Burford Capital, a leading litigation financier, has been targeted for document production in a dispute over third party funding in Germany, according to a report, pulling the funder into an ancillary fight over access to materials. While details of the underlying case were not immediately available, the development underscores a recurring pressure point in European litigation funding.

An article in Law360 states that German civil procedure allows only narrow, court supervised requests for specific documents, yet parties increasingly test the boundaries when funders are perceived to hold information relevant to control, economics or settlement. For funders, such motions raise questions around confidentiality commitments to claimants, protection of commercially sensitive terms, and the scope of any privilege attaching to communications with counsel.

Burford was targeted for documentation in connection with a legal funding dispute in Germany, and that the request has become a focal point in the broader disagreement over the role of funders in the proceeding. The report reflects broader friction between parties seeking transparency into funding arrangements and funders that view their contracts and analyses as confidential. Although Germany does not recognize US style discovery, recent cases have seen litigants seek disclosure of discrete categories of funder related material, often invoking proportionality and necessity to persuade courts to order production.

If courts compel broader funder disclosure, financing terms and case management may shift to mitigate risk. Cross border disputes will test how German orders interact with confidentiality and privilege protections elsewhere. Funders and claimants should prepare playbooks for narrowly tailored requests and protective orders.

A litigation funding startup founder is making the case that technology, disciplined underwriting, and alignment with law firms will define the next phase of growth in the funding industry.

In Part II of its interview series, Above the Law spotlights the founder’s views on building a differentiated funding platform in an increasingly competitive market. The discussion centers on how newer entrants can compete with established players by leveraging data analytics, focusing on select case types, and maintaining tight operational controls. Rather than pursuing volume for its own sake, the founder emphasizes a strategy built around rigorous case selection and long-term partnerships with law firms.

A key theme in the interview is the importance of underwriting discipline. The founder notes that not all meritorious cases make good investments, underscoring the need to evaluate damages models, collectability, and litigation timelines with precision. Technology plays a central role in that process, with analytics tools helping to assess risk factors and identify patterns across similar claims. This approach, the founder argues, allows the company to move efficiently while avoiding the pitfalls of overly aggressive capital deployment.

The interview also touches on market education. Despite litigation finance’s growing acceptance, misconceptions persist among lawyers and corporate stakeholders. The founder suggests that transparency around pricing, control, and alignment of interests remains critical to winning trust—particularly among firms that may be considering funding for the first time.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving from a back-office efficiency tool to a central driver of strategy in mass tort litigation, with significant implications for plaintiff firms, defense counsel, and the litigation funding community.

An article in Bloomberg Law explores how AI-powered tools are transforming the economics of large-scale product liability and personal injury cases. From claimant intake and medical record review to document analysis and settlement modeling, AI platforms are enabling law firms to process vast amounts of data at a fraction of the traditional cost and time. In mass torts—where tens of thousands of claims can hinge on nuanced medical and factual distinctions—these efficiencies are particularly valuable.

According to the report, firms are deploying AI to automate the review of medical records, identify injury patterns, and categorize claimants more quickly. This not only reduces overhead, but also enhances early case assessment, helping firms determine which claims warrant full investment. On the defense side, corporate legal teams are leveraging similar technologies to assess exposure and streamline discovery. The result is a technological arms race in high-volume litigation.

While some observers raise concerns about accuracy, oversight, and ethical guardrails, proponents argue that AI can reduce administrative waste and free attorneys to focus on higher-value legal analysis. Vendors servicing the mass tort bar are also positioning AI as a way to increase access to justice by lowering the cost of bringing claims that might otherwise be economically unviable.

U.S. lawmakers are seeking to impose new transparency requirements on third-party litigation financing in major lawsuits, while carving out protections for nonprofit legal organizations that receive funding to provide free legal services.

An article in Reuters reports that a group of Senate Republicans led by Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act. The bill would require disclosure of third-party financing in class actions and mass tort litigation, a narrower scope than past proposals aimed at all civil cases. Importantly for the legal funding market, the legislation includes an exemption for nonprofit legal groups funded by U.S. donors that provide pro bono representation, protecting those organizations from having to disclose their backers.

Supporters of the measure frame it as a move toward greater openness about who is financing high-stakes litigation, arguing that visibility into funding sources is essential to ensure fairness and guard against undue influence. The bill would also bar third-party funders from influencing litigation strategy, settlement negotiations, or accessing confidential documents. However, critics—including the International Legal Finance Association, an industry body—contend that imposing disclosure rules could chill litigation finance and potentially limit access to justice for plaintiffs who rely on third-party capital to pursue claims. Conservative advocacy groups have also weighed in against the bill, fearing that disclosure mandates could expose donors to political scrutiny despite the nonprofit carveout.

The bill’s introduction builds on a history of legislative efforts by Grassley to regulate litigation funding transparency, though previous versions have stalled in the House amid bipartisan opposition.

For the legal funding industry, this legislation raises crucial questions about regulatory risk and disclosure expectations in the U.S. If enacted, the bill could reshape how funders participate in large-scale litigation and how transparency requirements are balanced against concerns over client privacy, fundraising, and the broader access-to-justice mission.

A UK-based litigation funder is seeking to reset its strategy and reassure investors after liquidating one of its key funds, underscoring the mounting pressures facing capital providers in an increasingly competitive and scrutinized funding market.

An article in Bloomberg reports that Katch Investment Group wound down a flagship vehicle and returned capital to investors, following a period of underperformance and portfolio challenges. The move marks a significant inflection point for the firm, which is now presenting a revised investment strategy aimed at regaining investor confidence and stabilizing its platform.

According to the report, the funder’s leadership has framed the liquidation as a proactive step designed to preserve value and recalibrate its approach in light of shifting market dynamics. The litigation finance sector has faced headwinds in recent years, including longer case durations, delayed resolutions, and increased regulatory and judicial scrutiny—particularly in collective proceedings. These factors have complicated return profiles and made capital raising more challenging, especially for publicly listed or institutionally backed funders under pressure to demonstrate consistent performance.

The firm is now pitching a refined model that emphasizes disciplined case selection, portfolio diversification, and closer alignment with investor expectations. The reset comes at a time when several UK-based funders are reassessing their exposure to large, high-risk group actions and exploring alternative structures, including co-investment arrangements and bespoke mandates.

A dispute emerging from the long-running talc litigation against Johnson & Johnson has spilled into a new front, as a plaintiffs’ law firm has filed suit against its own litigation funders in a high-stakes funding battle tied to the baby powder cases.

An article in Reuters reports that the firm, which represents claimants alleging that Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder products caused cancer, has sued multiple litigation funders over the terms and enforcement of its funding agreements. The complaint centers on allegations that the funders are seeking repayment amounts the firm contends are excessive or otherwise improper under the governing contracts. The lawsuit underscores the financial strain and complex capital structures underpinning mass tort litigation, particularly in sprawling, multi-year proceedings like the talc cases.

According to the report, the firm argues that the funders’ demands threaten its financial stability and ability to continue representing clients in the ongoing litigation. The case reflects the high-risk, high-reward nature of funding large portfolios of mass tort claims, where returns can hinge on bankruptcy proceedings, global settlements, or appellate outcomes. Johnson & Johnson’s use of bankruptcy maneuvers to resolve talc liabilities has already added further uncertainty and delay, complicating recovery timelines for plaintiffs’ firms and their capital providers.

The dispute highlights the intricate dynamics between law firms and funders in contingency-heavy practices. Funding arrangements in mass torts often involve layered investments, staged drawdowns, and complex priority waterfalls. When case timelines stretch or resolution values shift, tensions over repayment multiples and control rights can quickly surface.

A recent Australian decision has delivered an important reminder on the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, ruling that a successful party cannot pass on its litigation funder’s commission to the defendant as part of a costs claim.

An article on McCullough Robertson's website outlines how the court determined that a funder’s commission does not constitute recoverable damages, even where the underlying claim succeeds. The plaintiff had sought to recover not only its legal costs, but also the commission payable to its third-party funder, arguing that this expense flowed directly from the defendant’s wrongdoing and should therefore be compensable.

The court rejected that argument, drawing a clear distinction between traditional heads of damage and the commercial cost of obtaining litigation finance. While acknowledging that funding arrangements are now a well-established feature of the litigation landscape, the court concluded that a funder’s commission is not a loss caused by the defendant’s conduct in the requisite legal sense. Rather, it is a voluntary commercial arrangement entered into by the plaintiff to manage risk and cashflow. As such, it falls outside the scope of damages recoverable from the opposing party.

The decision reinforces a broader judicial trend in Australia of treating litigation funding as legitimate, but carefully delineated. Courts have generally upheld the enforceability of funding agreements and recognised their role in promoting access to justice. However, this ruling makes clear that the economic burden of a funder’s return remains with the funded party, absent specific statutory provision or contractual basis shifting that risk.

Legal-Bay has highlighted an $8.5 million jury verdict against Uber in an Arizona bellwether sexual assault trial, a result that may influence settlement postures across similar dockets. The Arizona jury found Uber liable and awarded damages to a plaintiff who alleged assault connected to the rideshare platform.

While case specifics remain limited in the public domain, the outcome provides another data point on potential exposure as claims advance nationwide. For funders and plaintiffs’ counsel, the verdict offers a reference point for damages modeling and negotiation strategy. Bellwether trials often test liability theories and damages presentations ahead of broader resolution, giving parties a benchmark for risk assessment. The Arizona ruling arrives as plaintiffs pursue a range of claims tied to driver misconduct and platform oversight.

An article in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay characterized the case as a bellwether matter and underscored the significance of the $8.5 million award. The company reiterated that it provides pre settlement funding to claimants pursuing sexual assault lawsuits against rideshare companies, positioning capital to help plaintiffs bridge lengthy litigation timelines.

The report notes that ongoing proceedings involving Uber have drawn heightened attention to driver screening, in-app safety features, and incident response protocols. According to the release, Legal-Bay views the Arizona result as instructive for counsel evaluating case posture and timing of potential resolutions. The release also encourages potential claimants to consult their attorneys and consider non recourse advances where appropriate.

Misconceptions about third party funding continue to surface in policy debates and courtrooms, yet the commercial litigation finance market has become a practical bridge to justice for businesses facing costly disputes.

An article in Mondaq explains that funding enables claimholders to pursue meritorious cases without diverting operating capital, particularly when litigation spend and duration are unpredictable. It also addresses recurring critiques, including allegations of funder control, the risk of frivolous filings, and opaque arrangements. Industry participants point to non recourse structures, rigorous underwriting, and counsel independence as guardrails that align incentives. For corporate legal departments, financing can rebalance negotiating dynamics against well capitalized adversaries, support portfolio based risk management, and preserve budgets for core projects. As interest rates and legal costs rise, the economic rationale for external capital has only strengthened.

Commercial litigation finance remains an important access to justice tool in the United States, countering false narratives that have colored recent commentary. It explains that most agreements are non recourse, so funders recover only from successful outcomes, which moderates risk taking and screens out weak claims. The piece notes that funders contract for information rights and consent on settlement only in limited circumstances, while strategic decisions remain with clients and counsel under ethics rules and court oversight.

It also observes that funding can complement contingency arrangements, after the event insurance, and defense side budgeting, creating optionality for both plaintiffs and defendants. On disclosure, the article surveys a patchwork of rules and argues that blanket mandates could chill capital formation without improving case management, favoring targeted judicial inquiries instead.

Expect continued legislative and rulemaking activity on disclosure and conflicts management, alongside growing adoption of voluntary best practices. As data sets on funded matters mature, stakeholders will seek more empirical analysis of outcomes and impacts on settlement dynamics. Cross border frameworks and portfolio structures are likely to expand as corporate users normalize funding within broader capital planning.