access to Justice Foundation or similar channels. The CAT’s permission gives the tribunal a counterpoint to submissions from the class representative, funder, ATE insurers and others, as it calibrates how to treat non-ringfenced amounts after the claims window closes.

Woodsford’s objection underscores the commercial stakes: the tribunal’s approach to residuals could inform how future CAT settlements structure non-ringfenced buckets, adverse costs protection, and any funder fees—particularly in cases where outreach yields limited direct compensation to class members.

A high-stakes recovery effort for a trove of Russian avant-garde art has devolved into a funder–claimant showdown. The family of the late collector Uthman Khatib alleges that Prague-based LitFin Capital withheld payments and sought to take control of litigation tied to roughly 1,800 works—including pieces by Wassily Kandinsky, Kazimir Malevich, and El Lissitzky—allegedly stolen from German storage in 2019. Dentons partner Heiko Heppner, counsel to the Khatibs, says LitFin crossed ethical lines by conditioning fee payments on the ability to directly steer the suits and even pressing for the Khatibs’ removal from the claim.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the dispute has moved to private arbitration in Frankfurt, where the Khatibs accuse LitFin of breaching a funding agreement reportedly sized at €8.5 million. After initially financing recoveries—including a 2024 police raid in France that turned up a large cache—the relationship soured; by late 2024 LitFin had disbursed about €3.7 million and then stopped paying, according to the family. The Khatibs say the funder insisted Dentons take instructions directly from LitFin and would release roughly €2 million in unpaid fees only if it could assert greater control. LitFin CEO Maroš Kravec declined to discuss ongoing proceedings, saying the firm is committed to transparency and will vigorously defend against “unfounded” accusations.

The litigation is in flux following the July death of Uthman Khatib; proceedings against alleged orchestrator Mozes Frisch and the arbitration with LitFin are paused pending estate matters, though a related French case continues. Around 400 works are currently held by French and German courts; the whereabouts of many others remain unknown. The clash lands amid intensifying scrutiny of funder influence, with recent U.S. state measures in Georgia and Louisiana explicitly curbing funder control.

For legal finance, the case spotlights the fault line between capital provision and case control—particularly in cross-border asset recoveries where monetization paths are complex. Expect renewed focus on governance terms, fee-release mechanics, and escalation protocols that minimize brinkmanship without undermining claimant autonomy.

A new snapshot of the UK’s class action landscape suggests a market that is growing in size while facing sharper scrutiny. Drawing on data published by law firm CMS, the total value of UK class actions reached roughly £135bn in 2024, with opt-out claims continuing to dominate the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s docket and Big Tech among the most frequent targets. The report’s topline figures underline just how central collective actions have become to consumer redress and market regulation in the UK.

An article in City A.M. frames the numbers against several pressure points for third-party funding. In May, after nearly nine years of litigation, the Tribunal approved a £200m settlement in Merricks v Mastercard over the objections of funder Innsworth Capital, which had argued the result undervalued the claim. The piece also notes the UK government’s new call for evidence on the opt-out regime, citing concerns about rising costs and whether outcomes are delivering value for class members. CMS observes that CAT collective proceedings now encompass hundreds of millions of potential class members, even as defendants have begun to notch notable wins at trial.

For funders, the immediate questions are commercial and procedural. Do recent merits outcomes and distribution-phase frictions imply tougher economics at exit? Will the government’s evidence-gathering lead to tweaks on disclosure or certification that change underwriting assumptions? Allocation between opt-out consumer claims and more surgical opt-in strategies may shift if pricing risk rises.

If reforms focus on transparency and class-member value without chilling meritorious claims, well-capitalised managers could benefit from clearer rules of the road. Either way, today’s data supports a view that UK collective actions will remain a core deployment avenue—just with tighter margins and closer oversight.

High Rise Financial has added industry veteran Karyn Cerulli as Regional Vice President of Sales, deepening the Los-Angeles-based funder’s reach into the personal-injury bar. Cerulli spent more than a decade with FindLaw and Thomson Reuters, where she partnered with firms on digital marketing and business-development strategies. In her new role she pivots from lead generation to liquidity, positioning High Rise’s non-recourse advances as a client-care tool for plaintiffs’ firms facing lengthy litigation timelines.

A post on LinkedIn sets out Cerulli’s agenda: hands-on attorney support, a “best rate guarantee,” and white-glove service that places “zero pressure” on case strategy while delivering cash within days. Cerulli frames High Rise as a complement rather than a competitor to existing funders, inviting firms to keep her on standby as a “second option” or safety net when primary partners stall or pricing shifts.

The move comes amid rapid growth for High Rise, which secured a $100 million senior credit facility late last year to expand its pre-settlement portfolio and medical-lien program. The funder touts 24-hour approvals, no credit checks, and repayment only from a successful resolution—features that resonate with Cerulli’s long-time focus on consumer-friendly legal services. With her network of plaintiff-side marketers and case managers, the company hopes to accelerate origination across high-volume auto and premises claims.

Australia’s litigation-funding industry just received the judicial certainty it has craved.

Clayton Utz reports that the High Court, in Kain v R&B Investments [2025] HCA 26, unanimously held that the Federal Court may impose common-fund orders (CFOs) or funding-equalisation orders at settlement or judgment—ensuring all class members, not just those who signed funding agreements, contribute to a funder’s commission.

The Court reaffirmed Brewster’s bar on early-stage CFOs but found late-stage CFOs fall within the “just” powers of ss 33V(2) and 33Z(1)(g) of the Federal Court Act. Crucially, the bench rejected “solicitor common-fund orders,” ruling that any CFO benefiting plaintiff firms would contravene the national ban on contingency fees outside Victoria.

For funders, the decision cements the enforceability of commissions in nationwide class actions and removes a major pricing risk that had lingered since Brewster. For plaintiff firms, however, the ruling slams the door on a hoped-for new revenue channel.

The Court’s reasoning—tying funding commissions to equitable cost-sharing rather than contingency returns—will likely embolden funders to back larger opt-out claims, knowing a CFO safety-net is available at settlement. Meanwhile, plaintiff firms may redouble lobbying efforts for contingency-fee reform, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, to reclaim ground lost in today’s judgment. Whether lawmakers move on that front will shape Australia’s funding market in the years ahead.

A junior gold explorer is turning to third-party capital to fight what it calls the expropriation of a multi-million-ounce deposit.

According to a press release on ACCESS Newswire, ASX- and TSX-listed Sarama Resources has drawn down a four-year, US $4.4 million non-recourse facility from specialist funder Locke Capital II LLC. The proceeds will pay Boies Schiller Flexner’s fees and expert costs in Sarama’s arbitration against Burkina Faso at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Sarama alleges the government retroactively revoked its Tankoro 2 exploration permit in 2023, halting development of the flagship Sanutura project. An arbitral tribunal chaired by Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg held its first procedural hearing on 25 July; Sarama’s memorial is due 31 October, and the company is seeking no less than US $120 million in damages.

Under the Litigation Funding Agreement, Locke’s recourse is limited to arbitration proceeds and the ownership chain of Sanutura; Sarama’s other assets remain ring-fenced. Repayment occurs only on a successful award or settlement, with Locke’s return calculated on a multiple-of-invested-capital basis and adjusted for timing.

The deal underscores the continued appetite of specialist funders for investor-state claims, particularly in the mining sector where treaty protections offer a clear legal framework and potential nine-figure payouts.

A Texas-based consumer litigation financier is betting that radical price transparency will set it apart in the crowded pre-settlement funding market.

An Express Legal Funding press release announces that the company has launched a web-based “Lawsuit Loan Calculator” built on Gravity Forms that lets plaintiffs and their counsel generate real-time payoff estimates before taking an advance.

Company strategy director Aaron Winston said the tool aims to “bring transparency and confidence to a process that has historically felt opaque,” noting that many accident victims accept costly funding without a clear view of cumulative fees. The calculator outputs simple-interest repayment schedules and allows users to toggle loan amounts and projected case duration so they can compare the effective cost of capital against other options.

Express Legal Funding, founded in 2015 and active in more than 40 U.S. states, prices its non-recourse advances on a fixed-rate basis and caps total payback at the lesser of settlement value or contractual maximum. The company said the calculator also gives personal-injury lawyers a “conversation starter” to educate clients on true borrowing costs and to discourage over-funding that could jeopardize net recoveries. Industry peers have offered similar tools, but most calculate only monthly interest or require phone follow-ups for firm quotes; Express claims its interface delivers end-to-end transparency in under two minutes.

Gen Re has published a white-paper warning casualty carriers that “stealth capital” behind many U.S. lawsuits is complicating claims evaluation and settlement strategy. Drawing on recent state reforms in Georgia, Indiana and West Virginia, the authors urge adjusters to demand early disclosure of funding agreements, nail down who controls litigation decisions, and model “loss-amplification” where funder ROI targets distort settlement ranges.

The report flags a surge of bespoke contracts—some tying funder exit multiples to milestone events, others granting veto rights over settlement—placing traditional bad-faith calculations at risk. It also cites emerging defense tactics: subpoenaing funder communications after privilege waivers, and leveraging new civil-procedure rules that compel funding disclosure in federal mass-torts.

For legal-finance shops, the memo is a reminder that the insurance lobby is mapping counter-measures in real time. Expect more discovery fights over work-product doctrine and, potentially, higher re-insurer premiums priced into portfolios that contain funded claims.

Australia’s long-running investigative program, Four Corners, has turned its lens on the country’s booming class-action market— and on the third-party funders who bankroll it.

ABC News’ 47-minute report, The Price of Justice, chronicles how class actions once hailed as David-versus-Goliath tools have evolved into profit engines for litigation investors and plaintiff firms alike. Viewers are walked through three marquee matters: the $272 million Uber settlement backed by Harbour Litigation Funding, Indigenous “Stolen Wages” cases funded by Litigation Lending Services, and the notorious Banksia Securities collapse that saw lawyers doubling as funders and later embroiled in fraud.

Critics interviewed argue that minimal regulation—offshore funders can reap 250% returns—has turned Australia into a “honeypot.” Pro-funding voices counter that without outside capital many mass-harm cases would never reach court. The broadcast lands as Canberra again mulls caps on commissions and mandatory licensing for funders—measures shelved last Parliament.

The programme’s searing anecdotes are likely to re-energise calls for tighter disclosure around fee-sharing and a statutory floor for claimant recoveries. Funders operating in Australia may soon face a two-front challenge: reputational scrutiny in the media and renewed legislative momentum in Parliament.

New survey data of 765 UK business leaders finds overwhelming support for third-party litigation funding as a catalyst for growth rather than mere cost-containment. Asked to weigh the mechanism’s risks and rewards, 68% said funding is good for the business environment against just 7% who view it negatively—a ten-to-one margin. Nearly four in five executives would consider using a funder themselves, and a plurality would plough the freed-up capital into technology upgrades (49%), followed by new products or services (44%) and market-expansion campaigns (38%).

An article in Law Gazette reports that consumer attitudes track the corporate sentiment, with 76% of the 1,501 adults polled willing to rely on funding to pursue claims and 87% stressing the importance of access to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for anti-competitive matters. Critically, only 43% feel confident taking on large companies unaided, a “justice gap” that Dr Rachael Kent—lead representative in the £1.5 billion collective action accusing Apple of App Store abuses—says funders are uniquely positioned to close. “It’s only through litigation funding that we can create a more competitive market,” she noted, with support strongest among Labour voters.

International Legal Finance Association chair Neil Purslow added that a swift legislative fix to reverse the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision would let funders redeploy capital into the UK and, by extension, allow claimant companies to redirect savings toward digital transformation and other growth projects.

For funders, the message is unmistakable: mainstream businesses now view legal finance as a strategic enabler, while public willingness to use funding bolsters collective-action pipelines. If Westminster moves quickly on PACCAR, the industry could see an infusion of demand and capital that reshapes Britain’s litigation landscape in the coming quarters.