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.

Legal Bay LLC, a pre settlement funding firm, has announced plans to significantly expand its focus on wrongful termination and commercial litigation funding in 2026.

According to a recent press release, the company cited a sharp rise in workplace lawsuits tied to return to office mandates, including claims of retaliation, sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and employment discrimination. While Legal Bay has a long track record of supporting plaintiffs in employment disputes, the firm stated that the growing volume and complexity of these cases has created an urgent need for increased resources and capital allocation.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, stated that many litigation funders tend to shy away from large or complicated matters. Legal Bay, by contrast, plans to ramp up its funding support for claimants facing job loss due to alleged wrongful termination. Janish emphasized that the company will dedicate substantial resources in the year ahead to meet the needs of plaintiffs in protracted legal battles.

Legal Bay offers non recourse cash advances, often within 24 to 48 hours of documentation, to plaintiffs seeking back pay, lost benefits, or other damages in connection with workplace disputes. The company’s funding is structured so that plaintiffs owe nothing if their case does not result in a favorable outcome.

A prominent North West-based claimant law firm is setting aside more than £200 million to fund a major expansion in personal injury and assault claims. The substantial reserve is intended to support the firm’s continued growth in high-volume litigation, as it seeks to scale its operations and increase its market share in an increasingly competitive sector.

As reported in The Law Gazette, the move comes amid rising volumes of claims, driven by shifts in legislation, heightened public awareness, and a more assertive approach to legal redress. With this capital reserve, the firm aims to bolster its ability to process a significantly larger caseload while managing rising operational costs and legal pressures.

Market watchers suggest the firm is positioning itself not only to withstand fluctuations in claim volumes but also to potentially emerge as a consolidator in the space, absorbing smaller firms or caseloads as part of a broader growth strategy.

From a legal funding standpoint, this development signals a noteworthy trend. When law firms build sizable internal war chests, they reduce their reliance on third-party litigation finance. This may impact demand for external funders, particularly in sectors where high-volume claimant firms dominate. It also brings to the forefront important questions about capital risk, sustainability, and the evolving economics of volume litigation. Should the number of claims outpace expectations, even a £200 million reserve could be put under pressure.

Katch Fund Solutions, one of the most prominent players in consumer litigation funding, has placed its consumer claims fund into liquidation.

According to Legal Futures, the move comes in response to mounting liquidity pressures caused by prolonged delays in resolving motor-finance claims and increased uncertainty surrounding major group litigation efforts. The Luxembourg-based fund confirmed it is winding down the portfolio and returning capital to investors on a pro-rata basis.

Katch had been a key backer of large-scale consumer legal claims in the UK, supporting firms such as SSB Law and McDermott Smith Law. Both firms ultimately collapsed, with SSB Law owing £63 million including £16 million in interest, and McDermott Smith Law owing £7 million. Katch’s portfolio also included a substantial stake in the ongoing “Plevin” litigation, a group of cases alleging unfair undisclosed commissions tied to the sale of payment protection insurance. That litigation, initially estimated at £18 billion in value, suffered a blow earlier this year when the High Court declined to grant a group litigation order, further delaying resolution timelines.

The firm’s consumer claims fund held over £400 million in assets as of mid-2025, but was hit hard by increasing investor redemption requests. Katch’s team cited concerns that payouts from major motor-finance cases could be delayed until 2026 or later due to regulatory and judicial developments. With limited short-term liquidity options, the fund concluded that an orderly wind-down was the only viable path forward.

Omni Bridgeway is backing a newly launched class action in New Zealand targeting Transpower New Zealand Limited and its contractor Omexom, following a major regional blackout that occurred in June 2024.

According to Omni's website, the outage, which affected approximately 180,000 residents and 20,000 businesses across Northland, was triggered by the collapse of a transmission tower near Glorit during maintenance activity conducted by Omexom.

Filed in the High Court in Wellington by law firms LeeSalmonLong and Piper Alderman, the case alleges negligence on the part of both defendants. The plaintiffs claim that Transpower failed to adequately oversee the maintenance, and that Omexom mishandled the work that led to the tower’s collapse.

The class action is proceeding on an opt-out basis, meaning all impacted Northland businesses are automatically included unless they choose otherwise. Under Omni Bridgeway’s funding model, there are no upfront costs to class members, and fees are contingent on a successful outcome.

The economic impact of the outage has been pegged between NZ$60 million and NZ$80 million, according to various estimates, with businesses reporting power losses lasting up to three days and in some cases longer. In the aftermath of the blackout, Transpower and Omexom jointly contributed NZ$1 million to a resilience fund for affected communities, a figure the plaintiffs argue is woefully inadequate compared to the losses incurred.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) has added Loopa Finance to its membership, marking another step in the trade association’s strategic expansion across Latin America and continental Europe. The announcement highlights ILFA’s continued efforts to support the growth of responsible legal finance and its positioning as the leading global voice for commercial litigation funders.

According to a press release issued by ILFA, the addition of Loopa Finance — formerly known as Qanlex — is seen as a major milestone in expanding the organization’s presence in key regional markets. Founded in 2020, Loopa operates across Latin America and Europe and specializes in litigation and arbitration funding, with a focus on innovative, risk-sharing funding models that utilize analytics and technology. The company’s inclusion brings further regional expertise to ILFA’s growing international network.

ILFA’s Director of Growth and Membership Engagement, Rupert Cunningham, emphasized the importance of Latin America’s rapidly evolving legal finance landscape, noting that Loopa’s entry will help enhance advocacy efforts with national governments and the European Union. Juliana Giorgi, General Counsel for Latin America at Loopa, echoed the sentiment, stating that joining ILFA reflects the company’s commitment to professionalism, transparency, and the development of a responsible funding ecosystem.

This move comes at a time when legal finance continues to professionalize globally, with trade associations like ILFA playing a crucial role in shaping regulatory conversations and establishing best practices. The addition of a cross-border funder like Loopa underscores the increasing global alignment within the commercial legal finance sector and raises questions about how funders will navigate differing regulatory environments while pursuing expansion.

Certum Group, the Texas-based litigation funder known for its mix of funding and risk-transfer tools, has entered the managed services space with the acquisition of a legal support business tailored to mass tort and personal injury firms. The new operation, Certum Legal Solutions, is already providing back-office and pre-litigation support to a number of law firms under a fee-for-service model.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Certum acquired the MSO in October and has since begun offering services including case intake, document management, and discovery support. The platform utilizes both legal and non-legal personnel and incorporates proprietary tools designed to automate medical-records integration and client communication.

The MSO originated from Sbaiti & Company, a New Jersey-based mass tort firm. While it continues to service Sbaiti, the business is expanding to support other firms as well. Certum has indicated that it may eventually pursue equity stakes in client firms, in addition to traditional fee-for-service arrangements.

This development reflects a broader industry trend where litigation funders are exploring alternative vehicles like MSOs to support or invest in law firms while staying within the bounds of legal ethics rules that restrict non-lawyer ownership and profit-sharing. Advisors say funders are diversifying from traditional debt financing toward more integrated operational models that can offer both financial returns and strategic access.

With Certum stepping into the MSO arena, the line between funder and service provider continues to blur. The model could reshape how funders work with firms, particularly in high-volume, complex areas like mass torts. As more funders evaluate similar moves, the legal funding industry may see deeper operational entanglements and longer-term alliances.

US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.

According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.

The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.

Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.

For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.

A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.

An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.

Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.

This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.

Woolworths Group is facing a new shareholder class action that alleges the company misled investors about the scale and financial impact of underpaying salaried employees. The action, backed by Litigation Lending Services, adds a fresh legal front to the long-running fallout from Woolworths’ wage compliance failures.

According to AFR, at the heart of the claim is the allegation that Woolworths did not adequately inform the market about the risks posed by its reliance on annualised salary structures and set-off clauses. These payment methods averaged compensation over longer periods instead of ensuring employees received correct pay entitlements for each pay period. This included overtime, penalty rates, and other award entitlements.

Recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have clarified that such set-off practices are non-compliant under modern awards. Employers must now ensure all entitlements are met for each pay period and maintain detailed records of employee hours. These rulings significantly raise the compliance bar and have increased financial exposure for large employers like Woolworths, which has tens of thousands of salaried employees.

As a result, Woolworths could face hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation costs. The shareholder class action argues that Woolworths failed to disclose the magnitude of these potential liabilities in a timely or accurate way. Investors claim that this omission amounts to misleading conduct, and that they were not fully informed of the risks when making investment decisions.

Tom Goldstein, the former SCOTUSblog co-founder and prominent appellate advocate, has named Parabellum Capital as the litigation funder at the center of a federal indictment accusing him of misappropriating legal financing to pay off personal debts.

Bloomberg Law reports that in a court filing made last week, Goldstein disclosed that he used advances from Parabellum to cover non-litigation-related expenses, including the purchase of a multimillion-dollar home. The revelation comes amid federal charges alleging that Goldstein misused firm funds to settle gambling losses and personal obligations, then mischaracterized those payments as business expenses. Prosecutors previously referred to an unnamed funder involved in these transactions; Parabellum is now confirmed to be that firm.

Goldstein’s disclosure appears to be part of a strategic legal response to mounting charges of tax evasion and financial misrepresentation. Once a high-profile figure in Supreme Court litigation, Goldstein now faces scrutiny not only for alleged personal financial misconduct but also for the implications his actions may have on the litigation finance ecosystem.

While Parabellum has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the situation highlights a key risk in the litigation funding model: the potential for funds advanced against anticipated case proceeds to be diverted toward unrelated personal uses. Funders traditionally require that capital be deployed for case expenses, legal fees, and expert costs—not real estate acquisitions or debt payments.

This case underscores a growing concern in the legal funding industry: the need for tighter controls, enhanced due diligence, and possibly more explicit regulatory frameworks to ensure that funding agreements are not exploited. As the industry continues to mature, episodes like this could shape how funders vet borrowers and monitor the use of their capital.