A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

After four years helping to build CAC Specialty’s contingent risk insurance practice from the ground up, Shai Silverman is departing the firm to join litigation risk insurer Litica as its Head of Underwriting – U.S.

In a LinkedIn post, Silverman reflected on his time at CAC, where he joined in the early days of the firm’s efforts to turn contingent risk insurance into a mainstream product. Alongside colleagues Andrew Mutter, Michael B. Wakefield, and David Barnes, Silverman helped develop insurance solutions for a wide array of legal risks, crafted bespoke products for hundreds of clients, and played a key role in launching the first-ever contingent risk insurance conference.

Silverman now moves to Litica, a UK-headquartered specialist insurer focused on litigation and contingent risks, to lead its U.S. underwriting function. His move signals not just a personal transition but also the growing transatlantic ambitions of insurers operating in this once-niche corner of legal risk.

Silverman’s departure marks a broader inflection point for contingent risk insurance—a sector now poised for significant expansion. As underwriting talent like Silverman shifts into leadership roles at specialist firms, questions emerge around how traditional insurers will respond, and whether contingent risk insurance will continue its trajectory toward becoming a standard risk-transfer tool for litigation and arbitration.

The Minister for Justice in Ireland has expressed serious reservations about introducing third‑party litigation funding. Speaking at a dispute resolution conference hosted by Mason Hayes & Curran, Jim O’Callaghan emphasized his concern about “commodifying justice” and his reluctance to see lawyers as the principal beneficiaries of funding regimes. He pledged to review the forthcoming report from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) before making any decisions.

An article in Law Society Gazette reports that under current Irish law, third-party litigation funding by parties without a legitimate interest in the dispute is prohibited, though exceptions exist. O’Callaghan acknowledged the potential access‑to‑justice benefits of such funding, but warned that in practice the “big winners” tend to be lawyers. He stated, “I have no interest, in my role as Minister for Justice, in enriching lawyers.”

During the same panel, barrister Emily Egan McGrath SC noted that Irish courts have expressed growing frustration at the absence of legislative reform and have sometimes stretched existing exceptions—for example, in Campbell v O'Doherty, where the High Court rejected a challenge linked to crowdfunding. The panel also discussed evolving developments under EU law—such as the Representative Actions Directive—which may force Ireland’s hand. But speakers cautioned that the high costs of mass actions might discourage parties without funding support.

MHC partner Colin Monaghan observed heightened wariness in the UK about unregulated litigation funders, while Rory Kirrane SC warned of internal conflicts between funders and claimants over litigation proceeds. The panel speculated that any regulatory framework should fall under existing bodies (such as the Central Bank or CCPC) instead of creating a new oversight agency. Former Chief Justice Frank Clarke, president of the LRC, endorsed reform as essential—but insisted it must be accompanied by rigorous regulation.

O’Callaghan’s expressed reluctance signals that any move toward regulated third‑party funding in Ireland will face political and institutional resistance. For the legal funding industry, this cautious posture underscores the importance of demonstrating safeguards, transparency, and proportionality if funding models are to gain traction in conservative jurisdictions.

A litigation funder is driving lawsuits against prediction market platform Kalshi Inc. in six states, using an 18th‑century gambling law in a bid to claw back losses from predictions gone wrong.

An article in Bloomberg Law describes how Veridis Management LLC and its CEO, Maximillian Amster, are behind entities filing suits in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Georgia. The lawsuits invoke state versions of the anti‑illegal gambling “Statute of Anne,” which allows losing parties to sue winners for losses plus fees.

The targeted suits allege that Kalshi—which operates as a platform for trading event contracts—is facilitating illegal, unregulated wagering and violating both state and federal law. The complaint includes examples such as bets on NBA championship scores and whether Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028.

The plaintiffs also name Robinhood and Webull, platforms that host Kalshi’s contracts, as defendants. While Kalshi declined to comment, the article notes that Kalshi’s status as a designated contract market under the CFTC is central to the legal conflict: that designation shields it from state gambling regulation, but its boundaries are under scrutiny. A U.S. court has already weighed in, ruling that prediction of a political election does not qualify as “gaming” under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Veridis is portrayed as a specialist in complex litigation and regulatory claims, investing in high‑stakes, nonrecourse cases. Amster, formerly in real estate and private equity, steers this strategic litigation play. The article frames the Kalshi suits as a bold frontier for litigation funders—leveraging obscure statutes to attack financial innovation.

These developments may push litigation funders further into regulatory and doctrinal controversy. How courts and regulators respond to this stretch of archaic statutes could reshape strategic boundaries in the litigation finance industry.

Recent commentary in Law Gazette examines claims that the growth of collective litigation poses a damaging drag on economic performance. The article notes that the pressure group Fair Civil Justice estimates that unchecked mass claims could cost the UK up to £18 billion, erode £11 billion in market value from innovative firms, and slow the country's economic expansion. The article traces the evolution of these arguments, arguing that some of the most dire projections hinge on models that may overstate systemic risk or underplay countervailing benefits.

An article in Law Gazette highlights critics' concerns that the scale, costs, and complexity of aggregating claims impose administrative burdens, encourage excessive fees, and generate uncertainty—especially for firms facing litigation exposure.

Supporters of collective actions stress the role these mechanisms play in providing access to justice—particularly for dispersed or under-resourced claimants. The commentary suggests the debate often pivots on how to balance deterrence, fairness, cost control, and innovation incentives. Law Gazette ultimately questions whether the worst economic forecasts are empirically grounded or rhetorical excess.

The piece does not settle the question definitively but invites policymakers and industry stakeholders to interrogate the assumptions behind £‑billions‑scale estimates, and to examine whether reforms or guardrails might preserve the virtues of collective redress while limiting speculative or obstructive litigation risk.

If the narrative of mass litigation harming growth gains traction, legal funding and litigation finance will be pushed deeper into regulatory debates. Watching how lawmakers, courts, and economic commentators reconcile access to justice with macroeconomic risk will be critical for the future of third‑party funding.

Shares of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) plunged about 60% after the firm disclosed that a string of case losses has triggered “a material uncertainty in relation to our going concern status.”

According to its results for the year to 30 June, LCM won six and lost six cases, with three further cases currently under appeal (worth ~£22 million). The firm also disclosed a High Court defeat in a commercial matter where it had invested £16 million (its own funds plus managed funds). While it posted net gains of £11 million and a 1.8× multiple on concluded investments, overall it recorded a £41 million loss because of the adverse outcomes.

With debt levels rising and cash realizations weakening, LCM now finds itself increasingly reliant on its credit facility. The company acknowledges that further case losses could breach debt covenants, prompting a strategic review and consideration of a leaner, run‑off model. LCM’s share closed at an all‑time low of 10.75p—down from ~100p a year earlier.

CEO Patrick Moloney attributed the underperformance to the inherently binary nature of litigation funding—and to perceived drift from a formerly “hands‑on” model toward a more passive, lawyer‑led investment approach. To recover, LCM is cutting costs, trimming underperforming investments, reinstating rigorous quantitative due diligence, reducing staffing, and revamping its approach to expert evidence.

LCM currently has 53 active cases on its books with a total balance sheet exposure of ~£85 million.

LCM’s collapse is a cautionary tale for the litigation funding sector: the binary risk profile of legal finance, combined with leverage and reputation shocks, can quickly tip even seasoned players into crisis. If more funders follow this trajectory, we may see heightened demands for transparency, stronger regulatory oversight, or a shake‑out in the publicly traded tier of legal funders.