Australian companies face a class action landscape increasingly shaped by events beyond their borders, according to new analysis warning that overseas litigation, foreign regulatory activity, and global litigation funding flows now operate as leading indicators of claims that later emerge at home. For boards and executives, the message is that domestic precedent alone no longer defines exposure.

As reported by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, plaintiff firms are explicitly modeling Australian claims on foreign proceedings — in one instance announcing it was "investigating how an Australian claim could be run" following a U.S. technology ruling. The pattern spans medical products, automotive, and technology, with expansion anticipated into privacy, data, cyber, and climate-related disputes.

Foreign regulatory enforcement frequently acts as the catalyst. When overseas regulators scrutinize issues such as PFAS contamination or particular medications, Australian plaintiff firms often follow, leveraging the country's flexible consumer protection framework to build comparable claims.

Litigation funding plays a central role in this dynamic, with capital moving across jurisdictions to balance risk and return. The analysis notes that recent Australian court decisions — including rulings on common fund orders and confirmation of soft class closure — are expected to attract greater global funding capacity, potentially increasing both the volume and the resourcing of claims.

The practical takeaway for senior decision-makers is to monitor international developments proactively. Understanding overseas litigation strategies, regulatory priorities, and funding trends has become essential to anticipating exposure before Australian proceedings materialize.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified a £3 billion collective claim against Apple, allowing one of the country's largest consumer actions to proceed toward trial. The case, brought by consumer group Which?, alleges that Apple abused its dominant position in the iOS ecosystem by unlawfully favoring its own iCloud service over competing cloud storage providers.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, the tribunal certified the proceeding on June 25, 2026, sweeping in roughly 39 million UK consumers who used iCloud between November 2018 and June 2026. The opt-out structure means eligible UK residents are automatically included, while non-UK residents from the relevant period may opt in by October 8, 2026. Successful class members could recover up to £77 each, with trial scheduled for October 2028.

Which?, acting as class representative, has the backing of Litigation Capital Management's UK subsidiary, which is funding the claim. Notably, the tribunal dismissed Apple's objections to that funding arrangement — a point of continued significance as UK courts refine the rules governing third-party finance in the wake of the PACCAR decision.

Apple rejected the allegations, stating that it "rejected any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive" and pointing to "plenty of alternatives to choose from." The certification marks another milestone for funder-backed collective actions in the UK, where well-capitalized consumer claims against major technology platforms continue to test the limits of competition law.

Pogust Goodhead has lined up fresh capital and elite co-counsel for the next phase of its landmark claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil — one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts. The firm announced $150 million in new funding from Gramercy Funds Management, with an initial $85 million tranche, alongside a strategic partnership with U.S. litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, Quinn Emanuel will join as co-counsel for the quantum phase of proceedings, led by partner Justin Michelson and beginning in October 2026. The injection of funding and firepower comes as the case shifts from establishing liability to determining how much BHP must pay claimants.

The litigation has already cleared significant hurdles. In November 2025, Justice O'Farrell ruled BHP "strictly liable" for the Fundão dam failure, and the Court of Appeal rejected BHP's bid to challenge that finding in March 2026. Pogust Goodhead has secured an interim costs award of roughly £43 million, with claimants awarded 90% of their Stage 1 costs.

The road ahead remains long. The Stage 1 quantum trial is set for October 2026, with further proceedings on causation, loss, and damages scheduled across 2027 and closing submissions expected in March 2028. Damages assessments could extend well beyond 2030, underscoring both the scale of the claim and the staying power that third-party capital provides.

Omni Bridgeway, one of the world's largest legal finance providers, has released new content underscoring the specialized expertise required to fund international arbitration — disputes that frequently span multiple jurisdictions, legal systems, and languages. The piece positions the funder's cross-border capabilities as central to navigating an increasingly complex global disputes market.

According to Omni Bridgeway, funding international arbitration effectively demands a combination of "global expertise and local knowledge." The firm — listed on the ASX with 24 offices worldwide — points to a team that includes former arbitration lawyers and litigators, arbitrators, leaders of arbitral institutions, and business users of arbitration as the basis for its claim to be a global leader in the space.

The content emphasizes capabilities that distinguish arbitration finance from domestic litigation funding: risk assessment across multiple jurisdictions, cultural and multilingual fluency, and access to worldwide professional networks. Each reflects the reality that an arbitration award secured in one forum may still require enforcement efforts in several others before a funder or claimant sees a return.

While the material is promotional in nature, it reflects a broader trend: rising demand for capital and risk-sharing in cross-border disputes as international arbitration continues to grow. For claimants weighing whether to pursue complex multinational claims, the involvement of specialized funders increasingly shapes which cases move forward — and how far they can be pressed.

A court filing in the bankruptcy of Montgomery-based Jackson Hospital reveals that, under a joint prosecution and funding agreement, litigation funders and lawyers would be paid ahead of the hospital itself if its lawsuit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama produces a settlement. The arrangement offers an unusually clear public window into how a funded litigation recovery can be distributed.

As reported by Alabama Daily News, Jackson Hospital filed for bankruptcy and sued Blue Cross, arguing that only higher insurance reimbursement rates can keep the facility open. Its current operations are financed through a debtor-in-possession loan from Jackson Investment Group (JIG).

According to the agreement, any settlement proceeds would follow a strict waterfall: first, JIG's legal expenses; second, repayment of JIG's investment, including accrued and unpaid interest; and only then a split of what remains, with 70% directed to Jackson Hospital Corporation for its obligations to JIG and 30% to a nonprofit of JIG's choosing. The hospital itself effectively ranks third in the payment hierarchy.

The structure highlights a recurring tension in litigation finance: a courtroom victory does not always translate into the outcome a funded party most needs — here, the survival of the hospital. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Hawkins has scheduled a status hearing for June 30, leaving the ultimate distribution, and the hospital's future, unresolved.

As New York's new consumer litigation lending law takes effect, a Buffalo-based nonprofit is positioning itself as an alternative to the traditional, for-profit funding model the legislation is designed to rein in. The Milestone Foundation, backed by a newly formed advisory council and a client base of roughly 1,000, says its approach is built around reshaping how plaintiffs access funds while their cases are pending.

As reported by Law.com, the foundation is seeking to differentiate itself from conventional consumer litigation lenders, which advance cash to plaintiffs in personal injury and other cases in exchange for a share of any eventual recovery. Critics of that model have long argued that compounding fees can consume an outsized portion of a plaintiff's award, a concern that helped drive New York's move toward tighter regulation.

The timing is notable. New York's law arrives amid a broader national reckoning over consumer legal funding, with several states weighing disclosure requirements, rate caps, and other guardrails on the practice. By advancing a nonprofit alternative as the regulatory landscape shifts, the Milestone Foundation is testing whether a mission-driven structure can coexist with — and compete against — established commercial funders.

The development underscores how regulation and market innovation are increasingly moving in tandem within consumer legal funding. For plaintiffs, lawyers, and funders alike, New York's experience may offer an early indication of how alternative models perform once stricter rules are in place.

A new comment letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules contends that third-party litigation funding (TPLF) agreements do not automatically qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine — directly challenging one of the funding industry's central objections to a federal rule mandating disclosure.

According to AskAboutTPLF, an initiative of Lawyers for Civil Justice, the letter was authored by Bradley partner and privilege specialist Todd Presnell, who takes no position on whether a disclosure rule should be adopted. Presnell argues that TPLF agreements fail all four requirements needed to trigger attorney-client privilege: they are not communications, they are not between a client and lawyer, they lack confidentiality because funders are not parties to the litigation, and they do not contain legal advice or strategy. On that basis, he writes that he does "not perceive the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine as a barrier to adopting a mandatory-disclosure rule."

Two recent rulings are cited as support. In *Entangled Media, LLC v. Dropbox Inc.* (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2026), a court permitted a funded plaintiff to seal specific financial terms after in camera review while ordering production of the remainder of the agreement. In *A Co. Hungary KFT v. Bespalov* (Cal. App. 2d Dist., April 22, 2026), an appellate court affirmed $8,000 in sanctions against a judgment debtor who asserted work-product privilege as a blanket objection, holding that privilege claims over funding records must be made document by document.

The campaign argues these cases show courts already redact, seal, and log privileged materials routinely, and that TPLF agreements require no different treatment.

North Carolina has become the first state in the nation to enact an outright ban on third-party litigation funding, after Governor Josh Stein signed House Bill 315 into law. The measure makes it unlawful for outside investors to finance civil lawsuits in exchange for a financial interest tied to the outcome of the case, marking a significant departure from the disclosure-and-transparency approach adopted by other states.

As reported by WWAY-TV3, the law defines litigation investment as providing money for the fees, costs, or expenses of pending or potential civil proceedings in return for compensation contingent on the result. The statute authorizes the state attorney general to seek injunctions and civil penalties against violators, though certain activities are carved out from the prohibition.

The bill drew broad legislative support, passing the House unanimously and clearing the Senate by a 45-1 margin. Business groups, including the North Carolina Chamber and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, backed the measure, arguing it strengthens the state's legal and business climate. Critics counter that third-party funding can expand access to the courts for parties who otherwise lack the resources to pursue meritorious claims.

The development represents a notable escalation in the regulatory debate over litigation finance in the United States. While states such as Ohio and others have advanced transparency requirements, North Carolina's outright prohibition sets a new precedent that funders, defense interests, and legislators in other jurisdictions are likely to watch closely.

A coalition of 21 organizations led by the American Energy Alliance (AEA) has called on congressional leaders to close a tax provision that allows third-party litigation financiers to treat their profits as capital gains rather than ordinary income. The group argues the loophole enables foreign investors to extract effectively tax-free returns from U.S. court outcomes, with the American energy sector squarely in the crosshairs.

According to the American Energy Alliance, the letter was sent on June 22 to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and the tax-writing committees in both chambers. The coalition contends that foreign sovereign wealth funds and geopolitical rivals have deployed substantial capital into U.S. energy-related litigation, creating national security vulnerabilities through undisclosed financing arrangements.

"Foreign nationals and foreign corporations with no U.S. presence pay no U.S. withholding tax on these gains," said AEA President Tom Pyle. The letter frames third-party litigation funding as a high-yield alternative asset class and warns that foreign entities are weaponizing it in disputes over climate claims, intellectual property, mergers, and environmental regulation.

The campaign reflects the growing convergence of litigation finance, tax policy, and national security in Washington. While the letter does not cite a specific bill, its focus on capital gains treatment signals that funders' tax positions — long a secondary concern in the disclosure debate — are emerging as a distinct front in the broader fight over third-party funding.

Irwell Insurance Company has agreed a five-year capacity partnership with managing general agent Addept Insurance Services, significantly expanding the legal expenses insurance (LEI) capacity available to the UK specialist. The deal builds on an arrangement first struck in April 2025 and is designed to give Addept longer-term planning stability as demand for LEI cover accelerates.

As reported by Insurance Business, the expanded capacity will allow Addept to underwrite a greater volume of business, though financial terms were not disclosed. "Securing strong, quality capacity is a key strategic priority to maintain our pace of growth," said Addept managing director Richard Finan. Irwell chief executive Giles Reading said the partnership is focused on "delivering products that offer fair value to policyholders."

The agreement comes against a backdrop of mounting pressure on the UK's employment tribunal system. Caseloads reached 68,192 at the end of January 2026 — a nearly 50% year-on-year increase — while total outstanding claims now exceed 500,000 and disposals have fallen by roughly 20% over the same period.

Sweeping legislative changes are expected to drive claim volumes higher still. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will extend the claim time limit from three to six months in October 2026, and from January 2027 the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will drop from two years to six months, with the compensation cap removed. For LEI providers, the reforms point to sustained demand — and a growing need for the kind of durable underwriting capacity the Irwell-Addept deal is intended to supply.

The Ohio Senate has passed House Bill 105, advancing what supporters describe as one of the most comprehensive third-party litigation funding measures in the country and sending it to Governor Mike DeWine for signature. The legislation targets what its sponsors call an opaque, billion-dollar industry in which anonymous or foreign actors can shape the course of American lawsuits without disclosure.

According to the Ohio House of Representatives, the bill requires parties to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements to others in a case and bars the sharing of confidential court documents with funders. Sponsored by Reps. Meredith Craig and Jim Thomas, HB 105 would also require both consumer legal funding companies and commercial litigation financiers to register with the Ohio Attorney General before operating in the state, including disclosures about their leadership and affiliations.

The measure goes further than disclosure alone. It prohibits funders from influencing counsel selection, litigation strategy, or settlement decisions, and bars them from paying referral fees to attorneys. In a provision drawing national attention, the bill also restricts any foreign government, foreign corporation, or foreign investor from participating in third-party litigation funding within the state.

Business groups, including small-business advocates, have praised the bill as overdue transparency reform, while critics warn it could chill legitimate access to capital for plaintiffs. With the legislation now before Governor DeWine, Ohio is positioned to become an early bellwether for how aggressively states will regulate litigation finance.

A senior English costs judge has struck out a law firm's entire £30,000 success fee after finding that the firm failed to make reasonable inquiries into its client's existing legal expenses insurance before signing him to a conditional fee agreement. The ruling is a pointed reminder of the diligence funders and firms must exercise around pre-existing coverage before committing a client to risk-based financing.

As reported by Legal Futures, the case, Evans v Fletchers, arose from a 2017 motorcycle accident. The claimant, Peter Evans, had legal expenses insurance through his Zurich home policy, yet the firm took out after-the-event insurance and did not seriously investigate the existing cover until 2019. The claim settled in 2021 for £250,000 plus costs, and the firm billed £61,615, including a £30,365 success fee capped at 25% of damages.

Senior Costs Judge Jason Rowley disallowed the success fee in full, calling the firm's "desultory enquiries" fundamentally inadequate. He noted that specialist personal injury solicitors should have known the legal expenses insurer often differs from the home insurer, that inquiries made two years after the accident demanded greater diligence, and that the correspondence appeared designed to discourage a useful response. A competing firm, he observed, had easily identified the actual insurer.

The decision underscores that since success fees became largely unrecoverable after 2013, courts expect rigorous investigation of available "before-the-event" cover — a discipline with direct implications for how litigation is financed in the UK.

A cautionary first-person account from a retail investor is circulating as a warning about the risks lurking in consumer-facing litigation finance products — not in the underlying legal strategy, but in the structures wrapped around it. The piece arrives as more individual investors are drawn to litigation finance by promises of uncorrelated returns and pristine track records.

As reported by Alternative Assets, author Stefan von Imhof describes losing $10,000 in Fenchurch Legal's SPV 4, a vehicle marketed as financially sound with a "zero" default rate across hundreds of loans. The parent company entered administration in April 2026, putting more than 580 investors at risk of losing most or all of their capital. The core problem, he argues, was not the litigation lending itself but a special-purpose-vehicle structure that lacked genuine bankruptcy remoteness, leaving investors exposed to outside creditors.

His takeaways are blunt. A "0% default rate" is meaningless when platforms define default themselves. True ringfencing requires multiple legal protections, not marketing language, and most retail vehicles he examined were missing at least one. Named security trustees, insurers, and fund managers can disavow involvement when contacted directly. Audit opinions, he stresses, are the most revealing document, citing a reported £782 million in work-in-progress against only £87 million in deployed capital.

The overarching lesson for prospective investors is simple: independently verify every named entity rather than trusting the offering documents — a discipline that separates legitimate litigation finance from its imitations.

The United Kingdom's long-promised overhaul of litigation funding regulation has stalled again, and rival jurisdictions are moving to capture the investment that uncertainty is pushing offshore. Nearly three years after the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in *PACCAR* rendered most litigation funding agreements unenforceable by treating them as damages-based agreements, the government has yet to deliver the corrective legislation it pledged.

As reported by The Times, the continued delay is undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. The Ministry of Justice announced in December 2025 that it intended to clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, with legislation to follow "when parliamentary time allows." But the 2026 King's Speech omitted any litigation funding bill from the legislative programme, leaving funders and claimants without the statutory certainty they had been promised.

Industry participants have voiced deep disappointment, warning that the absence of reform creates an opening for offshore centers that have already implemented clearer rules on funder involvement. While those jurisdictions compete for capital, the UK continues to develop its framework largely through case law, with little appetite for comprehensive statutory change.

The practical effect, observers note, is that funders weighing where to deploy capital may increasingly look beyond London. For a market that has long marketed itself as the world's premier venue for high-value disputes, the prolonged *PACCAR* limbo carries real economic stakes.

A New York appellate ruling, paired with the state's newly enacted consumer litigation funding law, is giving defendants fresh tools to scrutinize the financing behind personal-injury claims they suspect are fraudulent. Together, the developments mark a notable shift toward transparency in a market that has historically operated outside the view of courts and opposing parties.

As reported by Law360, the Appellate Division, First Department, held in *Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC* that defendants may obtain discovery into a plaintiff's third-party litigation funding where they present evidence suggesting the underlying claims arose from systemic fraud. The November 2025 decision was the first time the court affirmed an order compelling a personal-injury plaintiff to produce funding-related discovery, vacating the note of issue to allow further inquiry.

The ruling lands alongside New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025, and effective 180 days later. The law caps a funder's recovery at 25% of a case's gross proceeds, requires plain disclosure of all charges and cumulative repayment amounts, and gives consumers a 10-business-day right to cancel without penalty. Attorneys are barred from accepting referral fees or holding financial interests in funding companies.

Notably, the statute stops short of mandating disclosure of funding arrangements during active litigation. For now, defendants seeking to expose questionable financing must rely on rulings like *Lituma* to pry those agreements into the open.

Burford Capital has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision that dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, the litigation funder's bid to arbitrate a dispute tied to German antitrust litigation. Burford contends the appeals court committed what it called a "fundamental error" in concluding that federal courts lacked authority over the matter.

As reported by Law360, Burford told the justices on June 16 that the Court's own decision earlier this year in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties is reason enough to undo the Third Circuit's ruling. In Jules, the Court held that a federal court which compels arbitration of federal claims under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act retains subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award, even without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the post-award proceeding.

Burford argues that principle squarely governs its case, and that the appeals court's contrary conclusion cannot stand in light of the new precedent. The funder is asking the justices to take up the matter and correct what it describes as a clear jurisdictional misstep.

The stakes extend beyond a single dispute. For funders, the ability to confirm and enforce arbitral awards in federal court is central to monetizing cross-border claims, and a jurisdictional dead-end at the enforcement stage raises both cost and risk. A decision to hear the case could bring welcome clarity for funders pursuing international, arbitration-related recoveries.

A new entrant has joined the litigation finance conference circuit. The inaugural Chicago Litigation Finance Summit convened at the Museum of Contemporary Art in early May, organized by Charles Zuo, a graduating JD/MBA candidate at Northwestern University.

As reported by Above the Law, Zuo built the program around a deliberately broad agenda, with panels spanning deal structures, funders operating across different capital structures, policy and academic perspectives, and legal technology. He described aiming for "both a diverse set of people and a diverse set of topics," pairing speakers who shared expertise but brought genuinely different vantage points.

Zuo's path to convening the summit included externing at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, clerking at Patterson Law, working at Bridge Legal, and serving as a law school ambassador for Harvey AI, alongside degrees in English literature, business analytics, and machine learning.

According to the profile, the inaugural event secured robust sponsor backing while maintaining editorial independence, and organizers reported strong feedback from attendees on the return generated by their participation.

The summit's arrival adds Chicago to a growing roster of regional venues where funders, lawyers, academics, and technologists gather as litigation finance continues to mature into an established asset class. Above the Law published the profile as the first installment of a two-part series.

A new lawsuit casts a harsh light on the consumer litigation funding model, with a major insurer accusing a New York funder of engineering a scheme to inflate personal injury claims at carriers' expense.

As reported by Insurance Business, New York Marine & General Insurance Company has sued Case Cash Funding and its principal, Gregory Elefterakis, a suspended attorney, in Manhattan federal court. The complaint, filed June 12, alleges that Case Cash advanced modest sums to injured claimants as "non-recourse" funding, then used its control over the claims to balloon them into multimillion-dollar demands.

According to the suit, the defendants paid referral fees to medical clinics, steered claimants toward favored attorneys, conditioned funding on claimants undergoing surgery, and blocked settlements that did not maximize their returns. In one instance, the parties had agreed on a $750,000 settlement, but the funder allegedly refused and asserted a lien of more than $1.4 million instead. The complaint cites a claimant who received just 13.3% of a $3.75 million settlement while the funder collected 47.5%, and another facing an effective interest rate of roughly 170%.

The filing also points to a securitization instrument, PEAR 2022-1, said to contain more than $84.6 million in receivables across nearly 16,807 advances—underscoring the scale of the operation. The case adds to mounting insurer pushback against consumer legal funding practices and feeds the broader debate over disclosure and regulation of the industry.

In a striking outcome for funded collective actions, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has signed off on the discontinuation of a £480 million claim against Qualcomm that delivers no compensation to the millions of consumers it was meant to benefit.

As reported by CDR News, the Tribunal approved a "drop-hands" settlement on June 10 under which all parties discontinue proceedings and bear their own costs. The claim, brought by the Consumers' Association (Which?) as class representative, had alleged that Qualcomm abused its market dominance to overcharge for smartphone chips, inflating handset prices.

The Tribunal assessed the claim's prospects at just 10% to 15%, concluding that the class representative "no longer had a realistic prospect of success." The result is believed to be the first CAT settlement resolved on a drop-hands basis, with neither the class nor the funder receiving any payment despite the claim's headline valuation.

The action had been backed by litigation funder Augusta Ventures alongside law firm Hausfeld. For the funder, the outcome represents a total loss on its investment in the case—a pointed illustration of the downside risk inherent in the opt-out regime.

The decision lands amid intensifying scrutiny of funded class actions in the UK, where the Tribunal has shown a growing willingness to test the merits, economics, and consumer benefit of collective proceedings before allowing them to advance or settle.

As private equity firms extend their reach into the legal industry, a new commentary argues that the tax code has failed to keep pace with how litigation funders actually earn their returns.

Writing for RealClearMarkets, Michael Toth contends that third-party litigation funders routinely claim favorable capital gains treatment on their returns when that income should be taxed as ordinary income. He notes that the Treasury Department "has never bothered to clarify the proper tax treatment of TPLF returns," leaving a roughly $20 billion industry to structure deals as "derivative contracts" despite funders performing work that closely mirrors that of plaintiffs' attorneys—vetting cases, advising on strategy, and managing litigation budgets.

The piece opens with Fortress's recent $125 million investment in an Arizona personal injury firm, which Toth frames as evidence that funders are shifting from wagering on individual case outcomes toward financing law firms' back-office operations and steadier revenue streams. He argues that the disclosure bills congressional Republicans have introduced since 2019 are "focused on yesterday's market," addressing single-case funding even as investors move toward portfolio and operational models. He also flags that nonresident foreign funders can often avoid federal tax on U.S. litigation gains altogether.

Toth's proposed fix relies on existing authority: he urges Treasury to apply the substance-over-form doctrine and tax funding returns as ordinary business income, while noting that Congress could amend the definition of capital assets to exclude legal claims.

The credibility of the UK's opt-out collective action regime increasingly depends on a stubborn problem: persuading class members to actually claim the damages won on their behalf.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Rachel Rothwell, editor of Litigation Funding, examines how little of the money awarded in landmark cases is reaching the consumers it is meant to compensate. In Gutmann v South Western Trains, the boundary fares case, roughly £25 million was awarded—yet take-up was less than 1%, with only about £200,000 distributed to class members and £3.8 million directed to the Access to Justice Foundation. Many passengers, she notes, abandoned their claims once asked to supply bank details, wary of fraud.

The forthcoming Merricks v Mastercard payout will test the regime on a far larger scale. With £100 million of the £200 million settlement ringfenced for as many as 44 million potential claimants—roughly £45 to £70 each—the case has become a referendum on whether opt-out actions can deliver for the public rather than primarily for lawyers and funders.

Rothwell canvasses several proposed fixes: a central public register of claims endorsed by government or the courts; compelling defendants, particularly in the tech and utility sectors, to assist with distribution; and building trust through charities and consumer groups while offering vouchers in place of direct bank transfers. Legitimacy, she argues, hinges on a meaningful share of damages reaching those actually harmed.

The High Court has rejected litigation funder Innsworth's judicial review challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's distribution of the £200M Merricks v Mastercard settlement, ending the first substantive test of a CAT settlement decision and handing class representative Walter Merricks what he called "a total victory."

As reported by Legal Futures, the CAT's January ruling allocated the first £100M to consumers, repaid Innsworth its estimated £46M outlay, and capped the funder's profit at 50% — roughly £23M — for a guaranteed total return of about £68M. In setting a 1.5x return, the tribunal noted that the settlement of a claim originally valued at £14bn was "very far from a success" for the 44M-member class.

Lord Justice Males rejected all three grounds of review, observing that a 50% profit "was not a bad result" for a funder that would likely have lost its entire investment had the case gone to another trial. Merricks accused Innsworth of seeking "to elevate its grab for profits over and above all other considerations," and said distribution to consumers can now begin. Innsworth, which is separately pursuing arbitration against Merricks, warned that inadequate funder returns will drive "a reallocation of capital towards lower-risk claims," and accused the CAT of acting as "a de facto regulator of the litigation funding market" while offering no clear guidance on permissible returns.

Winward Litigation Finance CIO Jeremy Marshall predicted the ruling "will certainly put the brakes on funders' appetites" for CAT claims.

While most state legislatures have pursued disclosure and registration regimes for litigation finance, North Carolina is advancing something far more drastic: an outright ban.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, North Carolina senators have approved legislation that bans litigation finance in the state, sending the measure to the state House.

The vehicle is House Bill 315, which began life as a "Gift Card Theft & Unlawful Business Entry" bill before being rewritten in the Senate as "an act to prohibit litigation investments in the civil justice system, to prevent the civil justice system from becoming a financial investment market." The amended bill makes it unlawful "to engage in litigation investment" in North Carolina or to furnish litigation investment to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding — defining litigation investment broadly as any provision of money for litigation fees, costs, or expenses in exchange for repayment contingent on the outcome.

The bill carves out narrow exceptions for contingency-fee arrangements, insurer obligations, nonprofit legal aid, non-contingent loans, and funding from family members. Its legislative findings lean heavily on national security concerns, citing the risk of undisclosed foreign persons and entities investing in domestic litigation.

The measure stands in sharp contrast to recent state activity elsewhere — Kansas, Michigan, and New Jersey have all advanced transparency-focused frameworks this year that regulate rather than prohibit the industry. If enacted, North Carolina would become one of the most restrictive litigation finance jurisdictions in the country, and industry critics have already characterized the gut-and-replace maneuver as a legislative bait-and-switch.

A proposed UK collective action against major musical instrument manufacturers is collapsing for want of litigation funding — a concrete illustration of the financing squeeze facing claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

As reported by Law360, consumer rights advocate Elisabetta Sciallis applied on Wednesday to withdraw her proposed class action against Fender, Yamaha, and other musical instrument manufacturers, saying she had been unable to secure litigation funding despite years of effort.

Sciallis, a principal policy adviser at consumer group Which?, filed a series of proposed opt-out collective actions in 2022 on behalf of consumers who purchased musical instruments, following on from Competition and Markets Authority decisions fining several manufacturers for resale price maintenance. The claims had been stalled at the certification stage for years, and the tribunal had grown increasingly impatient: a March 2026 case management order listed a preliminary hearing for after June 5 specifically to determine the adequacy of the proposed class representative's funding and insurance arrangements.

The withdrawal underscores a broader theme in the UK collective actions regime. With the CAT tightening its scrutiny of certification and funder returns — and with the Innsworth-Mastercard distribution fight casting doubt on the economics of opt-out claims — funders have become increasingly selective about which collective proceedings they will back. For proposed class representatives unable to assemble a viable funding package, even claims that follow on from regulatory infringement findings may prove impossible to sustain.

More than £3.7M left unclaimed from a funded rail passenger class action is being redeployed to support free legal advice services across the UK, offering a window into what happens to undistributed damages in the Competition Appeal Tribunal's collective actions regime.

As reported by Consumer Voice, the money comes from the Boundary Fares class action involving South Western Trains, brought on behalf of passengers allegedly overcharged for journeys extending beyond their London Travelcard zones. While thousands of class members came forward, millions of pounds remained unclaimed when the settlement distribution closed, and the CAT awarded the residue to the Access to Justice Foundation.

The foundation has now announced the recipients of its Improving Lives Through Advice 2026 programme, a three-year grants initiative funded by the unclaimed damages that will support 16 organizations providing free legal advice on housing, employment, debt, and consumer issues. In approving the award, the tribunal said the money "could make a huge difference in facilitating access to justice for the needy and vulnerable."

The scale of demand was striking: the grant programme received 315 applications requesting more than £70M. Foundation chief executive Clare Carter noted that while the £3.7M will have real impact, it "will not be sufficient to meet the sheer scale of unmet need," with more than 11M people each year failing to get help with legal problems.

The award also highlights the persistent take-up challenge in opt-out collective proceedings, where low claim rates routinely leave substantial settlement funds undistributed.

Consumer legal funder Legal-Bay LLC is expanding its summer funding initiatives to help plaintiffs manage rising seasonal expenses while their cases work through the courts.

According to PR Newswire, the New Jersey-based company is positioning its non-recourse cash advances as an alternative to credit cards, personal loans, or premature settlement offers for plaintiffs facing summer costs such as travel, childcare, camps, and higher utility bills. Because the advances are non-recourse, clients repay only if their case resolves successfully; if there is no recovery, there is no repayment obligation.

"Summer should be a time for families to relax and enjoy themselves, not worry about how they're going to pay bills while waiting for a lawsuit to settle," said CEO Chris Janish. "Our mission is to provide fast, transparent legal funding that helps plaintiffs maintain financial stability throughout the litigation process."

Legal-Bay reports increased demand for lawsuit funding during the summer months, and says it works directly with attorneys and plaintiffs nationwide to expedite approvals — often delivering funding decisions within 24 to 48 hours of receiving required documentation. The company funds a wide range of case types, including personal injury, motor vehicle accidents, slip and falls, wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, medical malpractice, and mass tort litigation.

The seasonal push reflects a familiar pattern in the consumer legal funding market, where demand tends to track household cash-flow pressures as much as litigation timelines — and where funders increasingly market liquidity as a tool for plaintiffs to avoid settling early at a discount.

A new entrant has arrived in the European litigation funding market, with Felix von Zwehl announcing that MOMENTUM Legal Finance, a German funder he has spent recent months building, is now operational. Von Zwehl brings more than 15 years in dispute resolution and a decade in litigation finance to the venture, which is positioned around the enforcement of high-value commercial claims.

According to MOMENTUM Legal Finance, the firm is built on the conviction that markets create sustainable value only when their rules are respected, and that conduct such as cartels, abuse of dominant position, market manipulation, and intellectual property infringement harms not only individual claimants but trust, competition, and market integrity more broadly. The funder frames its mission as making private enforcement accessible, disciplined, and economically rational for those who have suffered harm.

MOMENTUM's model centers on financing the enforcement of claims and participating in the recovery upon success, with a deliberate focus on a select number of high-value commercial disputes. The firm also offers a claim-purchase option, acquiring claims outright to provide immediate liquidity. It says it combines legal-AI tools with the experience of senior industry figures on its advisory board to strengthen legal analysis, while stressing that technology is meant to support rather than replace human judgment.

Von Zwehl emphasized a client-centric approach, pledging to work directly with claimants as decision-makers rather than through layers of committees and to remain committed to cases through resolution. The launch adds further depth to Germany's increasingly competitive litigation funding landscape.