France has taken a significant step in codifying oversight of third-party financed collective actions with the issuance of Decree No. 2025-1191 on December 10, 2025.

An article in Legifrance outlines the new rules, which establish the procedure for approving entities and associations authorized to lead both domestic and cross-border collective actions—referred to in French as “actions de groupe.” The decree brings long-anticipated regulatory clarity following the April 2025 passage of the DDADUE 5 law, which modernized France’s collective redress framework in line with EU Directive 2020/1828.

The decree grants authority to the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) to process applications for approval. Final approval is issued by ministerial order and is valid for five years, subject to renewal.

Approved organizations must meet specific governance and financial transparency criteria. A central provision of the new rules is a requirement for qualifying entities to publicly disclose any third-party funding arrangements on their websites. This includes naming the financiers and specifying the amounts received, with the goal of safeguarding the independence of collective actions and protecting the rights of represented parties.

Paul de Servigny, Head of litigation funding at French headquartered IVO Capital said: “As part of the transposition of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, the French government announced a decree that sets out the disclosure requirements for the litigation funding industry, paving the way for greater access to justice for consumers in France by providing much welcomed clarity to litigation funders, claimants and law firms.

"This is good news for French consumers seeking justice and we look forward to working with government, the courts, claimants and their representatives and putting this decree into practice by supporting meritorious cases whilst ensuring that the interests of consumers are protected.”

By codifying these requirements, the French government aims to bolster public trust in group litigation and ensure funders do not exert improper influence on the course or outcome of legal actions.

The United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is set to hear a closely watched appeal that could have wide-ranging implications for third-party litigation funding in international arbitration. The case stems from a dispute between OGD Services Holdings, part of the Essar Group, and Norscot Rig Management over the enforcement of a Mauritius-based arbitral award. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had previously upheld the award in favor of Norscot, prompting OGD to seek review from the Privy Council.

An article in Bar & Bench reports that the appeal is scheduled for next year and will feature two prominent Indian senior advocates: Harish Salve KC, representing Norscot, and Nakul Dewan KC, representing OGD. At issue is whether the use of third-party funding in the underlying arbitration renders the enforcement of the award improper under Mauritius law, where third-party litigation funding remains a legally sensitive area.

The case is drawing significant attention because of its potential to shape the international enforceability of funding agreements, particularly in light of the UK Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision. That ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape by classifying many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, thereby subjecting them to stricter statutory controls. The PACCAR decision has already triggered calls for legislative reform in the UK to preserve the viability of litigation funding, especially in the class action and arbitration contexts.

The Privy Council appeal will test the legal boundaries of funder involvement in arbitration and may help clarify whether such arrangements compromise enforceability when judgments cross borders. The outcome could influence how funders structure deals in jurisdictions with differing attitudes toward third-party involvement in legal claims.

Several major global banks, including JPMorgan, UBS, Citigroup, Barclays, MUFG, and NatWest, have successfully blocked a £2.7 billion ($3.6 billion) opt-out collective action in the UK’s Supreme Court. The proposed lawsuit, led by Phillip Evans, aimed to represent thousands of investors, pension funds, and institutions impacted by alleged foreign exchange (forex) market manipulation.

An article in Yahoo Finance reports that the case stemmed from earlier European Commission findings that fined multiple banks over €1 billion for operating cartels in forex trading. Evans’ action, filed under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, sought to recover damages on behalf of a wide investor class. However, the Supreme Court upheld a lower tribunal’s decision that the claim could not proceed on an opt-out basis, requiring instead that individual claimants opt in.

The judgment emphasized the insufficient participation rate among potential class members and found that an opt-out mechanism was not appropriate given the specifics of the case. Justice Vivien Rose, delivering the court’s opinion, noted that while individual claims might have merit, the representative structure lacked the cohesion and commitment necessary to justify a mass claim. As a result, the banks have succeeded in halting what would have been one of the largest collective actions in the UK to date.

Fund managers exploring or operating within the litigation finance space face a complex and often underappreciated regulatory landscape. A recent guide from McDermott Will & Emery provides a detailed roadmap for how litigation fund managers can navigate this evolving environment, with a particular focus on securities laws, fiduciary obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The memo serves as a primer on key legal considerations, especially for those managing funds in the United States or marketing to U.S. investors. It emphasizes that litigation finance funds may be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional investment vehicles. Managers must consider registration requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as exemptions, such as those for foreign private advisers or venture capital fund advisers. The authors also explore the application of the Investment Company Act of 1940, cautioning that even non-traditional funds can be pulled into regulatory oversight if structured improperly.

Fiduciary duties take center stage in the memo’s discussion of fund governance. Managers are reminded that they owe duties of care and loyalty to their investors, which can become complicated in litigation finance where the fund’s interests may diverge from those of claimholders or legal counsel. Disclosure, consent mechanisms, and robust internal compliance protocols are strongly recommended to mitigate potential conflicts.

The guide also highlights the increasing focus by regulators and policymakers on transparency and ethical boundaries within the litigation finance industry. Fund managers are urged to prepare for heightened scrutiny and evolving disclosure expectations.

A growing chorus of voices is calling for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with a new op-ed warning that opaque capital is compromising the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system.

An opinion piece in The Hill by Lindsay Lewis and Phil Goldberg of the Progressive Policy Institute argues that American courtrooms are being quietly transformed into a financial marketplace, with hedge funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, and other investors channeling billions into U.S. litigation. The authors highlight an alleged lack of disclosure, warning that litigation funders can influence or outright control high-value cases, often without the knowledge of courts, litigants, or the public.

The litigation funding industry has long cited a lack of evidence regarding such accusations, yet the pressure from industry critics persists. The article points to mass torts as a flashpoint for abuse, claiming funders are building lawsuits “too big to fail” by bankrolling advertising campaigns and scientific claims to pressure companies into mass settlements regardless of the merits.

The op-ed also echoes previously-made critiques around national security and economic concerns, citing recent reports of Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and Emirati-backed funds investing in U.S. litigation. These foreign entities, the authors argue, could use lawsuits to access sensitive corporate data or strategically target American companies, all while avoiding U.S. taxes on any litigation proceeds.

Lewis and Goldberg call for reforms mandating disclosure of litigation funders, establishing ethical walls between financiers and legal strategy, and regulating foreign involvement in U.S. lawsuits.

A recent article in the National Law Review by Eric K. Schuller offers a strong endorsement of Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) as a market-driven solution to the financial challenges faced by individuals pursuing legal claims. Schuller, who serves as President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), presents CLF as a voluntary, non-coercive financial tool that allows consumers to maintain stability and independence while waiting for their legal cases to resolve.

In the article, Schuller argues that CLF enables consumers to access much-needed funds on their own terms, without government mandates or subsidies. The availability of CLF helps consumers avoid settling their claims prematurely out of financial desperation. Instead, it gives them the breathing room to hold out for fair outcomes. Schuller emphasizes that the funding process is entirely optional, typically involves attorney consultation, and occurs in a competitive marketplace that encourages innovation in pricing, transparency, and service.

Schuller outlines three key benefits of CLF. First, it helps individuals resist lowball settlement offers by reducing financial pressure. Second, it provides support for essential living expenses such as rent, groceries, and utilities while legal proceedings continue. Third, it preserves consumer autonomy by allowing recipients to use the funds as they see fit, unlike government programs that often come with use restrictions.

The article also makes the case that CLF is faster and more accessible than public assistance programs, which often involve delays and eligibility hurdles. Schuller notes that in states with existing CLF regulations, laws already prohibit funders from influencing legal strategy or interfering with the attorney-client relationship, reinforcing the consumer-focused nature of the product.

He pushes back against critics who claim that CLF inflates litigation costs or interferes with the legal process. Instead, Schuller frames CLF as a form of personal finance, not litigation financing, and stresses that it is provided at no cost to taxpayers.

The UK government has pledged to introduce legislation to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, which has left many litigation funding agreements in legal limbo. The Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to bring forward a bill that will clarify that third party litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages based agreements (DBAs) under existing law, a classification that, since PACCAR, has rendered many LFAs unenforceable and raised deep concerns across the funding market.

An article in The Law Gazette reports that the forthcoming legislation will specifically address the fallout from the 2023 PACCAR decision, which had classed typical litigation funding arrangements where a funder receives a share of damages as DBAs, bringing them within regulatory restrictions and making them invalid unless they met DBA regulatory requirements. This has undermined the clarity and enforceability of funding agreements for collective actions and other high value cases.

Industry sources and legal commentators have long advocated for a statutory fix. Over recent months, funders and claimant groups have pointed to the erosion of access to justice while PACCAR uncertainty persists, given that many have been hesitant to underwrite new claims under a model the courts deemed unenforceable. The government’s proposed change to statute rather than judge made law aims to restore the pre PACCAR position and reaffirm that LFAs do not fall within the DBA regime.

If enacted, the bill is expected to provide greater certainty for both existing and future litigation funding arrangements, reinforce the UK’s position as a leading venue for funded litigation, and encourage finance for complex group and commercial claims. Observers note that while the legislative promise is welcome, its timing and detailed provisions will be closely watched by funders, claimants and legal practitioners alike.

Omni Bridgeway has further strengthened its U.S. litigation finance platform with two senior strategic hires in its Washington, D.C. office. In a move signaling expanded capabilities in both international arbitration and antitrust litigation funding, the global legal finance leader appointed Claire-Naïla Damamme and William Vigen as Investment Managers and Legal Counsel. These additions reflect Omni Bridgeway’s continued commitment to deepening in-house legal and investment expertise amid growing demand for sophisticated funding solutions.

Omni's press release states that Claire-Naïla Damamme brings nearly a decade of distinguished international legal experience to Omni Bridgeway, where she will lead the firm’s U.S. International Arbitration initiative. Damamme’s background includes representing sovereign states and multinational corporations across energy, telecommunications, infrastructure, and technology disputes. Her expertise covers the full lifecycle of investor-state and commercial arbitrations, including enforcement before U.S. courts, honed through roles at top global law firms and institutions like White & Case LLP, WilmerHale, and the International Court of Justice.

William Vigen complements this expansion with more than 15 years of trial and litigation experience, particularly in antitrust enforcement and government investigations. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Vigen worked at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and later as a partner in private practice, where he led complex criminal prosecutions and major civil antitrust matters. At Omni Bridgeway, he will spearhead investment sourcing and evaluation in antitrust and related litigation.

According to Matt Harrison, Omni Bridgeway’s U.S. Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, these appointments underscore the firm’s focus on delivering world-class legal finance expertise both domestically and internationally.

A significant legal win for litigation funder Archetype Capital Partners emerged this month in the firm’s ongoing dispute with one of its co‑founders. A Nevada federal judge granted Archetype a preliminary injunction that prevents the ex‑partner from using the company’s proprietary systems for underwriting and managing mass tort litigation while the underlying trade secret lawsuit continues.

According to an article in Bloomberg, Archetype filed suit in September against its former co‑founder, Andrew Schneider, and Bullock Legal Group LLC, alleging misappropriation of confidential methodologies and business systems developed to assess and fund mass tort claims. The complaint asserted that Schneider supplied Bullock Legal with sensitive documents and leveraged Archetype’s systems to rapidly grow the firm’s case inventory from a few thousand matters to well over 148,000, a jump that Archetype says directly undercut its competitive position.

In issuing the injunction, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada found that Archetype was likely to succeed on its trade secret and breach of contract claims. While the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Bullock Legal and dismissed the company from the suit, it nonetheless barred both Schneider and Bullock from distributing proceeds from a $5.6 billion mass tort settlement tied to video game addiction litigation that had been structured using Archetype’s proprietary systems.

The order further requires the return of all materials containing confidential data and prohibits Schneider from soliciting or interfering with Archetype’s clients.

In a development drawing fresh scrutiny to fee arrangements in class action proceedings, law firms involved in the high-profile shareholder lawsuit against BHP have collected nearly three times the legal fees they initially represented to the court. The firms took in approximately $48 million from a $110 million settlement approved in the Federal Court of Australia, despite earlier representations suggesting significantly lower costs.

An article in the Australian Financial Review details how the legal teams initially indicated their fees would constitute a relatively modest share of the final settlement. However, court filings reveal a different outcome, with the firms ultimately securing a much larger cut after a revised funding structure was approved during the settlement process.

The underlying class action was brought on behalf of shareholders following the catastrophic 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil, and partially funded by G&E KTMC Funding LLC, which is backed by Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, two prominent US-based shareholder litigation firms.

The case centered on allegations that BHP failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the dam's operations, leading to sharp share price declines after the disaster. While BHP did not admit liability, the $110 million agreement was one of several global legal settlements related to the event.

The revised fee arrangement was approved as part of a “common fund” order, which allows for legal and funding costs to be deducted from the total settlement on behalf of all group members. The final order was issued without a detailed public explanation for the increased fees, prompting concerns from legal observers and stakeholders about transparency and accountability in class action settlements.

King and Spalding is facing a malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit from former client David Pisor, a Chicago-based entrepreneur, who claims the law firm pushed him into a predatory litigation funding deal and massively overbilled him for legal services. The complaint, filed in Illinois state court, accuses the firm of inflating its rates midstream and steering Pisor toward a funding agreement that primarily served the firm's financial interests.

An article in Law.com reports that the litigation stems from King and Spalding's representation of Pisor and his company, PSIX LLC, in a 2021 dispute. According to the complaint, the firm directed him to enter a funding arrangement with an entity referred to in court as “Defendant SC220163,” which is affiliated with litigation funder Statera Capital Funding. Pisor alleges that after securing the funding, King and Spalding tied its fee structure to it, raised hourly rates, and billed over 3,000 hours across 30 staff and attorneys within 11 months, resulting in more than $3.5 million in fees.

The suit further alleges that many of these hours were duplicative, non-substantive, or billed at inflated rates, with non-lawyer work charged at partner-level fees. Pisor claims he was left with minimal control over his case and business due to the debt incurred through the funding arrangement, despite having a company valued at over $130 million at the time.

King and Spalding, along with the associated litigation funder, declined to comment. The lawsuit brings multiple claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Illinois’ Consumer Legal Funding Act.

An article in Carrier Management highlights a rare direct dialogue between litigation finance leaders and insurance executives aimed at clearing up persistent misconceptions about the role of legal finance in claims costs and social inflation.

Burford Capital’s David Perla and Parabellum Capital’s Dai Wai Chin Feman underscore that much of the current debate stems from confusion over what legal finance actually is and what it is not. The pair participated in an Insurance Insider Executive Business Club roundtable with property and casualty carriers and stakeholders, arguing that the litigation finance industry’s core activities are misunderstood and mischaracterized. They contend that legal finance should not be viewed as monolithic and that policy debates often conflate fundamentally different segments of the market, leading to misdirected criticism and calls for boycotts.

Perla and Feman break legal finance into three distinct categories: commercial funding (non-recourse capital for complex business-to-business disputes), consumer funding (non-recourse advances in personal injury contexts), and law firm lending (recourse working capital loans).

Notably, commercial litigation finance often intersects with contingent risk products like judgment preservation and collateral protection insurance, demonstrating symbiosis rather than antagonism with insurers. They emphasize that commercial funders focus on meritorious, high-value cases and that these activities bear little resemblance to the injury litigation insurers typically cite when claiming legal finance drives inflation.

The authors also tackle common industry narratives head-on, challenging assumptions about funder influence on verdicts, market scale, and settlement incentives. They suggest that insurers’ concerns are driven less by legal finance itself and more by issues like mass tort exposure, opacity of investment vehicles, and alignment with defense-oriented lobbying groups.