Stay on top of updates and developments around key cases across various global jurisdictions.

Burford Capital has moved to knock out Tyson Foods’ interference lawsuit, telling an Illinois federal judge that the meat-packing giant—not the world’s largest litigation financier—scuttled talks to resolve sprawling chicken price-fixing claims brought by food distributor Sysco. In a motion to dismiss filed this week, Burford branded Tyson’s allegations of settlement meddling as “threadbare” speculation aimed at diverting attention from the underlying antitrust accusations.

An article in Reuters details Tyson’s April complaint accusing Burford of trying to “co-opt the legal system” by blocking a deal Sysco had weighed. Tyson says the funder leveraged its $140 million financing stake to push for a richer payout, impeding Sysco’s autonomy in the long-running poultry cartel litigation.

Burford’s filing counters that its 2019 funding agreement explicitly allows the financier to participate in settlement talks and notes Tyson rejected Sysco’s last offer back in 2021. After Burford thwarted what it viewed as sub-par settlements, Sysco transferred its claims to Burford affiliate Carina Ventures, removing the food-service giant from the case while preserving its potential recovery.

The skirmish comes as congressional Republicans revive proposals to tax litigation-finance proceeds at nearly 41%, underscoring a season of heightened scrutiny over how much influence funders wield in antitrust and class actions. Burford, which has repeatedly defended its model as bolstering access to justice, says Tyson’s suit would chill capital-backed claims by re-writing freely negotiated contracts after the fact.

For funders, the outcome may clarify how far investment contracts can reach into settlement strategy—especially when the underlying defendant wants a bargain exit. If Burford prevails, expect financiers to lean harder on contractual rights; if Tyson scores traction, future deals could feature stricter carve-outs to avoid similar challenges.

Thousands of Belgian businesses may be eligible for compensation following revelations of a sweeping price-fixing scheme involving the country’s top private security providers. From 2008 to 2020, industry giants Securitas, G4S, and Seris colluded to inflate prices and carve up the market, depriving clients of competitive rates. The Belgian Competition Authority confirmed the scheme in July 2024, levying a landmark €47 million fine and acknowledging widespread harm to companies and institutions relying on security services.

An article in LitFin outlines how the litigation funder is spearheading a class action to secure damages for affected parties. LitFin estimates total damages could exceed €800 million, with any organization that contracted private security during the cartel period—whether for routine guarding or specialized services like airport security—potentially eligible to join the claim.

LitFin’s approach eliminates financial barriers by covering all legal and procedural costs in exchange for a share of any recovery. With 21 competition class actions already underway across the EU, the firm brings established expertise to this ambitious claim.

A brewing legal rift in one of the UK’s largest consumer class actions has escalated, as litigation funder Innsworth Capital seeks judicial review of the £200m Mastercard settlement approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Innsworth, which financed the long-running Merricks v Mastercard case, is contesting the tribunal’s distribution structure, claiming it unjustly limits the funder’s return to less than half its investment, while allocating over £30m to a third-party charity.

An article in the Global Legal Post reports that Innsworth’s challenge centers on the May ruling, which capped its return at £22.8m—just 0.5× its £45.6m outlay—while setting aside the remaining balance of a £54.4m discretionary fund for either top-up class member payments or donation to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF). Innsworth alleges the tribunal made legal and procedural missteps, including misapplying Australian case law and failing to account for the commercial risk it bore in a case once valued at £14bn.

The funder argues that a return of 1.5× was both contractually contemplated and supported by precedent, and that the tribunal denied it a fair chance to respond to the proposed settlement mechanics. Its filing calls attention to what it deems an “arbitrary and irrational” allocation that favors a charity over the party that funded the claim’s pursuit.

The timing of Innsworth’s action is notable, following the Civil Justice Council’s June 3 report urging statutory regulation of funders and a legislative fix to PACCAR. The outcome of this judicial review could influence how courts and legislators assess funder profits—and reshape expectations around post-settlement fund allocations in collective redress cases.

A landmark collective action against Google has cleared a key legal hurdle in the UK, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certifying a £1.04 billion lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of UK app developers.

The class action, spearheaded by Strathclyde University competition law professor Barry Rodger and backed by litigation funder Bench Walk Advisors, accuses Google of abusing its dominant position by imposing excessive commissions on app sales through its Play Store.

The case filing outlines that the CAT has issued a collective proceedings order, allowing the case to move to trial. The claim targets exorbitant commissions, alleging these charges unfairly burden UK app developers—many of them small- and medium-sized enterprises—by effectively locking them into the Play Store ecosystem through restrictive contractual and technical practices.

The case adds to mounting regulatory and legal scrutiny of Google’s Play Store practices worldwide. The European Commission recently issued preliminary findings under the Digital Markets Act, the UK’s CMA is assessing Google’s “Strategic Market Status,” and U.S. courts have already found the tech giant in breach of antitrust laws. The timing of the CAT’s ruling puts further pressure on Google, particularly as similar legal actions, including a new suit by Korean developers, continue to emerge globally.

A consequential legal battle now before the UK Court of Appeal could have sweeping implications for litigation funders operating in the UK and beyond. The case centers on the enforceability of funding agreements that calculate funder returns as a multiple of the capital invested—a model widely used across the industry.

An article in the Law Society Gazette outlines how the appeal follows a High Court ruling that refused to strike out a claim challenging such a funding structure. The challenge argues that these agreements, which are not pegged to the damages recovered but instead to the amount of funding provided, could fall afoul of the UK’s statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). If upheld, funders using a multiple-of-capital return model might be required to comply with the more stringent regulatory framework governing DBAs—potentially rendering many existing contracts unenforceable.

The outcome could reverberate across the legal funding landscape, particularly in collective actions, where such return structures are commonly deployed. Industry observers note that a ruling against funders would necessitate a wholesale reevaluation of how litigation finance deals are structured, priced, and disclosed, especially in the UK market.

Funders and legal practitioners alike are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a test of legal clarity and commercial viability for the sector. The decision may also influence legislative and regulatory discussions already underway in the UK about how best to govern third-party funding.

This case underscores the regulatory and judicial uncertainties that still shadow the legal funding market, even as it matures. A ruling from the Court of Appeal could either reinforce current market practices or trigger a paradigm shift in funder-client agreements.

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes….

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting…

In a significant decision reinforcing the enforceability of international arbitration awards, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a $500 million award in a dispute between two Indian companies. An article…

In a landmark resolution, Spain has agreed to pay €32 million ($37 million) to U.S.-based Blasket Renewable Investments, marking its first compliance with an international arbitration award stemming from the…

In a closely watched decision, a federal judge has denied Apple’s attempt to compel Haptic Inc. to turn over litigation funding records in an ongoing patent infringement case. According to Bloomberg…

A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Steward Health Care System’s request to obtain a $127 million loan to fund litigation against its former executives and insiders. The embattled hospital operator,…

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines.  Reporting by Financial Standard covers…

Class actions in Australia continue to be viewed as desirable opportunities for litigation funders, with the first half of 2025 already seeing a number of funded claims brought on behalf…

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With…

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct…

The prolonged duration of investor-state treaty disputes often means that updates on these claims are few and far between. However, the presence of litigation funding allows these claims to proceed…

Alexander Wolfson, a highly experienced barrister of more than 25 years standing, has issued an opt-out class action claim against software giant Microsoft. He is issuing the claim on behalf…

A patent infringement case being brought against one of the world’s largest streaming companies would on its face be considered a significant matter. However, this case may have added implications…

As LFJ reported in March, an investor-state dispute over the Khemisset Potash Project in Morocco had continued to progress as the mining company bringing the claim began to draw down…

As LFJ covered earlier this month, concerns have been raised that law firms in the housing disrepair claims sector are operating with unsustainable business models propped up by litigation funders….

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of…

The combined strength of experienced law firms and well-resourced litigation funders can be a powerful tool for disadvantaged communities seeking justice and compensation from state authorities. However, a recent settlement…

As LFJ reported last week, Google is the target of a €900 million claim brought against the technology giant in the Netherlands over its alleged anti-competitive behaviour. However, that is…

Ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR, it has become a common sight in group proceedings to see defendants bringing appeals over the funding arrangements in these cases. However,…

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder…

As LFJ reported in January of this year, the Netherlands is continuing to stand out amongst European jurisdictions for high-value claims that are being brought against multinational corporations with the…

International arbitration cases can be a lucrative sector for litigation funders, but just as LCM highlighted the success of two such cases in their latest interim results, the possibility of…

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking…

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. …