As LFJ reported last week, the Court of Appeal has decided to hear arguments over the validity of litigation funding agreements that use a multiple of the sum invested. As we suggested, this decision has emboldened funders who are dismayed at the government’s delays in enacting a legislative fix for PACCAR.

In a piece for the Financial Times, Christopher Bogart, co-founder and chief executive of Burford Capital, takes aim at the UK government’s “failure to act” in providing a solution for the litigation funding industry following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Bogart argues that whilst the Prime Minister has repeatedly spoken about the need for the country to attract investment, the delay in acting on this issue “threatens to create an environment in which businesses and their money leave the UK to the detriment of the economy and workforce.”

In what is perhaps the most startling admission, and a thinly veiled challenge to the government, Bogart states that Burford “is reconsidering whether London is a preferred dispute resolution centre.” Whilst this appears to be a warning of what could occur, Bogart reports that “the lingering uncertainty and the government’s silence has caused the company to begin migrating some dispute resolution activity away from London.”

In his explanation of the challenges the UK funding market faces, Bogart highlights the industry trends post-PACCAR and points out that there has been a 75 per cent decrease in funding activity in the UK since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Burford’s CEO also points to the 23 per cent drop in group claims in 2024, which he attributes to the “uncertainty in the market.”

Without naming the specific cases, Bogart appears to reference the recent move by “opportunistic defendants” to challenge certain litigation funding agreements in class actions. Urging the government to provide a legislative solution sooner rather than later, Bogart argues that the alternative is a situation where the UK will face growing competition from abroad as “funders will look elsewhere to less risky options.”

Outside of the prime litigation funding markets of the US, UK and Australia, developments from burgeoning markets are often few and far between. However, a new ministerial statement from the Indian government suggests that India has the potential to be a significant growth market for legal funding.

An article in Bar and Bench provides a useful insight into the litigation funding landscape in India, as it highlights a recent statement by a government minister that indicates there are currently no plans to implement new regulations governing third-party funding. 

Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of State of the Ministry of Law & Justice, was responding to a parliamentary question about the issue of legal funding and said:

“At present, there is no proposal under consideration of the Government for establishment of a legal and regulatory framework to facilitate Third Party Funding of litigation in the country and further, no examination of the potential of Third Party Litigation Funding as a means to address high litigation costs and pendency of cases has been carried out by the Government.”

As the Bar and Bench article notes, this is yet another encouraging sign for the Indian litigation funding industry which has been growing since a 2018 Supreme Court decision recognised the validity of third-party litigation funding. 

For consumers who were unwittingly deceived by falsely advertised products, a well-funded class action remains one of the few options available for these individuals to seek justice and compensation.

Reporting by The Post covers a new class action filed in the High Court of New Zealand, which is being brought against Johnson & Johnson over the alleged sale of ineffective cold and flu medications. The lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson manufactured cold and flu products containing Penylephrine, which some medical studies have found is not an effective oral treatment for nasal congestion. Eligibility for the class action includes consumers in New Zealand who purchased one of the 17 identified Codral, Sudafed or Benadryl branded products between 2005 and 2025.

The class action has been brought by Australian law firm JGA Saddler, with litigation funding provided by Omni Bridgeway. This is the second such lawsuit brought against Johnson & Johnson by this team, with JGA and Omni having worked together to bring a similar class action against the pharmaceutical giant in 2024.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director at JGA Saddler, argues that “Johnson & Johnson has misled the public and they need to be held accountable for their actions.” Furthermore, Jancauskas suggests that there may be a larger pool of affected customers in New Zealand than Australia, explaining that between 2011 and 2024 “there was no other alternative for consumers in New Zealand suffering from sinus symptoms or allergy symptoms or cold and flu symptoms.”

Additional information on the class action can be found on Omni Bridgeway’s website.

Although the funded cases that tend to attract the most attention are those that are valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, there is clearly still an appetite for legal funding aimed at smaller cases that require less capital and faster turnaround times.

In a post on LinkedIn, Mark Sands, Head of Insolvency at Apex Litigation Finance, announced the launch of a new low-value litigation funding and ATE facility: Virtus. The new facility is being launched by Howden Insurance Brokers, with Apex and Ignite Speciality Risk acting as exclusive providers of litigation funding and ATE insurance, respectively.

The Virtus facility is designed to provide law firms and their clients with quick access to legal funding up to £750,000, along with ATE insurance cover up to £100,000. Sands explains that this new product is aimed at clients looking to unlock small to medium size commercial claims. In order to meet these requirements, the Virtus facility offers guaranteed turnaround times including funding sign-off within 10 working days and an ATE insurance offer within 5 working days.

Sands directs any parties looking for more information or to start an application for funding to contact: Katie.Armstrong@HowdenGroup.com 

As LFJ reported last month, Heirloom Fair Legal began the year by announcing that it is acquiring Hayes Connor Solicitors and launching its own law firm, HFL Law. Since then, the legal finance company has clearly indicated its plans for growth with the appointment of one senior team member amid a wider recruitment drive.

In a post on LinkedIn, Heirloom Fair Legal announced the appointment of Georgios Tzoumakas as Director of Capital & Investor Relations in the company’s Family Office division. The company explained that Tzoumakas will have oversight of all the division’s operations and be responsible for “developing tailored strategies to support the capital raising process, while fostering long-term relationships built on trust and excellence.”

In addition to the appointment of Tzoumakas, Heirloom has also posted several hiring notices in the weeks following the announcement of its major acquisition. These include London-based opportunities for a Controller and COFA, and a Senior Legal Finance Analyst, as well as a vacant Paralegal position in Manchester.

In a series of posts across LinkedIn yesterday, Burford Capital announced a range of promotions and appointments across its operations in the U.S. and UK, with promotions handed out in the funder’s Chicago, New York and London offices.

The full list of announced promotions are as follows:

• Chris Freeman, promoted from Director to Managing Director (Chicago)
• Alyx Pattison, promoted from Senior Vice President to Director (Chicago)
• Hannah Howlett, promoted from Vice President to Senior Vice President (London)
• David Helfenbein, promoted from Vice President, Public Relations to Senior Vice President, Public Relations (New York)
• Rupert Black, promoted from Senior Associate to Vice President (London)
• Avik Chattaraj, promoted from Patent Associate to Vice President (Chicago)
• Sam Bendit, promoted from Associate to Vice President (London)
• Suzie Butters, promoted from Marketing Manager to Senior Marketing Manager (London)
• Xingchao (Sean) Zhou, promoted from Senior Financial Accountant to Manager, Financial Accounting (New York)
• Larry Tao, promoted from Quantitative Investment Analyst to Quantitative Investment Associate (London)
• Orcun A., promoted from Treasury Analyst to Senior Treasury Analyst (New York)
• Olivia Otti, promoted from Compliance Paralegal to Senior Compliance Paralegal (London)

As LFJ reported earlier this year, a litigation funder based in Germany is looking to raise the profile of domestic litigation funding in the country and across continental Europe with ambitious plans to raise a €50 million fund.

An article in Handelsblatt provides new insights into the activities of FORIS AG, a German litigation funder headquartered in Bonn, providing an overview of its current case involvements and the funder’s plans for future growth. Up until now, FORIS has largely focused its investments on the mid-cap sector, targeting its financing across 100 cases which are valued at around €100,000 or more. The article explains that to date this has seen FORIS invest €10 million and seen an average success rate of 73%, with an expected multiple of three for its return on investment.

However, with plans to increase the scope and size of cases it can invest in, FORIS is now hoping to raise €50 million by the end of 2025 for its FORIS Centris Litigation Financing Fund I. Harald Steinbichler, head of the consulting firm Axessum, which is responsible for marketing the new fund, says that this will be FORIS’ “showcase project”. The funder plans to use this new capital to finance around 25 cases from across Europe, targeting disputes with much higher values to enable even greater returns.

One of the key issues raised around third-party litigation funding for patent disputes, is the level of involvement and control a funder may exert on proceedings, and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise from this involvement.

A blog post from Faegre Drinker highlights a patent dispute case in the District of New Jersey, where a magistrate judge disqualified two law firms from representing defendants due to the defense being funded by a non-party who had an interest in the patent. 

In the case of Harish v. Arbit et al, US Magistrate Judge André M Espinosa had allowed the plaintiff to raise a motion to disqualify counsel for the defendants, with the plaintiff alleging that there was a conflict of interest with the lawyers representing both the defendants and Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc, the company that the defendants had sold and assigned the patent rights to. The plaintiff therefore argued that the defense counsel had broken the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(f).

Applying the six-part test governed by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re State Grand Jury Investigation, 200 N.J. 481 (2009), the court found that there was evidence that Lincoln “is directing, regulating, and interfering with Defense Counsel’s professional judgment in its representation of Defendants.” Furthermore, the court found that there was an attorney-client relationship between the defendants’ counsel and Lincoln as a non-party, with a representative from Lincoln also participating in the settlement conference.

Despite objections from the defendants over the timeliness of having to bring in new counsel at this stage of the case, the ruling definitively stated that “Defendants and Lincoln, not Plaintiff, are responsible for creating the conflict of interest.” The decision concludes that “the severity of the conflict here is greater than the potential for hardship or prejudice to Defendants and warrants disqualification of Defense Counsel”

The full written decision handed down by the magistrate judge can be read here.

With the incredibly large sums of money at stake in class actions around the world, it is no surprise that funders and law firms alike are keen to keep a close eye on the trends and developments in these large group actions. 

Broadridge has recently released its 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, examining the common challenges and trends in this area of litigation across the past 12 months. The report draws upon analysis of 135 global cases involving securities and/or financial products with a claim filing deadline in 2024.

Broadridge’s deep-dive into the data behind these class actions also revealed valuable insights into certain aspects of this litigation landscape. For example, whilst class actions with institutional investors as plaintiffs accounted for only 36% of all case settlements, the average settlement in those lawsuits was 565% higher than those class actions in which individuals acted as lead plaintiffs.

Another interesting data point identified by the report is the average time it takes for these class actions to settle, divided by the type of litigation as well as the size of the eventual settlement. Broadridge found that  U.S. antitrust class actions typically take the longest to settle, with an average timeline of over 100 months, whilst the timeline to settlement in securities class actions across all jurisdictions averaged out at 45.4 months.

As part of its report, Broadridge also listed its top ten class action cases for 2024, which included two cases that could be publicly identified as having used third-party litigation funding.  At No.3 on the list is the European Government Bonds Antitrust Settlements and Opt-in Litigations, with the latter opt-in claims having received funding from Deminor. At No.2, Broadridge selected the Mesoblast Securities Litigation in Australia, which saw funding provided by Omni Bridgeway and ICP Funding Pty Ltd, with the end result being a A$26.5 million settlement.

More detailed insights into class action developments and trends can be found in the full Broadridge 2025 Global Class Action Annual Report, which can be read here.

As the future of litigation funding regulation continues to be a hot topic across many jurisdictions, it is worth considering the level of influence litigation funders have at the highest echelons of government. A new report suggests that in the US, one litigation funder’s founder has a role in Elon Musk’s new organization targeting government efficiency.

An article in Pro Publica highlights the role of prominent lawyers who have been appointed to positions within the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the temporary organization created by President Trump via executive order on January 20. The three lawyers, who have been identified by Pro Publica through a review of records that list DOGE email addresses at the Executive Office of the President, are Keenan Kmiec, Jacob Altik and James Burnham.

Burnham stands out among these three names, as in addition to his new role as general counsel at DOGE, he is also the President and founder of litigation funder Vallecito Capital. According to a Bloomberg Law article, Burnham launched Vallecito Capital in July 2023 with a $50 million fund, with the aim to fund lawsuits against companies that are engaged in “unambiguously bad behaviour.” The size of the $50 million fund and Burnham’s ownership, largely through a company called Deep Creek LLC, is confirmed in an application for investment adviser registration filed with the SEC.

Burnham has an extensive legal background that includes time as a litigation partner at Jones Day, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Consumer Protection Branch of the Department of Justice, and a Senior Associate Counsel to the President. In addition to these roles, Burnham has also clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As well as founding his own litigation funding business, Burnham is also listed as the founder of boutique law firm, King Street Legal.

Whilst litigation funders often dominate the conversation in the legal funding space, the role and influence of litigation insurers has only grown in recent years as they have expanded their provision of litigation risk solutions to claimants, funders, law firms, and in-house counsel.

An announcement from Litica revealed that Lloyd’s has extended its Coverholder approval to include Europe, thereby approving Litica Europe to underwrite commercial litigation insurance on behalf of certain Lloyd’s Syndicates. This latest extension from Lloyd’s follows on from its existing Coverholder approval for Litica in both the United Kingdom and Asia-Pacific.

In the announcement, Litica explained that this approval authorises Litica Europe to underwrite insurance for policies with adverse cost limits of up to €15 million, which it says is “one of the most substantial and material levels of authority granted by Lloyd’s Syndicates in the commercial litigation insurance space.” This extension will also allow Litica to offer bespoke solutions to the European market, allowing for tailored products that are more suited to Europe than the UK.

Litica also highlighted that it has now underwritten over €2.2bn of risk to date, with cases spanning a range of litigation and arbitration.

More information about the approval and Litica’s ongoing work can be found in the full announcement here.

In the ongoing struggle to carve out opportunities within the competitive legal funding market, smaller regional funders are increasingly looking to technology-oriented strategies to try to grow their operations and compete with the established market leading companies.

An article in Insider Media covers an announcement from litigation funder IQuote Limited, who are expanding their operations with the opening of a new office in Dubai. IQuote, which was founded in Manchester in 2016, sees the Dubai office as a major step in its strategy to strengthen its technology capabilities, with plans to embark on a recruitment drive to staff this new office.

Along with this expansion to a new region, IQuote is also working on bolstering its Manchester office with new hires to build on its existing strength in the European market. IQuote is looking to recruit for several positions, including a Head of European Opportunities, Data and Risk Analysts to enhance financial forecasting, and auditors for account management and reporting. 

Craig Cornick, CEO of IQuote, highlighted Dubai’s place as “a global innovation hub”, with the new local footprint allowing the company to “tap into a wealth of talent and technological resources.” Explaining IQuote’s unified approach across these different regions, Cornick said, “By strengthening both our Manchester and Dubai teams, we’re ensuring that we have the resources and expertise needed to meet the increasing demand for our services across Europe and beyond.” 

When it comes to discovery requests over third-party funding in US lawsuits, we are accustomed to seeing these issues arise most commonly in intellectual property and patent litigation. However, a recent petition has shined the spotlight on a funded cases that is notable for its connections to the country’s political and media landscape.

An article in Bloomberg Law reveals that Fox Corp. has filed a petition in California Superior Court to compel discovery against the funder of the defamation case brought against Fox by Smartmatic USA Corp. Smartmatic’s claim for $2.7 billion in damages is being funded by Reid Hoffman, co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, as disclosed by Hoffman himself in July of last year. Smartmatic’s case was first brought in February 2021, focusing on allegations that Fox defamed the voting technology company in its coverage of conspiracies about the 2020 US presidential election.

Fox’s petition was filed on January 29 following Hoffman objections to subpoenas, with counsel for Fox requesting that Hoffman and his aide Dmitri Mehlhorn be deposed, and handover documents relating to his funding of Smartmatic’s case and the validity of those claims. The central issue that Fox’s petition raises is the valuation of damages that Smartmatic is claiming, referencing comments in the media from Mehlhorn who suggested that without the alleged defamation, Smartmatic “could be a $400 million company.” 

Furthermore, Fox’s petition aims to support its anti-SLAPP counterclaim against Smartmatic, as the requested documents and testimony may provide evidence that the defamation lawsuit was ideologically motivated. Fox’s counsel stated that “if this lawsuit is motivated not by the facts but by some political agenda against Fox News or its perceived political views, that is evidence Fox must obtain in connection with its counterclaim.” 

As the Civil Justice Council (CJC) continues its review of third-party litigation funding, there has been much consternation over the resulting delay to any possible legislative solution to the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Litigation funders may now feel further vindicated over this delay, as the Court of Appeal has decided to intervene to list a hearing on one of the crucial issues for funding agreements in a post-PACCAR world.

Reporting by The Law Society Gazette covers a development at the Court of Appeal, where chancellor of the High Court Sir Julian Flaux and Lord Justice Green announced that the court would hear arguments on the use of the funding agreements that calculate returns based on a multiple of the funder’s investment. The decision came in a directions hearing where the justices lifted the stay on appeals from defendants in cases where the claimants are backed by third-party funders, with a plan for the Court of Appeal to hold a hearing in the summer. 

The chancellor explained that this decision to further evaluate the issue of the ‘multiple’ approach in funding agreements was a result of the new government’s move to delay legislative action on PACCAR, with no solution in sight until after the CJC review is completed later this year. Therefore, the court ruled that “there is not now a good reason” to stay the appeals, and a hearing would be convened between the end of May and the end of July to hear the defendants’ arguments. 

The appeals from defendants, over the use of these multiple-based funding agreements, come from a number of high-profile cases including:

• Alex Neill v Sony Interactive Entertainment
• Apple Inc. & Apple Distribution International Ltd v Kent
• Commercial and Interregional Card Claims II Ltd v Visa Inc & ors
• Commercial and Interregional Card Claims I Ltd v Mastercard
• Gutmann v Apple Inc & ors

On January 29th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on the Middle East." The event featured a panel of key stakeholders in the region, including Obaid Bin Mes'har (OBM), Dispute Resolution Specialist at WinJustice. Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Chief Executive Officer of Lexolent, Kishore Jaichandani (KJ), Managing Director of Caveat Capital, and Ahmed Hammadi (AH), Legal Director at DLA Piper. The event was moderated by Jonathon Davidson, dispute resolution lawyer and Founding Partner at Davidson & Co.

Below are key takeaways from the event:

Historically, there's been very large scale construction and engineering cases here. Do you find those predominantly to be the fundable cases, or are we looking at general commercial litigation and shareholder disputes? Is there more of an even spread?

AH: There are two comfort zones as we see them now. And the two comfort zones are generally banking and construction. The banking goes back a while, back to 2014 when you had the DIFC case of Saracen, which I think even prompted the DIC to seriously consider putting litigation funding into his practice directions in 2017. But I'd say those are the comfort zones for a few reasons. And the principal ones are their core industries and sectors, in this region and not just in the UAE. Even as it disputes, though, I think you might agree, Jonathan, that construction touches all of our lives in one way or another even if you try to avoid it.

Secondly, these industries have customary documents. Right? So with construction, you have FIDEC. Obviously, there are some employers that will have a little bit of a bespoke contract, but they are kind of coming out of the internationally accepted standards or norms. And similarly with banking, you have a lot of LMA documents. So you have concepts that are understood internationally, albeit you'll have some local flavor in your interpretation, application, interest, concurrent delay, how they deal with guarantees, and that sort.

In terms of budgets, what's your experience on whether funders have to adopt the same level of budgeting here as elsewhere in the world, or where there's a different approach? Are certain type of proceedings, maybe the onshore proceedings, are they leaner in terms of fees?

KJ: In terms of budgets, legal budgets in the Middle East are increasingly aligned with global markets now, especially after the ATGM and the ISC and, especially for the complex litigation arbitration. So that is still based on factors like jurisdiction, legal framework, market maturity. It depends where is the claim, like a Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Oman.

So onshore litigation in Middle East jurisdictions like Saudi, Oman, Qatar, they often have a lower cost in comparison to the western jurisdictions like the UK, US and Europe. This is due to this due to the simplified court process, lower attorney fees here, and fewer procedural stages. For example, we have seen a case which is having $5,000,000 claim size in Riyadh. And the budget for that case was $250,000 as legal fees. In contrast, you see similar cases in the US Federal Court System that could exceed $1,000,000.

How do the economics work from a funder's perspective? So we have cases here, funder's must have a minimum ticket to make the economics work. Does that change if you're in common law jurisdictions when you factor in cost that you might have to pay as as the defendant's cost if you lose as the claimant, vis a vis the civil proceedings where that that might not factor in?

NRD: The basic principles of funding don't change whether you're in the GCC or whether you're in Europe. So if you're in the local court, the exposure from most international funders in local court funding is in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards rather than funding disputes, because the budgets, as we've discussed, tend to be a bit lower, and there isn't a massive appetite for international funders to fund in local courts. And also, of course, they're in Arabic, which tends to limit the number of funders that can actually operate there. So, funders will be operating in the offshore jurisdictions, the IFC, ADGM, where there are cost shifting rules and there is adverse costs. Now one of the challenges with that is there aren't a lot of ATE or insurance carriers that can write ATE insurance in the DIFC or ADGM. So you have to use indemnities from a funder backed off maybe in London or by an insurer that's happy to ensure the funder in a different UK jurisdiction.

So it can be done, and it's something that we have to take account of. So it's there, and it's no different from any other cost shifting jurisdiction.

In the local civil jurisdictions, we call them the onshore courts in the UAE, has any progress been made in having those courts formally recognize funding? How would you fund a local case, and who who funds it? Is it international funders or is it local investors?

OBM: I would like to make a distinction here between the onshore court and offshore courts, on the ground that each court has its own rules and regulations. For onshore, they don't have to regulate third party, as of today. So they don't actually contain any provisions which prohibit the funding by third parties. I used to do it for the last 15 years, and the contract regulates the parties' relationship. So if you are funding in the local market in the onshore courts, the contract regulates the relationship.

So we didn't face any problems since there's no regulation on that issue. However, in offshore, yes. ATGM and DIFC, they have their own regulations, and they have certain conditions you have to disclose in the agreement. You have to disclose that you inform the second parties, the opponent parties. Otherwise, you might no execute that contract. So if a funding contract in the local Arabic courts was to be challenged, then our analysis is the court would uphold the terms of the contract.

To watch the full recording of the event, please click here.

Stephen Kyriacou, Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon, is stepping down from his role effective immediately. Kyriacou has joined Willis Tower Watson as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions.

In a LinkedIn post, Kyriacou thanks his colleagues and partners in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, and notes the meteoric growth the sector has undergone during his five-and-a-half year tenure at Aon.

Kyriacou's exit comes on the heels of Aon's recent decision to halt all litigation funding transactions, a move that perhaps signals a broader reconsideration of the insurance sector's role within the legal funding sector. Aon's decision was no doubt influenced by several large losses sustained by the judgement preservation insurance (JPI) market, including the reversal of a $1.6 billion claim that left insurers on the hook for $500-$750 million.

In a successive LinkedIn post, Kyriacou notes his new role as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. Kyriacou states: "I am delighted to be joining the extremely talented WTW Private Equity and Transaction Solutions team, and am looking forward to getting to know my new colleagues and getting to work on new placements with all of the insurance carrier partners that I have built relationships with over the past five-and-a-half years."

Kyriacou also noted: "It has been a privilege and an honor to work with everyone on the Aon AMATS team, especially Stephen Davidson, who has been one of the best bosses and mentors I've ever had."

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Interim Report and Consultation for its review of the litigation funding sector in October 2024, there have been no new developments as funders eagerly await signs of action from the new government. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the news that the Civil Justice Council has adjusted the consultation period for its review into third-party litigation funding, extending its deadline for submissions to 3 March. This schedule adjustment sees the deadline pushed back by over a month, with the original deadline having been set for 31 January. The decision to adjust the deadline does not appear to have been driven by any developments from the government or ongoing matters in the courts, with the Gazette reporting that the extension “will allow for greater engagement with stakeholders ahead of the submission deadline.”

The full list of consultation questions and cover sheet can be found here, with all submissions needing to be completed by 11:59 pm on 3 March. 

According to the CJC’s website, the deadline “the extension will not adversely affect the finalisation of the full report”. It has been previously stated that the publication of the full and final report will take place some time in the summer of this year, with this latest update offering no guidance on a more specific timeframe within that period.

The Interim Report published on 31 October 2024 can be found here.

The battle over the future of regulations governing third-party legal funding looks set to rage on in 2025, as yet another state government has announced proposed legislative reforms that include new rules targeting consumer litigation funders.

In a release from the Office of the Governor, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp announced his support for a tort reform package for the state, aiming to enact sweeping changes across a range of legal policy areas. The package contains a variety of legislative reforms including measures targeting the calculation of medical damages in personal injury cases, the elimination of double recovery of attorney’s fees, and significant reforms for third-party litigation funding.

• When it comes to litigation funding, the legislation seeks change in the following areas:
• Prohibiting “hostile foreign adversaries” from funding litigation to obtain trade secrets or advance their own political interests.
• Preventing litigation funders from “having any input into the litigation strategy or from taking the plaintiff’s whole recovery”.
• Increasing transparency around the involvement of litigation funders for all parties involved in litigation.

In the announcement of the tort reform package, Governor Kemp provided the following comment:

“As I said in my State of the State address earlier this month, our legal environment is draining family bank accounts and hurting job creators of all sizes in nearly every industry in our state.

After months of listening to our citizens, businesses, and stakeholders across the spectrum, it is clear the status quo is unacceptable, unsustainable, and jeopardizes our state's prosperity in the years to come. This tort reform package protects the rights of all Georgians to have access to our civil justice system, and ensures that those who have been wronged receive justice and are made whole. I look forward to working with our partners in the General Assembly to pass this comprehensive and commonsense package, and achieve meaningful progress on this important issue during this legislative session.”

Due to the naturally confidential nature of matters involved in legal funding, it is no surprise that outside observers rarely get a detailed view of the successes and failures of individual litigation funders. However, for those publicly listed funders, we are afforded regular glimpses into the financial workings of their investments.

In a trading update published by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), the litigation funder shared some details on their performance in the first half of the 2025 financial year, covering the six months up to 31 December 2024. LCM revealed that during this period they had achieved four case wins and incurred three case losses, with the result being an aggregate multiple of invested capital (MOIC) of 3.7x on realisations.

Among these four case wins, LCM reported that one of these was a successful international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland, whilst the losses included a trial loss in the Queensland Electricity case. LCM also revealed that during the first half of FY25, there were A$25 million in new commitments compared to A$90 million in H1 FY24. The funder explained that “while the period saw fewer quality opportunities meeting our rigorous investment criteria”, this was to be expected as part of the usual “ebb and flow of opportunities”.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM , provided the following comment on the results: 

“While the first half of FY25 has been a period of mixed results, we are pleased with the strong realisations achieved and the ongoing progress of our portfolio.  The high multiple on invested capital reflects the value we continue to generate from our disciplined approach to dispute financing.  We remain confident in our ability to deploy capital effectively and to deliver attractive returns for our stakeholders as we move into the second half of the financial year.”

More details can be found in the full trading update.

As LFJ reported in October 2024, Fortress Investment Group has established itself as one of the global leaders in litigation finance, committing billions in investment in both legal and intellectual property assets. New reporting suggests that the global investment giant is not slowing down in the sector, with the company making moves towards another fund focused on legal assets.

An article from Bloomberg News, and republished by Insurance Journal, provides exclusive insight into the activities of Fortress Investment Group, who are undertaking a $1 billion capital raise for its new litigation finance fund. This latest fund focused on legal funding, reportedly named Fortress Legal Assets Fund II, sees the investment management company seeking to more than double the size of its previous litigation finance fund. 

According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Legal Assets Fund II will be targeting investments across the legal funding market, with a goal of achieving 16% net returns. The article also reveals that Jack Neumark and Joseph Dunn, who serve as the co-CIOs of Legal Assets for Fortress, have already approached investors earlier this month. More information on Fortress’ approach to investing in legal assets can be found in an interview with Neumark and Dunn, released on the company’s website in May of last year.

Fortress declined to provide a comment in response to Bloomberg’s reporting.