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.

Theo Ai has elevated litigation strategist Sarah Johansson to Head of Legal Product, a move the Palo Alto-based start-up says will help turn its AI-driven prediction engine into an everyday tool for Big Law, in-house counsel, and litigation financiers seeking sharper case analytics.

A notice in PR Newswire details how the London-trained attorney—whose résumé spans multimillion-dollar disputes at Rosling King LLP and an LL.M. from Georgetown—has spent the past year embedding with client legal teams to refine Theo Ai’s settlement-value and win-probability models. Her new remit is to scale those insights into a product roadmap that lawyers trust and investors can underwrite against.

Johansson steps into the role as Theo Ai builds traction among capital providers: the company recently closed a $4.2 million seed round and announced a strategic partnership with Mustang Litigation Funding, signaling that funders see AI-assisted diligence as a competitive edge.

Co-founder and CEO Patrick Ip credits Johansson’s skill at “translating legal complexity into product clarity” for bridging the cultural gap between data scientists and courtroom veterans. The platform ingests historical docket data and real-time analytics to forecast outcomes, a workflow analysts say can compress decision cycles for both lawyers and financiers.

With underwriting speed and accuracy now table stakes, Johansson’s charter to align product features with frontline legal workflows could accelerate adoption of predictive analytics across the funding sector. The Mustang tie-up bears watching as a template for deeper, data-sharing collaborations between tech providers and funders eager to price risk in an increasingly crowded market.

Capitol Hill is again zeroing in on litigation finance. During a House Judiciary Sub-committee hearing on “foreign abuse of U.S. courts,” Chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) revived his Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, which would mandate public disclosure of any outside funding in federal civil suits, along with the identity of the backer and the terms of the agreement.

An article in Bloomberg Law notes that Issa framed disclosure as a fairness measure—defendants already turn over insurance information—while hinting that opaque funding may enable “legal warfare” by foreign adversaries. The hearing featured witnesses from the insurance lobby and national-security analysts who linked anonymous capital flows to social-inflation pressures and geopolitical risk.

Although prior attempts at federal transparency rules have stalled, Issa’s bill dovetails with a parallel Senate push and a patchwork of state-level disclosure mandates. Funders argue that blanket reporting would chill investment and expose proprietary strategy; critics counter that sunlight would deter foreign influence and forum shopping. Sub-committee members floated amendments ranging from confidential in-camera filings to a PACER-style public registry.

For litigation financiers, the renewed spotlight could herald a regulatory inflection point: a narrowly tailored disclosure regime might boost legitimacy, but broad public filings could drive capital offshore or into other investment types altogether. Either way, today’s hearing signals that Washington’s debate over balancing access-to-justice benefits with transparency and national-security concerns is far from settled.

A new report catalogues how marquee investments in the £58 million Post Office settlement and the still-pending $15 billion Sabah arbitration have delivered thinner-than-advertised returns for Therium Capital. Add in 2023’s PACCAR ruling, which re-classified many funding contracts as damages-based agreements and capped recoveries, and the firm’s prospects look increasingly fragile.

An article in Boracay Island News recounts how Therium has scaled back new underwriting, shifted several legacy portfolios to Fortress Investment Group, and is now fighting to salvage returns in Therium v Bugsby—a test case on whether “DBA-style” clauses can simply be severed from legacy deals.

The piece underscores three structural stresses: concentration risk when outsized single matters dominate a fund; regulatory uncertainty post-PACCAR; and the reputational hit when claimant recoveries prove modest once funder multiples and lawyer fees are paid. Industry observers worry that if “grand-slam” cases continue to disappoint, limited-partner appetite for blind-pool capital could tighten, forcing funders to rely more heavily on secondary markets or bespoke co-invests.

For the wider legal-funding ecosystem the story is a sobering reminder: transparency, portfolio diversification, and realistic pricing will be increasingly important in a world of tougher judicial scrutiny and return caps.

Third-party funders are once again in the cross-hairs—and one of the sector’s elder statesmen is firing back. In a forthright essay published today, Calunius Capital chairman Leslie Perrin argues that Britain’s collective redress regime “cannot survive” if fresh assaults on funder fees succeed.

In an article in Solicitors Journal, Perrin points to two flashpoints: the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR ruling, which invalidated percentage-based funding agreements, and a new bid in Neill v Sony to outlaw multiples-based returns as well. At the same time, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is facing a judicial-review challenge from funder Innsworth over its decision to slash the funder’s recovery in the landmark £200 million Merricks v Mastercard settlement—an intervention Perrin calls “dangerously simplistic.”

Perrin’s broader thesis is that without well-capitalised funders prepared to shoulder adverse-costs risk, consumers will be left “stranded” against well-resourced corporate defendants and the CAT’s promise of affordable group litigation will wither. Perrin also takes aim at lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he says seeks to “promote opposition to litigation funding” under the guise of economic prudence. In place of curbs, he backs the Civil Justice Council’s recommendation for legislation reversing PACCAR retrospectively and prospectively.

If Westminster heeds those warnings, UK funders could regain certainty and renew their commitment to competition-class actions. But if further fee-caps or invalidations emerge, capital will flee to jurisdictions with clearer rules—leaving an access-to-justice gap just as collective-action appetite is peaking. Whether Innsworth’s challenge succeeds may therefore set the tone for the next chapter of UK litigation finance.

Alarm bells over the economic cost of UK class actions are “simply wrong,” says Anthony Maton, global co-chair of claimant firm Hausfeld, who dismantles a think-tank report suggesting mass litigation could sap £18 billion from the economy.

In The Global Legal Post, Maton traces the deliberate parliamentary design behind the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CAT’s rigorous gatekeeping of collective proceedings. He argues that funders—often caricatured as “ambulance chasers”—perform an essential market-correction role, underwriting meritorious competition claims that regulators or individual consumers lack resources to pursue. The piece notes that voluntary redress schemes built into the Act “have been used precisely zero times,” reinforcing the need for well-financed private enforcement.

Maton also rebuts suggestions that funders extract disproportionate value, pointing to oversight mechanisms and adverse-costs exposure that align investor and claimant interests. He invites sceptics to consider whether ill-gotten profits are better left with infringing corporates or redistributed to harmed consumers and access-to-justice charities.

The commentary offers a timely counter-narrative as Westminster considers PACCAR-related reforms. By reframing funders as pillars of a competitive economy rather than rent-seekers, it may bolster lobbying for statutory clarity on LFAs and head off calls for US-style disclosure mandates. Expect industry groups to amplify this message—and for critics to sharpen economic-impact modeling—in the run-up to any government consultation.

A critical procedural milestone has been set in the high-profile dispute over the $15 billion arbitral award claimed by the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate against Malaysia. A Paris court has scheduled a hearing for December 9, where it will decide whether to annul the partial award issued by a Spanish arbitrator—a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for the legitimacy of third-party funded arbitration in sovereign disputes.

As reported by The Malaysian Reserve, the case stems from a 2022 ruling which found Malaysia liable for ceasing annual payments related to a 19th-century lease of territory now part of Sabah. The award has been described as one of the largest in arbitration history and is backed by Therium, a UK-based litigation funder. Malaysia has consistently challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, resulting in conflicting decisions in courts across Spain, France, and Luxembourg.

The upcoming Paris ruling will not address the full $15 billion award but rather the validity of the partial award that formed the foundation for the final judgment. Malaysia’s legal representatives argue that the arbitration itself is void, citing breaches in due process and the arbitrator's alleged overreach.

The Sulu case has become a lightning rod in debates over state immunity, the enforceability of investor-state arbitration, and the role of third-party funders in politically sensitive disputes. As funders continue to back complex claims against sovereign states, the Paris court’s decision may set a significant precedent for the enforceability—and reversibility—of arbitral awards financed by external capital.

Omni Bridgeway is pushing the boundaries of legal finance with a newly detailed strategy to monetise complex non-performing loan (NPL) portfolios—particularly those stuck in regulatory limbo under IFRS 9. The funder’s latest blog outlines a first-of-its-kind securitisation in Morocco where Omni both bought a bank’s Stage-3 loans and assumed recovery management, creating what it calls a “regulatory-compliant exit” for lenders weighed down by lifetime expected-credit-loss charges.

An article on Omni Bridgeway's website explains that the initiative forms part of the firm’s Distressed Asset Recovery Program, led by Marijn Flinterman. Key features include contingent pricing so banks keep upside, co-investment structures, and cross-border enforcement to chase obligors’ assets. The piece highlights how the model can dovetail with EU prudential back-stops, the UAE’s five-year default rules, and nascent African secondary-debt markets, positioning Omni as both capital provider and workout specialist.

For legal funders, the pivot shows a maturing asset class moving beyond one-off claims into portfolio-level credit solutions that compete with private-equity special-situations desks. If successful, other funders may replicate the strategy, blurring lines between litigation finance, debt-trading and structured credit.