Burford Capital issued a follow-up statement on March 30 addressing the financial fallout from the Second Circuit's reversal of the $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina in the long-running YPF nationalization dispute.

As reported by PR Newswire, the litigation funder emphasized that the ruling has no cash impact on its operations, pointing to more than $700 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities on hand. The company said its diversified portfolio routinely delivers cash proceeds independent of the YPF asset and reaffirmed plans to double its portfolio by 2030 without additional borrowing.

Burford expects a substantial GAAP write-down of the YPF asset as of March 31, with full details to be disclosed in its first-quarter results in the first half of May. Management noted the write-down is a non-cash accounting adjustment that does not affect operational cash flow.

Looking ahead, Burford signaled it may pursue arbitration through the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes under bilateral investment treaties. The company argued Argentina breached investment protections during the 2012 expropriation, though it acknowledged any ICSID proceeding would be a multi-year process.

The statement comes days after Burford shares cratered more than 45% following the Second Circuit's March 27 decision, which found Argentina's nationalization of YPF was governed by public law rather than private corporate bylaws, rendering the breach-of-contract claims non-cognizable.

Cadence Minerals has obtained third-party litigation funding to pursue an international arbitration claim against Mexico following the cancellation of its mining concessions during the country's lithium sector nationalization.

As reported by Investing.com via bilaterals.org, LCM Funding SG Pty Ltd has approved financing for the arbitration on a non-recourse basis, meaning Cadence and its subsidiary REM Mexico Limited have no obligation to repay if the claims are unsuccessful. The funding arrangement is designed to allow the company to pursue the case while preserving its balance sheet flexibility.

Cadence and REM Mexico allege that Mexico violated the UK-Mexico bilateral investment treaty by canceling concessions tied to the Sonora Lithium Project. The claims include unlawful expropriation and failure to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investors.

CEO Kiran Morzaria said the funding "materially strengthens our ability to pursue the arbitration in an appropriately resourced manner." The company indicated it remains open to negotiated settlement discussions with the Mexican government.

The case highlights the growing role of litigation funding in investor-state dispute settlement, where resource companies increasingly turn to third-party funders to pursue treaty-based claims against sovereign governments over nationalization and regulatory actions.

JPMorgan Asset Management has made its entry into the litigation finance sector by advancing funds to two major mass tort law firms, marking a significant milestone as one of the world's largest financial institutions moves into the legal funding space.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the investments were made through JPMorgan's Lynstone Special Situations Fund II, a $2.4 billion fund closed in June 2022. The deals involve post-settlement arrangements with Seeger Weiss and Simmons Hanly Conroy, two prominent plaintiffs' firms.

The structure allows law firms to receive accelerated payments for attorneys' fees that have already been earned but not yet collected. Investors profit when final fee payments exceed their initial advances, with returns typically falling in the low double digits. Because the deals are completed after settlements have been reached, they carry significantly less risk than traditional litigation funding tied to case outcomes.

Seeger Weiss serves as lead counsel in Ozempic and Depo-Provera litigation and played a key role in opioid settlements. Simmons Hanly Conroy received 11.4% of a $2.14 billion opioid litigation fee fund and led Norfolk Southern derailment litigation.

JPMorgan's move follows a broader trend of institutional investors entering litigation finance. Fortress Investment Group, BlackRock, and Davidson Kempner Capital Management are among the major firms increasingly active in legal asset investments, drawn by returns that are uncorrelated with equity markets. Commercial litigation funders deployed $2.8 billion in new commitments last year across 346 deals.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a landmark $16.1 billion judgment against the Republic of Argentina over its 2012 nationalization of oil giant YPF, sending shockwaves through the litigation finance industry.

As reported by The Times, the 2-1 ruling dismantled what had been one of the largest litigation finance investments in history. Burford Capital, which bankrolled the case on behalf of former YPF minority shareholders Petersen Energia and Eton Park, saw its share price plunge more than 45% following the decision.

The majority held that the shareholders' breach of contract claims failed as a matter of Argentine law, concluding that Argentina's commitment to tender for minority shares was not directly enforceable. The court said the claims should have been pursued through Argentina's expropriation compensation process rather than in U.S. courts. Judge José Cabranes dissented, siding with the original judgment.

Despite the reversal, the majority acknowledged what it called Argentina's "knowing and flagrant violation" of promises made to foreign investors. Burford said it plans to petition for rehearing by the full Second Circuit within 14 days and may ultimately seek Supreme Court review. The funder is also pursuing investment treaty arbitration against Argentina with King & Spalding as counsel.

Burford warned it expects a material non-cash write-down of its YPF asset when reporting first-quarter results in May, a development that could affect its debt covenants and capital structure. Argentine President Javier Milei called the ruling a "historic victory for the people."

Back-to-back jury verdicts finding Meta and Google liable for harms caused by their social media platforms are teeing up an appeals battle that could reshape how U.S. law shields tech companies from lawsuits — with significant implications for litigation funders eyeing the space.

As reported by Reuters, a Los Angeles jury found both companies liable for a young woman's depression and suicidal ideation linked to Instagram and YouTube addiction, awarding $6 million in damages. Separately, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading users about product safety and enabling child exploitation on its platforms.

Both verdicts represent a strategic breakthrough for plaintiffs' attorneys, who framed their claims around platform design choices rather than user-generated content. Features like infinite scroll, constant notifications, autoplaying videos, and beauty filters were characterized as making apps like Instagram and YouTube equivalent to a "digital casino." By targeting design rather than speech, the lawyers circumvented the traditional protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The cases are part of a massive wave of litigation, with more than 2,400 cases consolidated before a single California federal judge and thousands more in state courts. Both Meta and Google plan to appeal, and legal experts say the resulting appellate rulings could be pivotal. Courts have increasingly been willing to distinguish claims about platform functionality from those targeting third-party speech, but no appellate court has yet weighed in definitively on the question.

A coalition of business and insurance organizations is calling on the federal judiciary to adopt a uniform rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in civil cases, arguing that the current patchwork of approaches across federal courts undermines fairness and transparency.

As reported by Insurance Journal, the Lawyers for Civil Justice and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform submitted a joint letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging the creation of a disclosure requirement. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association has also thrown its support behind the effort, with executive vice president and chief legal officer Stef Zielezienski stating that "transparency about who has a financial stake in litigation is essential to fairness, accountability, and the effective administration of justice."

The push comes amid growing evidence that the absence of a federal standard has created inconsistent outcomes. A recent study cited in the letter found that federal district judges granted only 40% of motions seeking some form of TPLF disclosure, leaving litigants and courts without clear guidance.

The financial stakes are significant. Research from EY, presented at APCIA's annual meeting, found that average commercial claim costs have risen 10% to 11% annually since 2017. The analysis projects that third-party litigation funding could cost the insurance industry up to $50 billion in direct and indirect expenses over the next five years.

The groups are recommending that current disclosure rules be expanded beyond insurance contracts to include any entity or individual providing funding or holding a financial interest in the outcome of litigation. The Advisory Committee is expected to consider the proposal at its upcoming April meeting.

Litigation finance firm Cartiga has closed its inaugural LBS Income Fund and is now exploring a public market listing through a potential combination with Alchemy Investments Acquisition Corp 1, a special purpose acquisition company.

As reported by Stock Titan, Cartiga describes itself as a data-driven, tech-forward asset management platform for investing in legal claims and law firms. The company reports having deployed more than $1.9 billion over its 20-year history, participating in matters generating over $20 billion in estimated settlement values.

The newly closed LBS Income Fund is a private credit vehicle anchored by a major alternative asset manager, designed to give institutional investors exposure to Cartiga's litigation finance platform. The fund complements the firm's two core business lines: direct asset origination across consumer pre-settlement advances and commercial attorney financing, and fee revenue from synthetic equity participations in law firms and cases.

Alchemy Investments is evaluating a potential business combination with Cartiga and has initiated PIPE (private investment in public equity) discussions to support the transaction. No definitive agreement has been reached, and no assurance has been given that a deal will be completed.

If consummated, the transaction would represent another milestone in the maturation of litigation finance as an institutional asset class, following a broader trend of funders seeking public market capital to scale their platforms. Cartiga's combination of consumer and commercial funding, paired with its proprietary data analytics, positions it as a diversified player in an increasingly competitive market.

The voluntary patent licensing ecosystem is "functionally broken," according to a panel at IPWatchdog LIVE 2026, with litigation finance capital now identified as one of five macro forces reshaping the patent transaction landscape.

As reported by IPWatchdog, panelists described a market in which demonstrating the economic ability to litigate has become a structural requirement for meaningful licensing negotiations. Without credible financial backing, patent owners struggle to extract fair value from their intellectual property.

Approximately 25% of financed patent deals now include insurance arrangements, providing alternative collateral, reducing investor exposure in settlement scenarios, and extending enforcement financing to a broader range of patent owners. The convergence of litigation funding and insurance products is creating new pathways for smaller patent holders to pursue enforcement actions.

However, the panel raised concerns about proposed transparency requirements for IP financing arrangements. One panelist warned that mandatory disclosure of funding relationships could "paint a big target on the unfunded party's back," potentially disadvantaging under-capitalized patent owners competing against well-resourced corporate defendants.

The discussion underscores litigation finance's deepening role in the intellectual property market, where the ability to credibly fund enforcement has become as important as the strength of the underlying patent itself.

California lawmakers are advancing legislation that would prohibit outside investors from influencing litigation strategy in cases they finance, directly targeting what critics call "opaque investor financing arrangements" in the state's legal market.

As reported by the Sacramento Bee, Assembly Bill 2305, introduced by Assemblymember Kalra, would bar investors from weighing in on key litigation decisions, including which clients a firm takes on and when cases should settle. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the proposed law.

The bill was prompted by concerns over investor involvement in California sex-abuse litigation, where financing arrangements raised questions about whether profit motives were being placed ahead of client interests. Trial attorneys backing the legislation argue it is necessary to protect the integrity of attorney-client relationships.

Supporters of litigation finance counter that outside capital gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who cannot afford to sue on their own. The tension between enabling access to justice and preventing undue investor control has become a central fault line in the broader debate over litigation funding regulation.

The practical challenge remains enforcement. The article notes it is often difficult to determine when an investor is financing a firm's caseload, much less whether they are exerting influence over case strategy. AB 2305 represents one of the most direct legislative attempts to draw a bright line between capital and control in the litigation finance industry.

Legal Bay LLC, a national provider of pre-settlement funding and lawsuit loans, is highlighting Uber's introduction of a "Woman Driver Only" option as rideshare sexual assault litigation continues to expand across the country.

According to PR Newswire, the policy change comes as more than 3,000 sexual assault lawsuits against Uber move through federal court as part of a multidistrict litigation. A federal jury in Arizona recently awarded $8.5 million to a passenger in what is considered the first major bellwether verdict in the MDL.

Legal analysts estimate that individual settlements in rideshare sexual assault cases may range from approximately $50,000 to over $1 million, depending on severity and evidence. CEO Chris Janish described rideshare litigation as "one of the fastest-growing areas of sexual assault litigation and mass tort law."

Legal Bay provides non-recourse pre-settlement advances to plaintiffs in active lawsuits, meaning repayment is only required if a case results in a successful outcome. The company's announcement underscores the growing intersection of consumer legal funding and mass tort litigation, as plaintiffs navigating lengthy MDL timelines increasingly seek financial support while their cases proceed.

Unclaimed proceeds from class action settlements in the United Kingdom have attracted approximately £68 million in funding bids aimed at supporting free legal advice services, according to a new report.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the Access to Justice Foundation received 314 applications for grants to support the free legal advice sector, drawing on dormant settlement funds that were never claimed by class action participants.

The initiative represents a creative approach to addressing persistent legal aid funding gaps without requiring new government appropriations. Rather than allowing unclaimed settlement funds to revert to defendants or dissipate, the program channels those proceeds toward expanding access to justice for underserved populations.

The scale of demand — 314 applications totaling £68 million — highlights the depth of the legal aid funding crisis in England and Wales, where successive budget cuts have reduced the availability of free legal services for decades. The model offers a potential template for other jurisdictions exploring alternative mechanisms to fund access to justice initiatives.

The development also underscores the broader economic footprint of class action litigation, where even unclaimed settlement proceeds can generate meaningful capital flows back into the legal system.

Australian legal technology company JurisTechne is launching a litigation fund underpinned by its proprietary artificial intelligence platform, marking a new approach to data-driven case selection and portfolio management in the litigation funding space.

As reported by Lawyers Weekly, the fund will leverage what the company calls "Algorithmic Law" — a framework combining a custom-built small language model with advanced machine learning to assess litigation claims, extract insights from case outcomes, and model financial returns.

JurisTechne, founded by Mona Chiha and backed by UTS Startups and AWS, built its proprietary model with over 40 million parameters designed specifically for legal data. The platform integrates directly with government legal databases without third-party intermediaries and emphasizes explainable AI with what the company describes as a "zero percent hallucination guarantee," with all outputs backed by verifiable legal sources.

The company's vision is to create opportunities for investors to participate in diversified funding agreements that support victims of crime and other claimants, combining ethical investment with data-driven case assessment. The approach represents a departure from the traditional funder model, which relies primarily on experienced legal professionals to evaluate claims.

The launch adds JurisTechne to Australia's growing litigation funding market, which generated an estimated AUD $123.6 million in revenue in the 2025-2026 financial year. The country's funding landscape is dominated by established players including Omni Bridgeway, Litigation Capital Management, and Balance Legal Capital, making the entry of an AI-first competitor a notable development for the sector.

The U.S. commercial litigation finance market posted a notable recovery in 2025, with new capital commitments climbing approximately 23% year-over-year to $2.8 billion across 346 new deals, according to the seventh annual Westfleet Insider report.

As reported by Westfleet Advisors, the rebound follows two consecutive years of contraction — commitments had slipped from $2.7 billion in 2023 to $2.3 billion in 2024 — and signals renewed deployment activity after a period of broad market retrenchment.

Despite the headline recovery, the data paints a nuanced picture. The uptick was driven by incremental deployment among a small cohort of established funders rather than any broad-based expansion of available capital. Of the 39 funders identified as active in the U.S. commercial market, a notable subset deployed little to no new capital during the reporting period, and only one new entrant emerged. Several funders are actively winding down operations, pointing to a quiet but ongoing consolidation across the industry.

Deal economics remained largely stable. The average transaction size held steady at approximately $8.1 million overall, though the composition shifted meaningfully: single-matter deals contracted to $4.5 million from $6.6 million the prior year, while portfolio transactions expanded to $19.6 million from $16.5 million. Portfolio structures continued to dominate, representing 64% of new commitments.

One of the more significant structural shifts in 2025 was the decline in Big Law utilization, with the share of total commitments directed to the 200 largest U.S. firms dropping to 24% from 37% in 2024. Client-directed deals edged ahead of firm-directed arrangements for the first time in recent years, representing 52% of commitments.

Other notable findings include patent litigation accounting for 27% of funded matters, contingent risk insurance coverage ticking up to 21% of deals, and claim monetization declining to 17% of new commitments from 26% in 2024.

The reinsurance industry is adding its voice to growing calls for a unified regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding across Europe.

As reported by Gen Re, the European litigation funding market now includes more than 300 funders operating with limited transparency and fragmented oversight across EU member states. The publication highlights a significant regulatory gap, with most countries allowing TPLF under general contract law while lacking specific rules around disclosure, conflicts of interest, or funder control over litigation strategy.

The Netherlands and Germany lead Europe as the most developed markets, while Ireland still prohibits outside litigation funding under common law. France, Spain, and Portugal have introduced or are considering consumer-focused legislation, but no harmonized EU-wide framework exists.

Insurance Europe and the Reinsurance Advisory Board have both called for regulation at the EU level, arguing it is necessary to maintain trust in the justice and financial systems. Their primary concerns include a lack of transparency about funding arrangements, potential conflicts of interest, rising litigation costs, and insufficient investor oversight.

Proponents of the industry counter that professional funders improve access to justice for under-resourced claimants and help filter out weak claims through rigorous due diligence. A cross-sector group of business associations issued a joint statement in January 2026 renewing their call for proportionate, harmonized EU-level rules.

A growing legal debate is taking shape over whether consumer legal funding agreements should be subject to discovery during litigation, with significant implications for plaintiffs and the funding industry alike.

As reported by the National Law Review, Eric Schuller of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding argues that mandatory disclosure requirements create strategic advantages for defendants by exposing plaintiffs' financial vulnerabilities and sensitive underwriting information.

Defendants and insurers have increasingly pushed for access to funding agreements, framing their requests as transparency measures. Proponents say disclosure could reveal whether funders are influencing litigation strategy and promote accountability in the civil justice system.

Critics counter that forcing plaintiffs to produce funding contracts may discourage injured individuals from seeking legitimate financial assistance during lengthy cases. Consumer legal funding arrangements are non-recourse, meaning plaintiffs repay only if their case results in a successful settlement or verdict.

Several states have proposed or enacted laws requiring varying degrees of disclosure — from simple notification that funding exists to full production of contract terms. The debate reflects broader tensions between transparency and consumer protection that continue to shape litigation funding regulation across the country.

The London Court of Appeal has granted Mastercard and Visa permission to challenge a landmark ruling that found their multilateral interchange fees in breach of European competition law, extending one of the most significant funded litigation battles in UK history.

As reported by PYMNTS, the appeal follows a unanimous June 2025 decision by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal in favor of hundreds of merchants who alleged they had been paying excessive fees.

Both payment networks welcomed the ruling. A Visa representative stated that interchange is "a critical component to maintaining a secure digital payments ecosystem that benefits all parties." Scott+Scott, the law firm representing the merchant claimants, called the original tribunal decision "a significant win for all merchants" and expressed confidence in defending it on appeal.

The case has drawn significant attention from the litigation funding community, as merchant claims against card networks have become a major category of funded litigation in the UK. Similar proceedings continue in the United States, where the Visa-Mastercard interchange fee class action produced a settlement estimated between $5.56 billion and $6.26 billion.

Federal Reserve research indicates that approximately 86 percent of interchange fees fund cardholder rewards programs — a dynamic at the center of the ongoing legal disputes on both sides of the Atlantic.

California lawmakers are pursuing new regulations aimed at the litigation funding industry, adding the state to a growing list of jurisdictions seeking to impose oversight on third-party funding practices.

As reported by the Daily Journal, California legislators have introduced measures that would bring increased transparency and regulatory scrutiny to the litigation funding sector. The move comes as states across the country grapple with how to regulate an industry that has grown rapidly in recent years.

The proposed regulations reflect broader national momentum toward litigation funding oversight. Several states have already enacted or proposed disclosure requirements and other regulatory frameworks, while federal legislation including the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 remains under debate in Congress.

California's entry into the regulatory conversation is significant given the state's outsized role in the U.S. legal market. As one of the largest jurisdictions for both consumer and commercial litigation, any regulatory framework adopted in California could serve as a model for other states considering similar measures.

The development adds to an increasingly active regulatory landscape for litigation funders, who face growing calls for transparency from lawmakers, courts, and industry groups alike.

Litigation Capital Management saw its shares decline after an Australian court delivered an unfavorable judgment against one of its funded clients in a commercial dispute.

As reported by Sharecast, LCM had invested A$1.4 million of shareholder capital in what it described as a "small case investment." The company confirmed that the court found against its funded party, sending shares down approximately 6.5% in early trading.

LCM stated that it has after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse cost risks associated with the ruling. The firm is currently reassessing the judgment alongside its legal representatives and the funded party, and is exploring potential next steps including the possibility of an appeal.

The outcome highlights the inherent risk-reward dynamics of the litigation funding model. While funders conduct extensive due diligence before committing capital, court outcomes remain uncertain. ATE insurance policies, which cover legal costs and disbursements if claimants lose their cases, serve as a protective measure against precisely this type of result.

LCM, which operates as a dispute financing solutions firm focused on commercial litigation, continues to manage a broader portfolio of funded cases across multiple jurisdictions.

Third-party arbitration financing has evolved from a niche practice into a mainstream strategic tool for mining companies facing international disputes, according to a senior Burford Capital director.

As reported by The Northern Miner, Burford Capital Director Jeffery Commission outlined how the sector has matured significantly. Commission noted that international arbitrations are "increasingly expensive," with average spend reaching at least $5 million and cases typically spanning three to five years.

The mining industry has been at the forefront of litigation funding adoption. Some of the earliest funded cases involved mining disputes, with Canadian junior mining companies pursuing claims against Latin American governments proving especially successful. Data shows rising numbers of mining-related disputes across major arbitration institutions including ICSID and the International Chamber of Commerce.

Burford's selection process remains highly rigorous — the firm rejects approximately 95% of claims it reviews. Key evaluation criteria include claimants' track records, project advancement stages, and respondent countries' histories of honoring arbitral awards.

Beyond cost-pressured junior miners, well-capitalized companies are now using arbitration finance strategically to monetize existing awards and deploy freed-up capital into core mining operations.

Omni Bridgeway CEO Raymond Van Hulst sat down with MST Access for an in-depth interview on the firm's strategic positioning and outlook in the global litigation funding market.

As reported by MST Access via Mondaq, Van Hulst discussed Omni Bridgeway's investment approach and the growing opportunities for institutional capital in dispute financing.

The interview comes at a pivotal time for Omni Bridgeway. The firm recently closed a landmark transaction with Ares Management, which acquired a 70% stake in an Omni Bridgeway continuation vehicle for over $200 million. The deal underscored the increasing appetite among institutional investors for exposure to litigation finance as an alternative asset class.

Omni Bridgeway reported strong first-half FY26 results, with positive investment and financial performance across its portfolio. The firm continues to operate across multiple jurisdictions, funding commercial litigation, international arbitration, and enforcement proceedings worldwide.

The discussion highlighted how the litigation funding industry is maturing, with established funders like Omni Bridgeway attracting significant institutional backing and expanding the range of dispute financing solutions available to claimants and law firms.

Meta and Google are shifting their defense strategy in a landmark social media addiction trial, turning attention to the 20-year-old plaintiff's personal circumstances rather than platform design. The case is backed by litigation funder Flashlight Capital through the Social Media Victims Law Center, with potentially billions of dollars at stake across related claims.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Meta plans to call the plaintiff's therapists as witnesses to argue that her psychological issues stem from "turmoil in her family and school life rather than the platforms." Google intends to present YouTube usage data showing the plaintiff averaged only 30 minutes of daily use, contending that is not enough to qualify as addiction.

Meta stated that "the evidence simply doesn't support reducing a lifetime of hardship to a single factor," signaling a defense built around causation rather than product safety. The approach marks a notable pivot from earlier phases of the litigation, which focused more directly on platform design and algorithmic recommendations.

The case is being closely watched across the litigation finance industry as a bellwether for social media mass tort claims. Flashlight Capital's involvement underscores the growing role of third-party funders in backing large-scale consumer harm litigation, particularly in emerging areas where individual plaintiffs may lack the resources to take on major technology companies.

Arizona's Judicial Council has approved new restrictions on the state's alternative business structure program, requiring ABS law firms to provide direct legal services and maintain meaningful operations within the state.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the updated rules mandate that ABS firms "provide legal services — not just make referrals to other lawyers" and "devote at least part of their business to serving people in Arizona." The changes target firms that have used the ABS designation primarily as a vehicle for out-of-state business or referral networks.

Arizona's ABS program, which permits law firms to accept outside investment and have non-lawyer owners, was designed to reduce legal service costs for state residents. The model has attracted significant interest from litigation funders and investors seeking to participate in law firm economics, including through management service organizations that own administrative functions of legal practices.

The restrictions signal the Judicial Council's intent to ensure the program delivers on its original promise of expanding access to justice within Arizona rather than serving as a regulatory arbitrage opportunity. The development is significant for the litigation finance industry, as alternative business structures represent one of the most direct pathways for outside capital to flow into legal services delivery. Other states considering similar programs will likely watch Arizona's evolving framework closely.

The third-party funding sector experienced significant upheaval in 2025 even as the market continued to expand, according to a new analysis from Akin Gump. What began as an almost unknown asset class has grown into a $20 billion industry, but operational challenges have reshaped the competitive landscape.

As reported by Akin Gump, Litigation Capital Management initiated a strategic review amid uncertainty, Therium pivoted to advisory services and paused direct funding, and a prominent funder faced civil fraud allegations in Jersey courts related to a $15 billion award against Malaysia. Meanwhile, Burford Capital acquired a stake in legal consultancy Kindleworth, and Omni Bridgeway spun off portfolio exposure into a continuation vehicle with Ares Management acquiring a 70% stake for over $200 million.

Funded arbitration claims remained active, with ICSID data showing 7% of newly registered 2025 cases involved a third-party funder. The secondaries market — where investors buy and sell existing stakes in funded cases — strengthened substantially, with Nera Capital closing a $50 million fund for acquiring interests in funded claims.

Regulatory approaches continue to diverge globally. The European Commission announced no plans to regulate third-party funding, and the UK's Arbitration Act 2025 omitted funding provisions entirely. In contrast, Singapore and Hong Kong expressly regulate the practice, while institutional rules from SIAC, HKIAC, and ICSID now require funding disclosure.

Counsel Financial, a provider of financial solutions for contingent-fee law firms and institutional investors in litigation finance, has appointed two new directors as part of a strategic expansion.

As reported by PR Newswire, Adam Mosher has joined as Director of Client Development for loan originations, where he will focus on facilitating loans ranging from $1 million to over $100 million for plaintiff law firms. Mosher previously held a senior business development position at a legal technology and settlement administration firm working with mass tort and class action clients.

Amanda Orzalek has been named Director of Client Solutions, overseeing service delivery for capital provider clients. Her responsibilities span underwriting, servicing, collateral management, and valuation work. Orzalek previously served as a senior product leader at a legal technology company and spent nearly a decade managing asbestos trust claims administration.

COO Megan Payne said the hires reflect "our commitment to building a best-in-class platform." Counsel Financial reports having deployed over $2 billion across more than 25 years of operations, combining legal expertise with underwriting and servicing capabilities. The appointments signal the company's continued investment in scaling its plaintiff law firm financing business and deepening its institutional investor services.

Legal Bay LLC, a leading provider of pre-settlement funding and lawsuit loans, announced that it continues to expand financial relief options for plaintiffs injured in motor vehicle accidents across the United States.

As reported by PR Newswire, the Newark, New Jersey-based company offers non-recourse legal funding, meaning plaintiffs only repay advances if their case results in a successful settlement or verdict. The company's underwriting team often completes applications within 24 to 48 hours of receiving case documentation.

Legal Bay funds cases involving cars, commercial trucks, buses, motorcycles, rideshare vehicles, and other motor vehicles. Beyond auto accidents, the company also finances personal injury lawsuits, medical malpractice claims, wrongful death litigation, product liability cases, and mass torts.

CEO Chris Janish stated that motor vehicle accidents "often lead to devastating injuries and unexpected financial strain." He added that the company's lawsuit funding programs "help plaintiffs gain access to immediate financial support so they can focus on recovery while their legal teams pursue the compensation they deserve." The announcement underscores the continued role of consumer legal funding in bridging the financial gap for plaintiffs navigating lengthy litigation timelines.

The Chapter 7 trustee overseeing the bankruptcy estates of Start Man Furniture, LLC, formerly known as Art Van Furniture, has filed a motion seeking court approval to sell the company's rights in a major antitrust class action to Optium Fund 6 for $850,000.

As reported by Chapter11Cases.com, the transaction would transfer all claims and potential recovery rights the estate holds in the long-running interchange fee litigation which began in 2005 in the Eastern District of New York. The case alleges Visa and Mastercard unlawfully fixed interchange fees charged to merchants, resulting in a revised settlement approved in December 2019 estimated at $5.56 billion to $6.26 billion.

Optium Fund 6 executed the asset purchase agreement on March 2, 2026, with a 10% deposit due within one business day and the balance payable after the court order becomes final. The trustee had previously attempted a competitive auction in October 2020 but found insufficient bidding interest.

The motion reserves the right to accept higher competing bids, with a minimum overbid of $950,000. The objection deadline is March 24, 2026, with a hearing scheduled for April 6, 2026. The sale highlights the growing market for litigation claims as tradeable assets in bankruptcy proceedings.

New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act, set to take effect June 17, represents a significant regulatory intervention in an industry that has operated largely without oversight — but advocates say it does not go far enough.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Rachel McCarthy and Tabitha Woodruff of the Milestone Foundation argue that while the new law establishes important baseline protections, it leaves critical gaps that could continue to harm vulnerable plaintiffs. The authors point to annual percentage rates in the consumer legal funding industry ranging from 30 to 124 percent, substantially higher than typical credit card rates. In one illustrative scenario, a family borrowing $10,000 at 50 percent monthly compounded interest could owe approximately $43,475 after three years.

The law caps a litigation funder's recovery at 25 percent of the gross settlement or judgment, requires plain-language contracts, mandates a 10-day rescission period, establishes state registration requirements, and prohibits interference with settlement decisions and misleading advertising.

However, the authors note that the legislation does not cap the interest rates funders can charge, nor does it impose rules or restrictions on the types of fees that may be assessed. They argue that these omissions leave room for the most predatory practices to continue even under the new regulatory framework.

The piece frames the New York law as an important first step while calling for additional reforms targeting interest rate caps and fee structures to fully protect consumers who turn to litigation funding while awaiting resolution of their cases.