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.

The four-year fight over New Zealand banks’ historic credit-law breaches has taken another twist, with plaintiffs proposing a NZ $306-309 million (US $184m) settlement that ANZ and ASB immediately branded a “stunt.” The offer comes as Wellington lawmakers fast-track amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act that could retroactively blunt liability for disclosure failures dating back to 2015.

An article in 1News notes that the 150,000-member class is jointly funded by Australia-based CASL and home-grown LPF Group, both entitled to a slice of any recovery. The banks fired back before Parliament’s Finance & Expenditure Committee, warning that the “windfall-driven” funders are exploiting regulatory loopholes while overstating consumer harm. Funders argue the legislative patch would hand banks a “free pass”—and jeopardise redress for borrowers already overcharged NZ $43 million in interest and fees. Officials estimate that failure to close the loophole could expose the industry to NZ $13 billion in follow-on claims.

Whether the proposed deal survives, the episode underscores two global trends: funders stepping into consumer-finance class actions once considered uneconomical, and defendants leveraging political capital to contain funded litigation. For the industry, Wellington is a bell-weather: if lawmakers either eviscerate or enshrine funded collective actions, other small markets may follow.

An opt-out competition settlement in the UK has hit an unusual snag: what to do with almost £10M in unclaimed passenger damages?

An article in Legal Futures recounts that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has invited submissions from claimant firm Charles Lyndon, litigation funder Woodsford, ATE insurers and the Access to Justice Foundation after fewer than one percent of eligible rail travellers filed claims against Stagecoach South West Trains. The 2024 deal ring-fenced £4.75M for costs up-front and allowed the class representative, consumer campaigner Justin Gutmann, to ask the Tribunal to re-allocate any leftover pot.

With the September entitlement hearing looming, Charles Lyndon is urging a £5–6M donation to the justice charity, while Woodsford argues its non-recourse investment entitles it to more of the residue. The CAT signaled it will weigh whether the outcome “predominantly” benefits stakeholders rather than class members—a pointed reminder that third-party funding returns remain subject to public-interest scrutiny even post-settlement.

Although smaller in dollar terms than the mammoth interchange-fee litigation, the dispute underscores funders’ growing role in allocation fights once the merits are resolved. How the CAT balances cost recovery and funder profit could set an influential template for other UK collective actions—especially as new rules and the PACCAR fallout push funders toward multiple-based fee structures with capped upside.

Litigation financiers have narrowly sidestepped what many saw as an existential threat: a 40 percent federal tax on funding profits that had been quietly tucked into the Senate’s sprawling reconciliation bill. While the proposal’s defeat means the industry will remain in tact, the close call has exposed deep fissures in an industry still fighting for political legitimacy.

An article in Bloomberg recounts how the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) scrambled a last-minute “war room,” tapping GOP fixer Pete Kirkham and leaning on senators Ron Wyden and Mike Lee to invoke the Byrd Rule and strip the revenue provision before a floor vote. The measure, authored by Sen. Thom Tillis, would have taxed funders at the top individual rate (37%) plus an additional 3.8%, barred loss-netting and lifted shields for tax-exempt investors—changes projected to raise $3.5 billion over a decade.

ILFA’s rapid mobilization underscored the piecemeal nature of the sector’s advocacy. Omni Bridgeway portfolio manager Gian Kull lamented that funders “are not one unified entity, like private equity,” while Parker Poe partner Michael Kelley called the bill “a rifle shot right to the heart.” Yet not every member chipped in for the fight, reviving free-rider complaints in an a highly fragmented industry. Meanwhile, opponents led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—and vocal corporates Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil and Liberty Mutual—signaled they will pivot to state legislatures and renewed transparency drives.

Writing on LinkedIn, Peter Petyt, founder of 4 Rivers Legal underscored the urgency of the current moment: "This moment calls for more than celebration — it demands leadership. The industry must come together to educate, advocate, and engage with lawmakers and the public in a constructive way."

For funders, the episode is a stark reminder that large corporations are gunning for this industry's very existence. Expect beefed-up lobbying budgets, accelerated ILFA recruitment and louder messaging on consumer access to justice as the industry braces for the next volley in what is fast becoming a multi-front policy war on third-party capital.

A Manhattan federal judge has handed Argentina a three-day reprieve in the long-running Petersen / Eton Park saga, pausing enforcement of a $16.1 billion judgment that would force the hand-over of the country’s 51 percent stake in YPF.

Reuters notes that Judge Loretta Preska pushed the turnover deadline to July 17 so Buenos Aires can seek emergency relief from the Second Circuit, while chastising the sovereign for what she called “continued delay and circumvention.” The minority shareholders—represented by Burford Capital—stand to capture as much as 73 percent of the proceeds if Argentina ultimately pays, a prospect the Milei administration says could destabilize an economy already battling 200 percent inflation and dwindling reserves.

Preska’s order reinforces New York courts’ willingness to deploy drastic remedies against recalcitrant sovereigns, signalling that litigation financiers can indeed convert paper judgments into hard assets—even politically sensitive ones like a controlling stake in a national oil champion.

For the wider industry, the decision spotlights the enforcement stage as a fertile (and risky) arena for capital deployment. Success here could spur more sovereign-related funding, but also sharpen calls for transparency around funder returns when public assets are at stake.

Fieldfisher has recruited litigation-funding specialist Verity Jackson-Grant to the newly created post of Head of Commercial Pricing, underscoring the firm’s intent to capitalize on sophisticated fee and finance structures in the wake of last year’s PACCAR fallout. Jackson-Grant, best known for translating third-party capital into user-friendly products for corporate clients, will sit within the firm’s European finance team and manage a multi-office pricing unit.

An update on LinkedIn confirms her appointment, noting that she will “drive and shape” Fieldfisher’s pricing strategy across the continent. The role’s blueprint calls for rolling out “creative pricing models” that enhance client profitability and embed alternative fee arrangements into disputes workflows.

Jackson-Grant brings a rare blend of funding fluency and law-firm know-how. A former director at TheJudge, she brokered litigation-finance and ATE insurance packages before moving in-house to develop alternative pricing frameworks for major UK and US practices.

The insurance industry’s long-simmering feud with third-party litigation finance boiled over on Monday.

In an article originally posted in the Wall Street Journal and covered in Insurance Business America, Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg and Marsh McLennan counterpart John Doyle deliver a joint broadside against what they dub the “litigation investment industry.” The duo argue that multi-billion-dollar capital inflows from hedge funds and foreign investors are fueling a 52% year-on-year jump in “nuclear verdicts,” pushing the average blockbuster award to US $51 million.

The duo's ire is heightened by Congress’ failure to preserve a 40.8% surtax on funder income that was stripped from President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” during reconciliation. Without tax parity, they warn, funders can pay 0 % capital-gains rates while plaintiffs shoulder income-tax burdens of up to 37%.

The executives cite data showing 135 verdicts above US $10 million in 2024 and estimate tort costs at US $529 billion—figures they link directly to opaque funding arrangements. Chubb, they reveal, is reviewing counterparties to sever any ties with litigation financiers, while Marsh has already refused to place insurance that facilitates funding.

Funders are already responding to the pair's remarks. William Marra, Director at Certum Group, wrote on LinkedIn: "Funders and their allies need to prepare for the policy debates ahead, because misguided proposals to kill funding may continue." Marra then highlighted proactive education, rapid response, success stories and coalition building as four strategies that funders should consider moving forward.

Burford Capital has once again reminded the debt markets that litigation finance is anything but niche.

An article in PR Newswire reports that the New York- and London-listed funder upsized its private offering of senior notes from an initial $400 million to $500 million after books closed multiple times oversubscribed. The eight-year paper priced at 7.5 %, Burford’s tightest spread over Treasuries to date, and will refinance $180 million in 6.125 % notes maturing this August while extending the weighted-average life of the balance sheet to 2033.

According to Burford CEO Christopher Bogart: "We're very pleased with the results of this latest debt offering, which added a half-billion dollars in capital, building on our momentum and strengthening our position to achieve our growth targets."

For investors, the transaction offers two signals: first, that the firm’s cash-realisation cycle—driven by landmark wins such as Petersen—continues to convert headline judgments into distributable cash; and second, that fixed-income desks are increasingly comfortable underwriting the risk profile of litigation finance even in a high-rate environment.

Omni Bridgeway has stepped in to bankroll a newly-filed Federal Court class action alleging that certain 2010-14 Toyota Corolla models suffer from a manufacturing defect that causes factory “040 white” paint to flake under UV exposure. Lead plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Fabian seeks compensation for diminished vehicle value and associated distress.

An article in Lawyerly says William Roberts Lawyers lodged the claim late Wednesday in Sydney, with Omni providing “no-win-no-pay” financing and an adverse-costs indemnity. The suit covers consumers who bought affected sedans or hatchbacks after 1 January 2011.

Plaintiffs allege Toyota breached Australia’s Consumer Law guarantee of acceptable quality, citing a 2022 Toyota bulletin that acknowledged adhesive degradation between primer and base metal. Class members face no out-of-pocket exposure; Omni recoups costs and takes a court-approved commission only from any recovery. Registration is open nationwide, and Omni’s portal details eligibility tests based on VIN build plates and paint codes.

The case exemplifies funders’ deepening appetite for high-volume consumer-product claims. Success here could spur similar “cosmetic defect” suits—particularly in Australia’s active class-action market—further diversifying funders’ portfolios beyond financial-services and securities disputes.