High Rise Financial has added industry veteran Karyn Cerulli as Regional Vice President of Sales, deepening the Los-Angeles-based funder’s reach into the personal-injury bar. Cerulli spent more than a decade with FindLaw and Thomson Reuters, where she partnered with firms on digital marketing and business-development strategies. In her new role she pivots from lead generation to liquidity, positioning High Rise’s non-recourse advances as a client-care tool for plaintiffs’ firms facing lengthy litigation timelines.

A post on LinkedIn sets out Cerulli’s agenda: hands-on attorney support, a “best rate guarantee,” and white-glove service that places “zero pressure” on case strategy while delivering cash within days. Cerulli frames High Rise as a complement rather than a competitor to existing funders, inviting firms to keep her on standby as a “second option” or safety net when primary partners stall or pricing shifts.

The move comes amid rapid growth for High Rise, which secured a $100 million senior credit facility late last year to expand its pre-settlement portfolio and medical-lien program. The funder touts 24-hour approvals, no credit checks, and repayment only from a successful resolution—features that resonate with Cerulli’s long-time focus on consumer-friendly legal services. With her network of plaintiff-side marketers and case managers, the company hopes to accelerate origination across high-volume auto and premises claims.

Australia’s litigation-funding industry just received the judicial certainty it has craved.

Clayton Utz reports that the High Court, in Kain v R&B Investments [2025] HCA 26, unanimously held that the Federal Court may impose common-fund orders (CFOs) or funding-equalisation orders at settlement or judgment—ensuring all class members, not just those who signed funding agreements, contribute to a funder’s commission.

The Court reaffirmed Brewster’s bar on early-stage CFOs but found late-stage CFOs fall within the “just” powers of ss 33V(2) and 33Z(1)(g) of the Federal Court Act. Crucially, the bench rejected “solicitor common-fund orders,” ruling that any CFO benefiting plaintiff firms would contravene the national ban on contingency fees outside Victoria.

For funders, the decision cements the enforceability of commissions in nationwide class actions and removes a major pricing risk that had lingered since Brewster. For plaintiff firms, however, the ruling slams the door on a hoped-for new revenue channel.

The Court’s reasoning—tying funding commissions to equitable cost-sharing rather than contingency returns—will likely embolden funders to back larger opt-out claims, knowing a CFO safety-net is available at settlement. Meanwhile, plaintiff firms may redouble lobbying efforts for contingency-fee reform, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, to reclaim ground lost in today’s judgment. Whether lawmakers move on that front will shape Australia’s funding market in the years ahead.

A junior gold explorer is turning to third-party capital to fight what it calls the expropriation of a multi-million-ounce deposit.

According to a press release on ACCESS Newswire, ASX- and TSX-listed Sarama Resources has drawn down a four-year, US $4.4 million non-recourse facility from specialist funder Locke Capital II LLC. The proceeds will pay Boies Schiller Flexner’s fees and expert costs in Sarama’s arbitration against Burkina Faso at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Sarama alleges the government retroactively revoked its Tankoro 2 exploration permit in 2023, halting development of the flagship Sanutura project. An arbitral tribunal chaired by Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg held its first procedural hearing on 25 July; Sarama’s memorial is due 31 October, and the company is seeking no less than US $120 million in damages.

Under the Litigation Funding Agreement, Locke’s recourse is limited to arbitration proceeds and the ownership chain of Sanutura; Sarama’s other assets remain ring-fenced. Repayment occurs only on a successful award or settlement, with Locke’s return calculated on a multiple-of-invested-capital basis and adjusted for timing.

The deal underscores the continued appetite of specialist funders for investor-state claims, particularly in the mining sector where treaty protections offer a clear legal framework and potential nine-figure payouts.

A Texas-based consumer litigation financier is betting that radical price transparency will set it apart in the crowded pre-settlement funding market.

An Express Legal Funding press release announces that the company has launched a web-based “Lawsuit Loan Calculator” built on Gravity Forms that lets plaintiffs and their counsel generate real-time payoff estimates before taking an advance.

Company strategy director Aaron Winston said the tool aims to “bring transparency and confidence to a process that has historically felt opaque,” noting that many accident victims accept costly funding without a clear view of cumulative fees. The calculator outputs simple-interest repayment schedules and allows users to toggle loan amounts and projected case duration so they can compare the effective cost of capital against other options.

Express Legal Funding, founded in 2015 and active in more than 40 U.S. states, prices its non-recourse advances on a fixed-rate basis and caps total payback at the lesser of settlement value or contractual maximum. The company said the calculator also gives personal-injury lawyers a “conversation starter” to educate clients on true borrowing costs and to discourage over-funding that could jeopardize net recoveries. Industry peers have offered similar tools, but most calculate only monthly interest or require phone follow-ups for firm quotes; Express claims its interface delivers end-to-end transparency in under two minutes.

Gen Re has published a white-paper warning casualty carriers that “stealth capital” behind many U.S. lawsuits is complicating claims evaluation and settlement strategy. Drawing on recent state reforms in Georgia, Indiana and West Virginia, the authors urge adjusters to demand early disclosure of funding agreements, nail down who controls litigation decisions, and model “loss-amplification” where funder ROI targets distort settlement ranges.

The report flags a surge of bespoke contracts—some tying funder exit multiples to milestone events, others granting veto rights over settlement—placing traditional bad-faith calculations at risk. It also cites emerging defense tactics: subpoenaing funder communications after privilege waivers, and leveraging new civil-procedure rules that compel funding disclosure in federal mass-torts.

For legal-finance shops, the memo is a reminder that the insurance lobby is mapping counter-measures in real time. Expect more discovery fights over work-product doctrine and, potentially, higher re-insurer premiums priced into portfolios that contain funded claims.

Australia’s long-running investigative program, Four Corners, has turned its lens on the country’s booming class-action market— and on the third-party funders who bankroll it.

ABC News’ 47-minute report, The Price of Justice, chronicles how class actions once hailed as David-versus-Goliath tools have evolved into profit engines for litigation investors and plaintiff firms alike. Viewers are walked through three marquee matters: the $272 million Uber settlement backed by Harbour Litigation Funding, Indigenous “Stolen Wages” cases funded by Litigation Lending Services, and the notorious Banksia Securities collapse that saw lawyers doubling as funders and later embroiled in fraud. Former Harbour co-founder John Walker defends the model’s “social-justice bent,” but admits average recoveries for claimants can fall below 60% once commissions and fees are carved out.

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.

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.