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.

International plaintiffs’ firm Pogust Goodhead has opened a fresh front in the marathon litigation over the 2015 Fundão dam collapse, dispatching a pre-action letter that accuses BHP, Vale and their joint-venture Samarco of orchestrating an unlawful plot to sabotage the English proceedings.

Acting through U.S. counsel Orrick, the firm says the miners induced claimants to sign cut-price settlements in Brazil, interfered with existing retainers and weaponised redress programmes run by the Renova Foundation to starve the London group action of participants. Pogust Goodhead pegs its damages at more than £1.3 billion—roughly the fees and uplifts it stands to lose if the 620,000-strong claimant cohort is picked off piecemeal.

An article in Reuters says the firm will argue three causes of action—unlawful means conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract and enforcement of its equitable lien—and blames the defendants’ constitutional challenge in Brazil (ADPF 1178) and the proposed “Repactuação” mega-settlement for the intensified pressure campaign.

The pre-action salvo lands just months after the close of a 13-week liability trial against BHP in London; judgment is due later this year, with a quantum phase already on the docket for 2026. Separately, Vale and BHP confront contempt allegations for allegedly funding satellite litigation to derail municipal claims. Should the new claim proceed, the miners could face parallel exposure not only for compensatory payouts—estimated at up to £36 billion—but also for the law firm’s lost fees and financing costs, which Pogust Goodhead says now exceed $1 billion.

A new entrant has jumped into the U.S. legal-finance arena.

National Law Review reports that Uncorrelated Capital has closed a $53 million seed round, backed by a private-credit fund and a leading plaintiffs’ law firm. Founder Miles Cole—a two-time tech entrepreneur—says the firm will “invest alongside law firms as partners” rather than lend against fees, aligning incentives to “drive better outcomes for plaintiffs.” The firm has already deployed “tens of millions” across thousands of claims, including high-profile mass-tort dockets such as Camp Lejeune.

Uncorrelated’s thesis is to marry software and data analytics with long-duration capital, targeting “uncorrelated” return streams that behave independently of broader markets. Cole argues that litigation finance remains “underserved by technology” and plans to build proprietary tooling to vet cases, monitor portfolios and streamline reporting. The launch comes as institutional money continues to flow into alternative credit strategies and amid renewed regulatory scrutiny of third-party funding structures on Capitol Hill.

For the legal-funding industry, Uncorrelated’s arrival underscores two trends: first, that smaller, tech-forward managers can still raise meaningful capital despite the dominance of well-funded incumbent players; second, that plaintiff-side firms remain eager for non-recourse capital partners who can shoulder risk without dictating strategy. Whether Uncorrelated’s data-centric model will gain traction—or push incumbents to up their own tech game—bears watching. Future fundraising rounds and case wins will reveal if the firm’s “software-first” pitch delivers outsized returns or simply adds another niche player to an increasingly crowded field.

In a fresh salvo that lays bare the brewing turf war between two sophisticated risk-transfer industries, a cadre of major U.S. insurers is doubling down on efforts to hobble third-party litigation finance.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that carriers including Chubb, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Sentry are leveraging their Washington lobbying muscle—and, critically, their underwriting leverage—to choke off capital flows to funders. Executives have signaled they will refuse to place policies for firms that invest in, or even trade with, outside funders, arguing that those investors fuel “social inflation” and nuclear verdicts that drive casualty-line losses. The aggressive posture follows the industry’s failed push to tack a 40% excise tax on litigation finance profits into the Trump administration’s sweeping budget bill earlier this month.

Yet the campaign has its detractors—even within the insurance ecosystem. Ed Gehres, managing partner at Invenio LLP, calls the stance “logically inconsistent,” noting that insurers themselves underwrite contingent-risk cover that is often purchased by the very funders they now vilify. Marsh McLennan, Lockton and others already offer bespoke judgment-preservation and work-in-progress (WIP) policies that dovetail neatly with funder portfolios. Daniela Raz, a Marsh SVP and Omni Bridgeway alum, underscored that such products can allow litigants to “retain more proceeds than they would in an uninsured litigation-finance transaction,” blurring any bright line insurers try to draw between their own risk-transfer solutions and funder capital.

Insurers’ hard-line rhetoric may complicate capacity-placement for funders and plaintiff firms, but it also highlights litigation finance’s growing systemic relevance. If carriers continue to walk the talk—declining placements or hiking premiums for funder-adjacent risks—expect a rise in alternative instruments (captives, bespoke wrap policies, even reinsurer-backed facilities) and deeper collaboration between funders and specialty brokers to fill the gap. The skirmish could ultimately accelerate product innovation on both sides of the ledger.

A Northern District of California decision has handed patent plaintiff Haptic Inc. an important procedural win in its infringement fight with Apple over the iPhone’s “Back Tap” feature.

An article in eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin details Judge Jacqueline Corley’s ruling that work-product protection extends to Haptic’s damages analyses and related documents that were shared with a third-party litigation funder during due diligence.

Although Apple argued that those materials might reveal funder influence over strategy or settlement posture, the court held that Apple showed no “substantial need” sufficient to overcome the privilege. The opinion also rejects Apple’s broader bid for a blanket production of Haptic-funder communications, finding the parties had executed robust NDA and common-interest agreements that preserved confidentiality and avoided waiver. Only royalty-base spreadsheets directly relevant to Georgia-Pacific damages factors must be produced, but even those remain shielded from broader disclosure.

Judge Corley’s order is the latest in a string of decisions limiting discovery into financing arrangements unless a defendant can identify concrete, case-specific prejudice. For funders, the ruling underscores the importance of tight contractual language—and disciplined information flows—in preserving privilege. For corporate defendants, it signals that speculative concerns about control or conflicts will not, standing alone, open the door to funder dossiers.

Johnson & Johnson’s quest to unmask the financial backers behind the avalanche of talc-cancer claims just hit another wall. A special master overseeing the federal multidistrict litigation has rejected the company’s demand that plaintiffs’ firm Beasley Allen disclose its third-party funding agreements and related communications. The ruling affirms that the materials are protected attorney work product and that J&J failed to show any “substantial need” that would override that privilege.

Law360 reports that J&J argued funders might be steering litigation strategy or settlement positions, threatening fairness to the defendants. The special master disagreed, noting Beasley Allen’s lawyers, not its financiers, control the case and that J&J offered no concrete evidence of undue influence.

The decision aligns with a growing body of federal authority allowing discovery only when a defendant can articulate specific, non-speculative concerns. For funders, the order underscores that carefully structured agreements—and disciplined funder conduct—can withstand aggressive discovery campaigns even in headline-grabbing mass-torts.

The outcome is another tactical setback for J&J as it defends more than 60,000 ovarian- and mesothelioma-related suits while pursuing parallel bankruptcy maneuvers through subsidiary Red River Talc. For the legal-finance community, the ruling reinforces work-product boundaries and signals that courts remain wary of turning funding discovery into a fishing expedition.

Manolete Partners has announced a £3.2 million payout from the settlement of one of its truck cartel claims, marking a rare but highly profitable detour from its usual insolvency-focused litigation funding strategy.

A company release confirms that the settlement will generate a money multiple of approximately 6.6x and a cash ROI of 560% on Manolete’s £483,000 investment in the case. The settlement proceeds are expected to be received in full by 1 August 2025, and will be used to reduce indebtedness under its revolving credit facility with HSBC UK. Although the agreement’s terms are confidential, Manolete emphasized the significant cash return while noting that a non-cash fair value write-down of £836,000 will be applied to reflect the net asset value recorded in its March 2025 financials.

This settlement is part of a broader portfolio of truck cartel claims that Manolete has consistently labeled as a one-off deviation from its core business in insolvency litigation. The company stressed that while it is pleased with this result and optimistic about further progress on outstanding claims, it is “very unlikely” to pursue future competition law claims.

In preparation for its interim accounts ending September 30, 2025, the company anticipates a further £1.1 million non-cash write-down on the remaining unsettled truck cartel matters. With the settlement proceeds and combined £1.9 million in write-downs, Manolete expects the net asset value of the outstanding truck cartel claims to stand at approximately £10.3 million.

Manolete’s foray into competition claims raises compelling questions about the risk/reward calculus in diversifying beyond core litigation strategies. Even as the firm signals a retreat from this space, the outsized return could spark interest among funders considering similarly calculated bets outside their main verticals.

Almaden Minerals’ billion-dollar arbitration against the Mexican state just cleared a procedural hurdle that could hasten a merits hearing and, by extension, potential recovery for its financing partners.

An article in GlobeNewswire reports that the CPTPP tribunal overseeing Almaden’s claim has rejected Mexico’s attempt to bifurcate the case and litigate jurisdictional objections first. Mexico must now address the merits of the expropriation and fair-and-equitable-treatment allegations tied to the cancelled Ixtaca gold-silver project. Almaden, acting in concert with affiliate Almadex Minerals, argues the revocation of its mineral concessions wiped out a decade of investment and violated treaty protections.

As previously reported in Legal Funding Journal, the company is prosecuting the arbitration with up to $9.5 million in non-recourse finance secured in 2024 from an undisclosed specialist funder. The funding pact—structured to cover counsel from Boies Schiller Flexner and Ríos Ferrer—insulates Almaden’s balance sheet while granting the financier a contingent share of any eventual award.

Today’s procedural win therefore protects not only Almaden’s strategic timeline but also the funder’s upside economics by avoiding a costly detour on jurisdiction. Management expects the tribunal to release a revised schedule in Q4 2025, suggesting a merits hearing could follow in 2026 if no further delays arise.

For the legal-finance market, the decision underscores ISDS funding’s resilience despite geopolitical friction. Investor-state claims often hinge on jurisdictional sparring; forcing a state respondent to confront merits sooner can shorten the investment cycle and enhance IRRs.

A procedural ruling in London has put fresh heat on the brain-injury lawsuits rocking the rugby world. Senior Master Jeremy Cook lambasted solicitor Richard Boardman of Rylands Garth for “serious and widespread failures” in disclosure, finding that more than 90 percent of claimants lacked complete medical records. Crucially, Cook held that the claimants, “backed by a commercial litigation funder,” must pick up the tab for the defendants’ wasted costs—a rare instance of a funder’s involvement directly influencing a costs order.

The Guardian reports that over 1,000 former players allege governing bodies failed to protect them from repeated head trauma. While Cook declined to strike the claims, he warned that continued non-compliance could cull large portions of the roster before trial, now pencilled for 2026. The ruling also exposes tensions between rapid claimant sign-ups—fuelled by aggressive funding and advertising spend—and the evidentiary rigour English courts demand.

The decision is a shot across the bow for mass-tort funders operating in the UK. Expect tougher underwriting of medical-evidence protocols and sharper diligence on claimant-solicitor capacity. If courts keep linking funder money to costs penalties, premium pricing for sports-concussion risks may climb, and portfolio-level insurance such as ATE could become mandatory. The wider question: will stricter case management streamline meritorious claims—or chill capital for socially significant litigation? LFJ will be watching.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has thrown its weight behind two House measures—Rep. Darrell Issa’s Litigation Transparency Act (H.R. 1109) and Rep. Ben Cline’s Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (H.R. 2675). Both bills would force parties in federal civil actions to disclose third-party litigation-funding (TPLF) arrangements, while the latter would outright ban sovereign-wealth and foreign-state backing.

An article in Insurance Business America reports that APCIA’s federal-affairs chief, Sam Whitfield, told lawmakers at last week’s “Foreign Abuse of US Courts” hearing that undisclosed financiers inflate non-economic damages and, by extension, insurance premiums. Whitfield argued that hedge funds, private-equity vehicles and sovereign funds can currently steer litigation strategy from the shadows, possibly compromising national-security interests by harvesting sensitive discovery.

The legislation builds on a drumbeat of recent policy bids: Senate proposals to tax funder profits at 41%, a bipartisan push for MDL disclosure rules, and state-level consumer-funding caps. Unlike prior efforts, the Issa and Cline bills squarely target transparency and foreign capital rather than pricing, a framing likely to resonate with moderates concerned about geostrategic risk.

While passage in the current Congress is far from certain, APCIA’s endorsement amplifies industry pressure on lawmakers—and could spur compromises that impose at least some reporting duty on commercial funders.