Content for the Public

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 — The California Consumer Legal Funding Act — into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The legal sector is already operating against a backdrop of economic unpredictability, rising client expectations, and fast-moving advances in technology. For firms of all sizes, but especially small and mid-sized practices, the pressing question is: what’s the smartest and most sustainable path to growth?

The answer isn’t a new practice management system or a radical shift in service lines. It’s something more fundamental yet far more powerful: client service.

And not the kind that gets lost in endless phone menus or delegated to faceless chatbots. We’re talking about human-led, AI-supported service that’s fast, personal, and friction-free. In today’s legal market, client service isn’t just an operational necessity. It’s a growth strategy.

Trust as the new currency of growth

Clients navigating complex legal challenges are often anxious, risk-averse, and under pressure. In that environment, trust becomes the currency that drives engagement and retention.

It’s no longer enough for firms to offer technically sound legal advice at competitive rates. Clients want to feel heard, supported, and valued throughout their journey. Firms that can embed this into every interaction, whether it’s the initial consultation or a late-night update, are the ones that win loyalty, referrals, and long-term revenue.

This plays to the strengths of small and mid-sized firms. With leaner teams and flatter hierarchies, they’re often more agile and capable of delivering the personal, tailored support clients crave. A partner who picks up the phone, knows the client’s name, and understands the case context instantly builds credibility. In 2025, that credibility is the bridge between staying relevant and achieving meaningful growth.

Smart tech, human empathy

Yes, AI is everywhere. But the firms using it most effectively are those that integrate it where it adds real value while also keeping the human touch where it matters most.

AI can streamline administrative work, speed up intake, and automate repetitive tasks like document review or appointment scheduling. But it can’t replace the reassurance of a lawyer who listens carefully to a client in distress, or the receptionist who ensures urgent calls are routed to the right person immediately.

The winning formula is balance: let AI handle the heavy lifting, while people deliver the moments that build trust. Imagine a litigation funder using AI to flag cases requiring immediate attention, while a trained case manager provides the nuanced support clients need. Or a family law practice using chatbots for document collection but ensuring sensitive discussions are handled by a real lawyer with empathy and tact.

That combination of efficiency plus empathy is what cuts through the noise.

Service as a growth engine

When client service is done well in law firms, it doesn’t just fix problems it drives growth. Every answered call, prompt update, or thoughtful follow-up is a touchpoint that builds brand equity and deepens relationships. 

Great client service is about being reactive, for example, answering questions, but also it is about being proactive, through spotting patterns, identifying sales opportunities, and deepening client relationships. Your service team becomes a source of insight and influence. And often, they’re the difference between a one-time transaction and long-term loyalty.

Take funding conversations as an example. A firm that keeps clients informed on timelines, explains financing options clearly, and checks in regularly is positioning itself not just as a legal advisor but as a trusted partner. That kind of proactive, client-focused service often creates opportunities for cross-referrals and repeat work.

And thanks to modular, scalable tools—from virtual receptionist to live chat—these capabilities are no longer exclusive to the Am Law 100. Boutique firms and regional practices now have access to the same client service infrastructure as the industry’s largest players.

Connection builds resilience

With margins tight and competition fierce, the strongest legal practices in 2025 will be those that build loyalty through connection. That doesn’t mean over-promising or relying on outdated customer care models. It means meeting people where they are, and offering support that’s proactive, consistent and personal.

It also means supporting teams. When lawyers and staff are backed by smart systems that free them to focus on meaningful work, morale improves. And in a small or mid-sized firm, morale directly fuels performance.

Client service is where growth, loyalty and operational resilience meet. For practices looking to thrive this year, the message is clear: don’t see service as a back-office function. See it as a growth engine, a brand differentiator, and one of the most valuable assets a law firm has.

Because in a market full of uncertainty, the one thing that’s certain is this: customers will always remember how you made them feel. And that feeling might just be the difference between surviving and scaling.

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) a leading middle market investment bank and market leader in the litigation finance sector, is pleased to announce that Harris Pogust has joined the firm as a Senior Advisor.  Harris (Mr. Pogust) is one of the best known and prominent attorneys in the mass tort and class action fields, he was the founding partner and Chairman of Pogust Goodhead worldwide until early 2024 and is currently working with Trial Lawyers for a Better Tomorrow, a charity Harris founded, to help children reach their educational potential all over the world.  Harris’ life work has been to deliver justice for those who have been damaged or injured through the negligence or bad faith of others.

“We are thrilled to have Harris as part of our team.  His knowledge, experience and relationships in the litigation finance sector are of great value to Bryant Park and our clients.  As the litigation finance world becomes more competitive, complex and challenging, having an expert like Harris on our team is invaluable,” said Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park.

Harris’ efforts, in conjunction with Bryant Park will focus on assisting law firms and funders in developing strategies to more efficiently fund their operations and cases and assist them in establishing the right relationships for future growth.  Harris commented, “I have been fortunate to have been a practicing attorney and partner in law firms for over 35 years focused on building and growing a worldwide book of business in the class action/mass tort field.  That required significant capital and throughout my career I have raised over $1 billion for my firms.  I have learned what works and what doesn’t.  I have seen both the risks and rewards in this industry.  I look forward to being able to work with law firms and funders to assist them in putting the right strategies in place with Bryant Park and bringing capital and liquidity to help them grow and flourish.”

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing capital raising, M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise and a diversified, well-founded breadth of experience in a number of sectors, including specialty finance & financial services. BPC has raised various forms of credit, growth equity, and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. Our professionals have completed more than 400 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $30 billion.

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

Therium Capital Advisors (TCA) announced today the launch of its independent advisory services business dedicated to helping claimants, law firms and corporates to source, structure and secure litigation finance. TCA offers end-to-end support including funding strategy, investor engagement, financial modelling, deal structuring, ongoing case management and secondary market advisory. Based in London, the firm is advising on deals in the UK, continental Europe and Australia.

Therium Capital Advisors is led by litigation funding pioneer Neil Purslow and co-founded by investment banker Harry Stockdale. Neil has over 16 years of experience in litigation finance, raising capital and investing worldwide across all forms of litigation finance from single cases funding through to portfolio, corporate and law firm funding arrangements. Harry was previously head of UK M&A at investment bank Haitong with twenty years of experience in investment banking, advising law firms and litigation funders on complex financial transactions.  

TCA is the first advisory firm to provide clients with advisory services that are backed by a deep understanding of litigation finance investing coupled with the financial and transactional expertise of investment banking. Therium Capital Advisors bridges the gap between claimants, law firms and corporates on the one side and existing and new sources of institutional capital on the other.  Through the combined expertise of its founders, TCA opens up the investor universe that is available to clients and drives quality in the investment propositions, efficiency in the funding process and competition in the funding market.

TCA exclusively advises claimants, law firms and corporates, ensuring that it remains conflict-free.  The firm advises across the full range of legal assets including single case and portfolio funding, law firm financing, financing options for corporates and existing portfolios of legal assets.   

Neil Purslow, co-founder and Managing Partner of Therium Capital Advisors said: “We are at a pivotal moment in the development of the legal finance industry, given the relative paucity of traditional funding capital available.  However, we are seeing a shift towards new categories of investors in legal assets who want exposure to this uncorrelated asset class. By leveraging our unrivalled experience across both litigation funding and investment banking, we are assisting our clients to navigate this landscape with confidence, speed and understanding, and we provide them with access to a broader set of funding options and to meet their funding needs efficiently and cost effectively.”

Harry Stockdale, co-founder and Partner of Therium Capital Advisors said: “We are bringing an investment banking mind set to the litigation funding world which has developed largely without the benefit of specialist advisors. This professionalisation of the funding process will make the sector more efficient and accessible to a wider audience of investors in addition to the traditional litigation funders. We are already seeing the benefit of this, for both clients and investors alike, and is part of the maturing of litigation finance as an asset class.”

Therium Capital Advisors provides the following services to claimants, law firms and corporates:

• Deal Preparation: Preparing funding propositions to be investment-ready.
• Capital Sourcing: Identifying and engaging with suitable funders and capital providers from across the spectrum of legal assets investors.
• Financial Modelling and Analysis: Providing robust financial modelling and scenario analysis to evaluate deal structures and model returns.
• Investor Materials and Outreach: Advising on the preparation of investor-facing materials and documentation, inserting rigour and discipline to ensure efficiency in the funding process.
• Co-Funding: Advising on the identification and engagement of potential co-investors to optimise risk-sharing and capital raising.
• Negotiating Funding Terms: Leading negotiations with investors to secure terms which balance commercial viability with the interests of the funded party.
• Deal Structuring and Documentation: Advising on deal structures and overseeing the drafting and execution of all relevant documentation.
• Post-Funding Case Management: Providing ongoing monitoring, reporting, and servicing support post-funding on behalf of the claimant, to manage risks and support positive case outcomes.
• Secondary Market Advisory: Advising on secondary transactions of existing legal assets including sub-funding arrangements and exits.

More information can be found at: www.therium.com/theriumcapitaladvisors

A new player is entering the international disputes arena—this time with a distinct twist on legal funding. Gryphon Law has officially launched as the first law firm globally to specialize in contingency-fee representation for cross-border disputes.

Gryphon Law aims to offer an alternative to third-party litigation funding by shouldering the cost of legal claims in return for a share of the outcome. Based in New York and with plans to expand into London and Miami, the firm targets clients who might otherwise turn to traditional funders, offering instead to partner with them directly through performance-based fee structures.

The firm was founded by John Templeman, a seasoned international disputes attorney qualified in New York, England & Wales, and Australia, who previously held roles at leading global law firms. Templeman has assembled a multilingual team capable of handling the full lifecycle of international litigation and arbitration in English, Spanish, and French—from initiation to enforcement. Co-founding the venture is Daura Dutour, an 18-year disputes veteran with experience in the U.S., France, and Haiti, supported by three additional associates.

Templeman stated: “I believe there’s a real opportunity in the market to provide clients with an appealing alternative to third party funding, particularly in the sub-US$30 million value range below where many of the funders operate. I’ve been fortunate to assemble a world-class team of disputes lawyers who share this vision – we’re looking forward to contributing to this rapidly evolving field.”

Gryphon Law’s business model suggests a more vertically integrated approach to litigation finance—embedding the funder role within the law firm itself. For clients, this could mean greater alignment of interests, fewer intermediaries, and possibly reduced costs when compared to traditional third-party funding arrangements.

The following was contributed by Francesco Dialti, Partner of CBA Studio Legale.

Litigation funding is a mechanism that is gradually taking root in the Italian market. In turn, application of Italian securitization mechanism to litigation funding is a very recent phenomenon.

So far, there had been only a few securitization transactions to fund private antitrust enforcement. 

Last August, finally the first Italian law securitization exclusively dedicated to fund litigation of claims for personal injuries was successfully completed, which represents a milestone for the development of the litigation funding market in Italy.

The transaction – carried out by the special purpose vehicle Prontodanno.it SPV 1 S.r.l., with the assistance of CBA Studio Legale as legal advisor – involves a target portfolio of over 500 claims, with a prospective value of €70 million, for compensation, under contractual and/or non-contractual liability, for personal injuries suffered by individuals as a result of medical malpractice or road accidents or accidents at work.

In the context of the transaction, Prontodanno.it S.r.l. acts as asset manager and Centotrenta Servicing S.p.A. as servicer. This note aims to provide a brief overview of such transaction, focusing in particular on its main structural and operational aspects. From a structural point of view, the transaction qualifies as a true sale securitization.

In order to aggregate as many claims as possible, it is a multi-originator transaction, with the assignors being individuals resident in Italy who own a potential right to compensation for damages suffered as a result of medical malpractice, road accidents or workplace accidents.

The purchase of these claims by a special purpose vehicle (SPV), set up specifically for this purpose under Italian law 130/1999, is financed through the issuance of partly-paid asset-backed securities (ABS), subscribed by a number of professional investors, including family offices and holding companies of some well-known Italian entrepreneurial families.

In particular, by subscribing to the securities and paying to the SPV the relevant subscription price – partly at the time of issue of the ABS and partly during the so-called “investment period” (see below) – the noteholders provide the SPV with the necessary funds not only to purchase the claims, but also to pay the relevant litigation costs.

The transaction has a revolving nature: cash flows generated by the collection of the claims, for a defined term (the “investment period”), are used exclusively to purchase new claims and finance the litigation costs; i.e., in the first phase, there is no repayment of capital to investors.

In order to cover the purchase price of new claims and the litigation costs to be incurred during the transaction, the SPV shall mainly use (i) the initial payments made by the noteholders at the time of subscription of the ABS and (ii) the amounts collected from time to time by the SPV from the claims. If such proceeds are insufficient to purchase new claims and/or finance ongoing litigation, the SPV may request additional payments from the noteholders until expiry of the investment period. 

It is to be noted that, as expressly provided under Italian securitization law, the claims and all related collections constitute assets segregated from all other assets of the SPV, being available exclusively to satisfy the SPV’s obligations to the noteholders and any other creditor of the SPV in relation to the relevant transaction.

The asset manager Prontodanno.it S.r.l. has been appointed to select and evaluate the claims, while Centotrenta Servicing S.p.A., acting as servicer supervised by the Bank of Italy in accordance with applicable Italian legislation, is responsible for verifying the compliance of the transaction with the law and the relevant prospectus, as well as for the management and recovery of the claims.

—

Francesco Dialti is a Partner and heads the Banking & Finance and Capital Markets practices. He has gained considerable experience in advising Italian and international banks on banking law, asset finance and structured finance. He advises financial institutions, companies and investors on real estate finance, project finance, asset finance and structured finance.

He is recognised by Chambers & Partners; Legal 500 ranks him as Leading Partner in B&F Lender side, as Recommended Lawyer in B&F Borrower side and Shipping, as Key Lawyer in Energy; Best Lawyers ranks him as Recommended Lawyer in Banking and Finance. IFLR1000 recognised him as Highly Regarded in B&F and in Project Finance, Leaders League and Lexology Index placed him in the Banking & Finance category.

At the Client Choice Awards, he was honoured in the Banking category in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2022.

A new UK class action against Apple is set to test the boundaries of competition law and collective redress, with global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway stepping in to finance the case. James Daley, a well-known consumer advocate and founder of Fairer Finance, is spearheading the action with the backing of Milberg London LLP, targeting Apple’s alleged abuse of market dominance through its Apple Pay platform.

According to the claim website, the proposed class action—believed to represent as many as 50 million UK consumers—centers on Apple’s practice of restricting iPhone users to Apple Pay as the sole mobile wallet option, and imposing fees on card issuers that are ultimately passed on to consumers. Legal proceedings are expected to be filed before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal within weeks.

Daley has assembled a high-profile team, including King’s Counsel Thomas de la Mare and economists from Oxera Consulting, to support the claim. Milberg’s Zena Prodromou and James Oldnall lead the legal team, and this marks the third competition claim in as many years for the firm’s increasingly active antitrust litigation practice.

Omni Bridgeway’s Investment Manager Simon Latham praised the effort, saying, “Class actions are vital as they often represent the only avenue for consumers to gain access to justice.”

If successful, the case could reshape how platform monopolies are challenged in the UK and open the door for more consumer-focused litigation funders to support broad-based claims. As collective actions continue to gain traction in UK courts, litigation funding will remain a crucial enabler in holding dominant tech firms accountable.

A new international alliance of litigation finance professionals has been launched to streamline cross-border collaboration in the legal funding industry. Global Litigation Funding (GLF) brings together an initial cohort of independent litigation funding advisors and consultants with the aim of creating a smarter, faster, and more trusted network for legal finance across jurisdictions.

A LinkedIn post states that the alliance was founded by a group of well-known industry professionals, including Peter Petyt (4 Rivers), Kishore Jaichandani (Caveat Capital), Chris Garvey (Sachenga & Co.), Miko Burzec (independent advisor), and Dinesh Natarajan (Trident Strategy). Each of the founding members brings regional specialization and deep domain knowledge in litigation funding, legaltech, asset tracing, and financial structuring.

GLF’s strategy centers on collective intelligence and pooled resources. The alliance aims to improve deal execution capabilities by sharing insights, contacts, infrastructure, and back-office support. Members are positioned across key legal markets, offering clients both local insight and the reach of a global network. The alliance is not itself a fund but functions as a coordinated platform for funding advisors and stakeholders seeking to deliver cross-border legal finance solutions.

Each founding firm brings a complementary strength: 4 Rivers offers deep brokerage experience, Caveat Capital is known for its bespoke case structuring, Sachenga & Co. has earned Chambers recognition, Trident Strategy focuses on sports-related disputes, and Miko Burzec has a background in capital raising and institutional advisory.

GLF’s formation comes amid rising demand for globally coordinated litigation funding strategies. As legal disputes grow increasingly international, this kind of collaboration-focused model may serve as a blueprint for the future.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Summary: Consumer legal funding (CLF) is a non-recourse financial product that helps people meet essential living expenses while their legal claims are pending. It does not finance lawsuits, dictate strategy, or control settlements. In fact, every state that has enacted CLF statutes has explicitly banned providers from influencing the litigation process.

1) What Consumer Legal Funding Is

CLF provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance, typically a few thousand dollars to individuals awaiting resolution of a claim. These funds are used for rent, food, childcare, or car payments, not for legal fees or trial costs. If the case is lost, the consumer owes nothing.

CLF is not an investment in lawsuits or law firms, it is an investment in the consumer. 

2) Why Control Is Banned

The attorney–client relationship is central to the justice system. CLF statutes protect it by prohibiting funders from interfering. Common provisions include:
– No control over litigation strategy or settlement.
– No right to select attorneys or direct discovery.
– No settlement vetoes. Only the client, guided by counsel, makes those decisions.
– No fee-sharing or referral payments.
– No practice of law. Funders cannot provide legal advice.

These bans are spelled out in statutes across the country. Violating them exposes providers to penalties, voided contracts, and regulatory action.

3) Non-Recourse Structure Removes Leverage

Control requires leverage, but CLF offers none. Because repayment is only due if the consumer recovers, providers cannot demand monthly payments or seize assets. They do not fund litigation costs, so they cannot threaten to cut off discovery or expert testimony. The consumer retains ownership of the claim and full authority over all decisions.

4) Ethical Safeguards Reinforce Statutes

Even without statutory language, attorney ethics rules bar outside influence:
– Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
– Confidentiality rules prevent improper information-sharing.
– No fee-sharing with non-lawyers ensures funders cannot ‘buy’ influence.
– The decision to settle rests solely with the client, not third parties.

Together, these rules and statutes guarantee that litigation decisions remain with client and counsel.

5) Market Realities: Why Control Makes No Sense

CLF contracts are relatively small, especially compared to the cost of litigation. They are designed to cover groceries and rent, not discovery budgets or jury consultants. Trying to control a case would be both unlawful and economically irrational.

Because repayment is contingent, funders want efficient and fair resolutions, not drawn-out litigation. Their interests align with consumers and counsel: achieving just outcomes at reasonable speed.

6) Addressing Misconceptions

– Myth: Funders push for bigger settlements.
  Fact: They cannot veto settlements. Dragging out cases only increases risk and cost.

– Myth: Funders get privileged information.
  Fact: Attorneys control disclosures; privilege remains intact. Access to limited case status updates does not confer control.

– Myth: CLF pressure consumers to reject fair settlements.
  Fact: Statutes forbid interference. And because advances are non-recourse, consumers are not personally liable beyond case proceeds.

– Myth: CLF is an assignment of the claim.
  Fact: Consumers remain the sole parties in interest. Providers have only a contingent repayment right.

7) How Statutes Work in Practice

States that regulate CLF typically require:
1. Plain-language contracts advising consumers to consult counsel.
2. Cooling-off periods for rescission.
3. Bright-line bans on control over strategy or settlement.
4. No fee-sharing or referral payments.
5. Regulatory oversight through registration or examination.
6. Civil remedies for violations.

This model balances access to financial stability with ironclad protections for litigation independence.

8) The Consumer’s Perspective

CLF does not alter case strategy; it alters life circumstances. Without it, many injured individuals face eviction, repossession, or the inability to pay basic bills. That pressure can lead to ‘forced settlements.’ By covering essentials, CLF allows clients to consider their lawyer’s advice based on legal merits, not immediate financial desperation.

9) Compliance in Contracts

Standard CLF contracts reflect the law:
– Providers have no authority over legal decisions.
– Attorneys owe duties solely to clients.
– Terms granting control are void and unenforceable.

National providers adopt these clauses uniformly, even in states without explicit statutes, creating a strong industry baseline.

10) Enforcement and Oversight

Regulators can discipline providers, void unlawful terms, or impose penalties. Attorneys risk ethics sanctions if they allow third-party interference. Consumers may also have remedies under statute. These enforcement tools make attempted control both illegal and unprofitable.

11) Policy Rationale

Legislatures designed CLF frameworks to achieve two goals:
1. Preserve litigation integrity by keeping decisions between client and counsel.
2. Expand access to justice by giving consumers breathing room while claims proceed.

The explicit statutory bans on control ensure both goals are met.

Conclusion

Consumer legal funding is a support tool for people, not a lever over lawsuits. Statutes across the country make this crystal clear: CLF providers cannot influence litigation strategy, cannot veto settlements, and cannot practice law. The product is non-recourse, small in scale, and tightly regulated.

For consumers, CLF offers stability during difficult times. For the justice system, it preserves the attorney–client relationship and the independence of litigation. The result is access to justice without interference—because control of litigation is not only absent, but also expressly banned by law.

Austrian litigation funder Padronus is financing the largest collective action ever filed in the German-speaking world. The case targets Meta’s illegal surveillance practices.

Together with the Austrian Consumer Protection Association (VSV) as claimant, the German law firm Baumeister & Kollegen, and the Austrian law firm Salburg Rechtsanwälte, Padronus has filed collective actions in both Germany and Austria against Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd. The lawsuits challenge Meta’s extensive surveillance of the public, which, according to Padronus and VSV, violates European data protection law.

“Meta knows far more about us than we imagine – from our shopping habits and searches for medication to personal struggles. This is made possible by so-called business tools that are deployed across the internet. The U.S. corporation is present on third-party sites even when we are logged out of its platforms or when our browser settings promise privacy. This breaches the GDPR,” explains Richard Eibl, Managing Director of Padronus.

Meta generates revenue by allowing companies to place paid advertisements on Instagram and Facebook. Which ad is shown to which user depends on the user’s interests, identified by Meta’s algorithm based on platform activity and social connections. In addition, Meta has developed tools such as the “Meta Pixel,” embedded on countless third-party websites, including those dealing with sensitive personal matters. The “Conversions API” is integrated directly on web servers, meaning data collection no longer occurs on the user’s device and cannot be detected or disabled, even by technically savvy users. It bypasses cookie restrictions, incognito mode, or VPN usage.

Millions of businesses worldwide use these tools to target consumers and analyze ad effectiveness. “Use of these technologies is now omnipresent and an integral part of daily internet usage. Every user becomes uniquely identifiable to Meta at all times as soon as they browse third-party sites, even if not logged into Facebook or Instagram. Meta learns which pages and subpages are visited, what is clicked, searched, and purchased,” says Eibl. He adds: “This surveillance has gone further than George Orwell anticipated in 1984 – at least his protagonist was aware of the extent of his surveillance.”

While Meta users can configure settings on Instagram and Facebook to prevent the collected data from being used for the delivery of personalized advertising, the data itself is nevertheless already transmitted to Meta from third-party websites prior to obtaining consent to cookies. Meta then, without exception, transfers the data worldwide to third countries, in particular to the United States, where it evaluates the data to an unknown extent and passes it on to third parties such as service providers, external researchers, and authorities.

Numerous German district courts (including Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, Leipzig) and more than 70 other courts have already confirmed Meta’s illegal surveillance in over 700 ongoing individual lawsuits. These first-instance rulings, achieved by lawyers Baumeister & Kollegen, are not yet final. Eibl notes: “The courts have awarded plaintiffs immaterial damages of up to €5,000. If only one in ten of the up to 50 million affected individuals in Germany joins the collective action, the dispute value rises to €25 billion. This is the largest lawsuit ever filed in the German-speaking world.”

Meta’s lack of seriousness about user privacy is well-documented. In 2023, Ireland’s data protection authority fined Meta €1.2 billion for illegal U.S. data transfers. In 2021, Luxembourg imposed a €746 million fine for misuse of user data for advertising. In 2024, Ireland again fined Meta €251 million for a major security breach. In July 2025, a U.S. lawsuit was launched against several Meta executives, demanding $8 billion in damages for systematic violations of an FTC privacy order. Richard Eibl notes: “This case goes to the heart of Meta’s business model. If we succeed, Meta will have to stop this unlawful spying in our countries.”

The new collective action mechanism for qualified entities such as VSV is a novel legal instrument. If successful, the unlawful practice must be ceased, and compensation paid to consumers who have joined the case.

The lawsuit is expected to trigger political tensions with the current protectionist U.S. administration. Only last week, the U.S. President again threatened the EU with new tariffs after the Commission imposed a €2.95 billion fine on Google. “We expect the U.S. government will also try to exert pressure in our case to shield Meta. But European data protection law is not negotiable, and we are certain we will not bow to such pressure,” says Julius Richter, also Managing Director of Padronus.

Consumers in Austria and Germany can now register at meta-klage.de and meta-klage.at to join the collective action without any cost risk. Padronus covers all litigation expenses; only in the event of success will a commission be deducted from the recovered amount.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Over the past decade, insurance companies, tort reform advocates, and certain think tanks have increasingly pointed to “social inflation” as a driving force behind higher insurance premiums and larger jury awards. Let’s be clear “social inflation” is not a formally a defined economic concept; it’s an insurance industry narrative that describes some real legal and cultural trends The term itself is elastic, meant to describe cultural, legal, and economic shifts that allegedly lead to outsized liability costs. Critics have attempted to lump Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) into this category, claiming that it somehow fuels runaway verdicts and higher settlement values.

But such claims are deeply flawed. Consumer Legal Funding is fundamentally distinct from litigation financing or any mechanism that could impact the cost of litigation or influence the size of awards. CLF does not bankroll attorneys, experts, or trial strategies; rather, it provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance to injured individuals so they can pay rent, keep the lights on, and buy groceries while their legal claims move through an often slow and complex justice system.

Consumer Legal Funding has nothing to do with social inflation by exploring the mechanics of CLF, unpacking the definition of social inflation, analyzing the evidence, and dismantling the arguments insurers use to conflate the two.

Understanding Social Inflation

“Social inflation” is a term widely used in the insurance industry but often poorly defined. Broadly, it refers to increases in insurance claims costs beyond what can be explained by general economic inflation. Insurers believe it is due to several factors, including:

1. Expanding liability concepts – Courts and legislatures allowing broader recovery for damages.
2. Plaintiff-friendly juries – Larger awards due to shifting attitudes toward corporations and insurers.
3. Aggressive plaintiff bar strategies – Creative legal theories, demand of damages at high levels.
4. Erosion of tort reform – Judicial rulings striking down statutory caps or limits.

While these elements may influence claims costs, they have little to do with the day-to-day survival assistance provided through Consumer Legal Funding. CLF is not part of the litigation itself—it is part of the consumer’s household economy.

What Consumer Legal Funding Actually Is

Consumer Legal Funding is a simple, consumer-focused financial product:

• Non-recourse funds – The consumer receives a small amount of financial assistance (average $3,000–$5,000) against the potential proceeds of their legal claim. If they lose the case, they have no further obligation.
• Restricted use – The funds cannot be used to pay legal fees or litigation costs. They are meant for everyday living expenses such as rent, medical co-pays, utilities, and food.
• Separate from litigation – Attorneys remain fully in charge of legal strategy, and courts determine the value of the case without reference to whether a consumer has received CLF.
• Statutory protections – In states where CLF is regulated, statutes explicitly prohibit the funds from being used to finance litigation.

In essence, CLF is about financing life, not litigation it ensures that injured consumers are not put into a “forced settlement” simply because they cannot afford to wait for fair compensation.

The False Link Between CLF and Social Inflation

Opponents of CLF often argue that providing consumers with financial breathing room allows them to hold out for larger settlements, thereby inflating claims costs. This narrative is problematic for several reasons:

1. Settlements are driven by case value, not desperation.
   Settlement negotiations are based on liability facts, damages evidence, and the likelihood of success at trial. A consumer’s ability to pay rent has no bearing on whether a defendant is legally liable for an injury.
2. CLF levels the playing field, not tips it.
   Insurers routinely exploit financial desperation to force low-ball settlements. CLF prevents this imbalance but does not artificially inflate case value, it simply ensures consumers can wait for the fair value of their settlement and not a forced settlement. 
3. No evidence connects CLF to higher verdicts or insurance premiums.
   Despite repeated assertions, insurers have not produced empirical studies demonstrating that states with regulated CLF experience higher claim costs or premium growth compared to states without it.
4. Average funding amounts are too small to affect case economics.
   With fundings averaging just a few thousand dollars, it cannot influence the outcome of the litigation.

Social Inflation Drivers: CLF Isn’t One of Them

To further dismantle the narrative, it is important to examine what is thought to be the drivers of “social inflation” and show where CLF stands in relation.

1. Jury Attitudes and “Nuclear Verdicts”

Juries may award higher damages due to distrust of corporations or outrage over egregious conduct. These cultural and psychological factors are wholly unrelated to whether a consumer had help paying rent while waiting for trial.

2. Expanding Damages Categories

Courts and legislatures increasingly allow recovery for noneconomic damage or broaden definitions of liability. CLF has no influence over judicial doctrine or statutory reform.

3. Litigation Tactics 

CLF contracts explicitly bar funding companies from interfering in legal strategy.

By every measure, CLF is not a driver of social inflation but a consumer protection tool.

Evidence From Regulated States

Roughly a dozen states—including Ohio, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont—have enacted statutes regulating Consumer Legal Funding. These states continue to have competitive insurance markets, and there is no evidence of outsized premium growth attributable to CLF.

If CLF were truly a driver of so-called social inflation, one would expect observable differences in these states’ insurance markets compared to others. None exists.

Insurer Motivations for Blaming CLF

Why, then, do insurers persist in linking CLF to social inflation? Several strategic motivations are at play:

1. Deflection from internal cost drivers.
   Insurers face rising costs due to investment losses, catastrophic weather events, and corporate overhead. Blaming “social inflation” provides a convenient external scapegoat.
2. Preservation of settlement leverage.
   Low-ball settlements save insurers billions annually. CLF disrupts this model by giving consumers the financial means to reject unfair offers.
3. Regulatory advantage.
   By conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance, insurers push for broad disclosure and restrictions that would make CLF less accessible, thereby tilting the field back in their favor.

In short, attacks on CLF are less about economics and more about control of the settlement process.

Consumer Stories: The Human Impact

Behind every policy debate are real people. Consider these examples:

• Maria, a single mother in Ohio, suffered a serious injury in a car accident. While her case moved through litigation, she was unable to work. A $3,000 funding allowed her to pay rent and avoid eviction. Her case later settled for fair value based on her medical damages, not because she received CLF.
• James, a factory worker in Tennessee, used a $4,500 funding to cover medical co-pays and keep food on the table for his family. Without CLF, he would have been pressured to accept an early, inadequate settlement. His attorney, free from outside interference, negotiated based on case facts.

These stories illustrate that CLF prevents forced settlements, a concept fundamentally at odds with the idea of social inflation.

Reframing the Debate: CLF as a Consumer Protection Tool

Instead of vilifying CLF, policymakers and regulators should recognize it as a consumer protection mechanism that:

• Preserves access to justice by ensuring consumers can sustain themselves while cases proceed.
• Protects vulnerable populations from financial exploitation by insurers.
• Operates transparently under statutory frameworks that prohibit interference with litigation.
• Provides an alternative to payday loans or credit card debt.

By reframing CLF in this way, legislators can see that it is part of the solution to financial inequity in the justice system, not a contributor to systemic cost drivers like “social inflation”.

Conclusion

The narrative that Consumer Legal Funding contributes to social inflation is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the mechanics of the product, and misleading its intent. CLF does not increase jury awards, expand liability doctrines, or drive insurance premiums. Instead, it provides a lifeline for consumers caught in the limbo of pending legal claims.

Policymakers should reject the false linkage and recognize Consumer Legal Funding for what it is: a narrow, humane financial product that has nothing to do with so called “social inflation”, but everything to do with justice and survival.

Kerberos Capital Management has been named one of only four finalists nationwide for Chief Investment Officer (CIO) magazine’s 2025 Industry Innovation Awards in the Private Credit category.

Each year, CIO magazine honors organizations that demonstrate “truly exceptional approaches to the challenges of institutional asset ownership and asset management.” This recognition highlights Kerberos’ leadership in private credit and its innovative strategies that continue to set new standards in the institutional investing market.

“We are proud to be recognized among the top firms in the country for our work in private credit,” said Joe Siprut, CEO & CIO of Kerberos Capital Management. “This acknowledgment underscores our team’s commitment to innovation, disciplined risk management, and delivering differentiated value to our investors.”

Kerberos’ inclusion as a finalist reinforces its growing national reputation as a forward-thinking investment manager that thrives on tackling complex challenges, seeking to generate alpha from complexity but not from increased risk.

About Kerberos Capital Management

Kerberos Capital Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser and alternative investment manager, providing creative solutions for those seeking capital in special situations. Kerberos’ flagship private credit strategy emphasizes legal assets and other complex collateral. Kerberos manages both a pooled vehicle and separate accounts for institutional and high net worth investors worldwide.

Apex Litigation Finance has strengthened its leadership team with the appointment of Gabriel Olearnik, a highly experienced litigation funding professional with a global track record in high-value dispute resolution and complex commercial matters.

Over the past five years, Gabriel has originated and reviewed more than 451 litigation funding cases worldwide with an aggregate value exceeding $116 billion, closing deals worth over $700 million. His recent work includes the successful settlement of a high-profile BIT matter as well as executive employment claims in the UK.

Gabriel’s career spans senior roles in UK, US and European litigation funders, where he was instrumental in structuring high-value transactions, securing strategic court orders and conducting multi-jurisdictional investigations. In 2023, he closed a £268 million litigation funding deal in just three weeks, underscoring his ability to deliver results under tight timelines.

Recognised by Lexology as one of only 66 lawyers worldwide to receive the Thought Leaders in Third Party Funding accolade, Gabriel has been involved in matters that have attracted daily media coverage and required innovative dispute strategies. His experience extends to training legal teams, advising on politically sensitive disputes, and executing complex enforcement actions.

“Gabriel brings exceptional global experience, deep sector knowledge, and a proven ability to deliver in high-stakes environments,” said Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance. “His appointment further enhances Apex’s market position and it’s ability to originate, evaluate and fund complex commercial claims for our clients.”

“I am delighted to join Maurice and the team at Apex,” said Gabriel. “Apex’s strong financial backing and their speed of execution make this a natural alignment. I look forward to building on the strong foundation set out by my predecessor, Stephen Allinson, and contributing to the future success of the business.”

Gabriel’s appointment reflects Apex’s ongoing growth in funding small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes and builds on the company’s commitment to delivering fast, fair, and competitive non-recourse litigation funding solutions to claimant’s who may be prohibited from pursuing meritorious cases due to cost and/or financial risk.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

—

When people talk about third party litigation financing, they often lump everything into one bucket—as if every type of funding that touches the legal system is essentially the same. But that’s a misconception. The world of legal finance is much more varied, and each type serves a distinct role for a distinct audience.

A good way to understand the differences is to step away from the courtroom and into the world of music. Think of Consumer Legal Funding as a rock band, Commercial Litigation Financing as a symphony orchestra, and Attorney Portfolio Financing as a gospel choir.

All three make music—they all provide funding connected to the legal system—but they produce very different sounds, are organized differently, and serve different purposes. Let’s explore these three “musical groups” of legal funding to understand how they work, why they exist, and what separates them.

Consumer Legal Funding: The Rock Band

Immediate, Personal, and Audience-Driven

A rock band connects directly with its fans. The music is raw, emotional, and often tied to the lived experiences of ordinary people. That’s exactly what Consumer Legal Funding does—it provides individuals with direct financial support while they are waiting for their personal injury cases to resolve.

Most people who seek consumer legal funding have been in a car accident, or experienced some other harm caused by negligence. While their cases work their way through the legal system, they still need to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and support their families. Consumer Legal Funding steps in to help them cover these day-to-day expenses.

Like a rock band that thrives on the energy of a crowd, Consumer Legal Funding is closely tied to the needs of everyday people. It’s not about abstract legal theories or corporate strategy. It’s about giving real people financial breathing room so they can withstand the pressure from insurers who might otherwise push them to settle for less than they deserve.

Flexibility and Accessibility

Just as a rock band doesn’t require a massive concert hall or multimillion-dollar backing, Consumer Legal Funding is accessible on a small, personal scale. A consumer can request a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to cover immediate needs, and repayment is contingent on the case outcome. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing.

This non-recourse structure mirrors the risk of a rock band going on tour—they might make money, or they might not, but the fans are there for the experience. Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding companies take the risk that the case might not succeed, and they may not get their investment back.

Critics and Misconceptions

Rock bands often face criticism for being too loud, too disruptive, or too unconventional compared to “serious” classical music. Consumer Legal Funding gets similar pushback. Critics sometimes argue it encourages frivolous lawsuits or drives up settlement costs. But the reality is the opposite—the funds provided to a consumer doesn’t fund lawsuits; they fund life necessities for individuals already in the legal system.

Consumer Legal Funding’s role is narrow but vital. Like a rock band giving a voice to ordinary people, it empowers individuals who might otherwise be silenced by financial hardship.

Commercial Litigation Financing: The Symphony Orchestra

Complex, Structured, and High-Stakes

Where Consumer Legal Funding is the rock band of the legal funding world, Commercial Litigation Financing is the full symphony orchestra—large, complex, and meticulously coordinated.

Here, the players are not individuals injured in accidents but corporations, investors, and law firms involved in high-value commercial disputes. These cases can involve intellectual property battles, antitrust issues, international contract disputes, or shareholder actions. The stakes often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like an orchestra, Commercial Litigation Financing is structured and multi-layered. Each section—strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion—must work together under the baton of a conductor. In litigation finance, this “conductor” is the funding company, aligning investors, lawyers, and plaintiffs toward a common goal: seeing the case through to resolution.

Strategic and Long-Term

Orchestras don’t play three-minute songs; they perform long symphonies that require endurance, precision, and careful planning. Similarly, Commercial Litigation Financing is not about immediate cash flow. It’s about supporting a complex legal strategy over years of litigation.

Funds can cover attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and even corporate operations while a case drags on. The financing enables companies to pursue claims they might otherwise abandon because of the sheer cost and duration of litigation.

Audience and Impact

The audience for an orchestra is often more formal, more elite, and more willing to pay for a grand performance. Commercial Litigation Financing likewise serves a specialized, high-stakes audience: multinational corporations, hedge funds, and sophisticated investors. The outcomes affect entire industries and markets, not just individual households.

While a rock band might play in bars or stadiums, an orchestra plays in concert halls before an audience expecting refinement. That’s the difference in scale between Consumer Legal Funding and Commercial Litigation Financing.

Attorney Portfolio Financing: The Gospel Choir

Collective Strength and Community

If Consumer Legal Funding is a rock band and Commercial Litigation Financing is a symphony orchestra, then Attorney Portfolio Financing is a gospel choir. It’s powerful, collective, and rooted in the idea of strength in numbers.

Attorney Portfolio Financing provides capital to law firms by pooling together multiple cases—often personal injury or contingency fee cases—into one financing arrangement. Instead of betting on a single case, the funding spreads across a portfolio, much like the voices of a choir blend to create a unified sound.

Stability and Predictability

A gospel choir doesn’t rely on one soloist to carry the performance. If one voice falters, the rest keep singing. Similarly, portfolio financing reduces risk because the outcome of any one case doesn’t determine the success of the financing. The strength lies in the collective performance of many cases.

This allows law firms to take on more clients, expand their practices, and better withstand the financial ups and downs of litigation. For clients, it means their attorneys have the resources to see their cases through rather than being pressured into quick settlements.

Purpose and Spirit

Gospel choirs aren’t just about music—they’re about inspiration, resilience, and community. Attorney Portfolio Financing carries a similar spirit. It’s designed not only to provide financial stability for law firms but also to empower them to serve clients more effectively.

While the audience for a gospel choir is often the community itself, the “audience” for portfolio financing is law firms and, indirectly, the clients who benefit from better-resourced representation.

Comparing the Three Sounds

To appreciate the differences, let’s put the three side by side:

Why These Distinctions Matter

Understanding these distinctions isn’t just an academic exercise—it has real implications for policy, regulation, and public perception. Too often, critics conflate Consumer Legal Funding with Commercial Litigation Financing or assume Attorney Portfolio Financing operates the same way as individual case advances.

But regulating a rock band as if it were an orchestra—or treating a gospel choir as if it were a solo act—would miss the point entirely. Each type of legal funding has its own purpose, structure, and audience.

• Consumer Legal Funding keeps people afloat in times of crisis.
• Commercial Litigation Financing enables corporations to fight complex battles on equal footing.
• Attorney Portfolio Financing stabilizes law firms and expands access to justice.

All three are part of the broader “music” of legal finance, but they are distinct genres with distinct contributions.

Conclusion: Harmony Through Diversity

Music would be dull if every performance sounded the same. The same is true for legal finance. A rock band, a symphony orchestra, and a gospel choir all create music, but their sounds, audiences, and purposes differ dramatically.

Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding, Commercial Litigation Financing, and Attorney Portfolio Financing are all forms of legal finance, but each plays a unique role. Recognizing these differences is crucial for policymakers, industry professionals, and the public.

When we appreciate the rock band, the orchestra, and the choir for what they are, we begin to see the full richness of the legal finance “soundtrack.” Together, they form a diverse ecosystem that, when balanced correctly, ensures both individuals and institutions can pursue justice without being silenced by financial pressure.

Pollen Street Capital (“Pollen Street”) today announces a new senior secured credit facility of up to £50 million to New North Litigation Capital (“New North”). New North is a commercial litigation finance company and a direct subsidiary of Capital Law, a Cardiff based law firm founded in 2006.

Capital Law has a strong track record in commercial litigation, having closed over 400 claimant cases since 2001 with a 95% win rate. Drawing on its senior leadership and experienced disputes team, Capital Law launched New North to address the underserved small to mid-market segment of commercial litigation market. 

New North will be the only litigation financier in the UK owned and operated by practicing lawyers, bringing their day to day lived experience of handling mid-market litigation into pricing the risk and the funding investment decisions.

Christopher Nott, Founder and CEO of New North commented: “We are pleased to work with Pollen Street on this financing to launch New North Litigation Capital. The funding supports us to bridge a critical gap by funding claims that are often deemed too small by other players in the market. We are excited to work with the Pollen Street team as we create this new kind of litigation funding.”

Connor Marshall-Mckie, Investment Director at Pollen Street, commented: “New North addresses an important gap in the litigation funding space, focusing on smaller mid-market commercial litigation. With the significant opportunity available and the deep experience of the leadership team from Capital Law we are excited to partner with the team to support their growth.”

About Pollen Street

Pollen Street is a fast-growing and high-performing private capital asset manager. Established in 2013, the firm has built deep capability across the real estate, financial and business services sectors aligned with mega-trends shaping the future of the industry. Pollen Street manages over €7bn AUM across private equity and credit strategies on behalf of investors including leading public and corporate pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, endowments and foundations, asset managers, banks, and family offices from around the world. Pollen Street has a team of over 95 professionals.

Apex Litigation Finance has announced the retirement of Stephen Allinson from his role as Head of Legal, marking the end of a formal leadership chapter but not his association with the litigation funder.

Stephen is a highly respected Solicitor and Licensed Insolvency Practitioner with more than 40 years’ experience in business law, insolvency and debt recovery. Over the course of his career, he has combined practice with thought leadership, lecturing widely on credit and insolvency matters and serving in senior regulatory and educational roles.

His distinguished career includes:

• Building and leading a nationally recognised insolvency and debt recovery practice at a large regional law practice, employing over 60 department staff and managing key national contracts.
• Serving as Chairman of the Board of The Insolvency Service and Chairman of The Joint Insolvency Examination Board.
• Holding senior tribunal and regulatory positions, including membership of the ICAEW Conduct Committee and more than a decade chairing disciplinary and appeal tribunals for the ACCA.
• Chairing the Assessment Board of the Chartered Institute of Credit

Stephen first joined Apex in 2019 as a consultant, before becoming Head of Legal in 2022. In that capacity he has been instrumental in guiding Apex’s legal strategy, strengthening its market position and ensuring the company’s commitment to fair, practical and client-focused litigation funding.

While he will be stepping down from the Head of Legal role, Stephen’s association with Apex will not end. He will continue to serve the business as a trusted consultant, providing invaluable expertise and support to the team and Apex’s clients.

Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance, said: “Stephen’s contribution to Apex has been exceptional. His legal expertise, combined with his deep understanding of insolvency and credit law, has helped shape Apex into the funder it is today. We are delighted that while he is stepping down from his formal role, we will continue to benefit from his counsel as a consultant. We thank him sincerely for his leadership and look forward to our continued collaboration.”

Tim Fallowfield, Apex Chairman wrote:  “Apex would not be where it is today without Stephen’s contribution, his wide-ranging legal knowledge and passion for his work. He has mentored the legal team, led by example and been an integral member of the Apex Investment Committee. We wish him lots of luck for the next chapter and look forward to his future engagement with the Apex business. From all of us at Apex, a hearty thanks.”

Stephen commented: “It has been a privilege to be part of the Apex journey and contribute to the growth of the company. Access to justice has always been one of the guiding principles of my professional career and I look forward to the continuing growth of Apex and still playing my part, albeit in a different role.”

About Apex Litigation Finance

Apex Litigation Finance provides fast, fair and flexible funding solutions for small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes requiring between £10,000 and £750,000 of funding, on a non-recourse basis. By combining financial support with deep sector expertise, Apex enables access to justice for claimants while serving as a trusted partner to legal professionals and insolvency practitioners.

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October. 

The following article was contributed by Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal Funding.

On Friday 1^st August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on car finance commission complaints. While banks avoided the massive £44 billion liability some predicted, one customer called Johnson won his case – and that victory has opened the door for thousands of similar claims totalling somewhere between £9bn and £18bn – still a huge market.

The Bottom Line: Johnson proved his finance deal was “unfair” because:

• The dealer received a massive undisclosed commission (55% of all the interest he paid)
• He was misled about getting independent advice when the dealer was actually tied to one lender
• Important information was hidden in small print

What This Means

The Supreme Court has given us a clear roadmap. Claims will succeed where customers can show:

• Excessive hidden commissions (Johnson’s was 55% of his interest payments)
• Poor disclosure – burying commission details in terms & conditions isn’t enough
• Misleading sales practices – claiming to offer “best deals” while being tied to one lender
• Pre-2021 agreements often have the strongest cases

Why This Is Good News

• No government bailout risk – the ruling removes fears of political intervention to protect banks
• Clear success criteria – we now know exactly what makes a winning case
• Settlement pressure – lenders know more claims are coming and want to avoid court
• Immediate opportunity – claims can start now without waiting for regulators

Our Position

Our cautious approach to date has been vindicated. While others rushed in with untested legal theories, we waited for clarity. Now we have it.

The car finance opportunity is very much alive – it just requires smarter case selection. We’re actively evaluating opportunities and expect to be funding cases that meet the Johnson criteria in the coming weeks.

The FCA will announce their compensation scheme plans in October, but the legal pathway is already clear. Well-selected cases with Johnson-style facts have strong prospects of success.

Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP, the inaugural fund from litigation funding disruptor Lexolent, and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, has achieved its first successful investment in a case litigated before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts. The matter—Claim No. CFI 081/2023, concerned an unpaid commission claim by Dubai based businessman, Michael Forbes.

Absent Lexolent’s funding, Mr Forbes would have been unable to pursue the case and secure the payment to which he was rightfully entitled. The investment, which was concluded over just 21 months, will generate a very high internal rate of return (IRR) for Lexolent’s Limited Partner (LP) investors, showcasing the fund’s ability to deliver both strong financial performance and tangible social impact.

The result was a resounding success for both parties. Lexolent secured a strong return on its investment, while Mr Forbes obtained a substantial and life-changing judgment in his favour.

“Without Lexolent’s help, I would not have been able to right the wrong that was done to me,” said Mr Forbes. “Lexolent gave me access to justice, and I am delighted to have been introduced to them. I have learned through this experience that not all litigation funders are the same. Nick Rowles-Davies is very much one of the original founders of this industry and is exceptionally easy to work with. His expertise and experience made this transaction straightforward and highly professional.”

Lexolent CEO, Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, commented: “This is a perfect example of litigation funding in action. Without our investment, Mr Forbes would not have been able to secure such a substantial and transformative judgment. It was our pleasure to assist him—and, from our perspective, it was also a very strong investment, particularly given the high IRR that will be achieved for our LPs over a short 21-month period.”

This first win for Lexolent Litigation Fund 1 SP marks a significant milestone for the company as it continues to reshape the litigation finance landscape both in the Middle East and globally. The case underscores the vital role litigation funding plays in levelling the playing field between claimants and well-resourced defendants, ensuring that justice is not a privilege but a right accessible to all.

Syed Mujtaba Hussain, founding partner of UAE based boutique law firm Emirates Legal, acted for Mr Forbes and instructed David Parratt KC and William Frain-Bell KC.

Mr Hussain commented: “This was the first time I have used litigation funding but I will certainly do so again. Lexolent were easy to work with and allowed the lawyers to do their job without concern over fees being met. Litigation funding is a valuable tool and it assisted in producing a great result for Mr Forbes. We are all delighted with the outcome.”

About Lexolent:

Lexolent is a globally coordinated network for legal finance professionals and the first litigation fund to be based in the UAE, offering innovative funding solutions and unmatched expertise in litigation finance. Led by industry pioneer Dr Nick Rowles-Davies, Lexolent connects capital providers with high-value legal claims, delivering results for claimants and investors alike.

Burford Capital has delivered its strongest quarterly performance in two years, buoyed by a swelling pipeline of high-value disputes and a fresh infusion of investor cash.

A press release in PR Newswire reveals that the New York- and London-listed funder more than doubled revenue and profitability in the three months to 30 June 2025. CEO Christopher Bogart credited “very substantial levels of new business” for the uptick, noting that demand for non-recourse financing remains “as strong as we’ve ever seen.”

The stellar quarter follows a lightning-quick, two-day debt offering in July that raised $500 million—capital Burford says will be deployed across a growing roster of commercial litigations, international arbitrations, and asset-recovery campaigns. Management also highlighted significant progress in portfolio rotations, underscoring the firm’s ability to monetise older positions while writing new ones at scale. Investors will get a deeper dive when Burford hosts its earnings call today at 9 a.m. EDT.

Burford’s results arrive amid heightened regulatory chatter in Washington and Westminster, yet the numbers suggest the industry’s largest player is unfazed—for now—by talk of disclosure mandates and tax levies. The firm emphasised that its legal-finance, risk-management and asset-recovery businesses remain uncorrelated to broader markets, a pitch that continues to resonate with pension funds and endowments hunting for alternative yield.

For litigation-finance insiders, Burford’s capital-raising prowess and improving margins could have ripple effects: rival funders may face stiffer competition for marquee cases, while law-firm partners might leverage the firm’s deeper pockets to negotiate richer portfolio deals.

In this episode, we sat down with Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, co-founders of RiverFleet, a consultancy business specialising in the global Legal Finance market.  

RiverFleet works with clients to help navigate the complexities and idiosyncratic characteristics of the Legal Finance market and make the most of the financial opportunities and risk solutions the market has to offer for business and investment. 

RiverFleet has a highly experienced team, with specialist litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management expertise.  They offer a broad range of legal finance services tailor-made for a global client base, including investors, litigation finance funds, claimants, corporates, insolvency practitioners and law firms.

Watch the episode below:

 The International Legal Finance Association is pleased to announce its annual End-of-Year Gala Dinner on November 13, 2025.  The event will take place at The Law Society in London, bringing together leading figures from across the legal finance industry for an evening of celebration and reflection on the year’s achievements.  

The dinner will be accompanied by the inaugural Legal Finance Awards.  The awards are designed to recognize and honor excellence across the legal finance ecosystem. They will spotlight the achievements of funders, law firms, brokers, advisors, and other key contributors to the continued growth and innovation of the industry. Nominations for the awards are now open, with the nomination form available here. 

“The Gala Dinner is a chance for our members and guests to gather in person and celebrate the progress we’ve made over the year,” said Rupert Cunningham, Global Director of Growth and Membership Engagement at ILFA. “We are especially excited to launch the Legal Finance Awards, which will shine a light on the outstanding work and impact of professionals across our field.”

Tickets for the Gala are on sale now, with discounted pricing available for ILFA members.  More information can be found here.

The following was contributed by Richard Culberson, the CEO North America of Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts, specializing in call answering and live chat solutions.

When people think about the legal client experience, they often picture what happens in the courtroom or during a critical client meeting. But increasingly, the most meaningful changes to how law firms, legal service providers and legal funders support their clients are happening out of sight, thanks to the power of artificial intelligence (AI). Whether it’s client intake, communication routing, or managing complex caseloads and funding relationships, AI is reshaping the way legal teams deliver service behind the scenes.

Across America, firms in all industries are turning to AI to enhance their people. The goal is simple: deliver faster, more personalized, and more efficient service. And when done right, the difference is both quiet and powerful.

At Moneypenny, we work with thousands of legal professionals every day, from solo attorneys to large firms and legal funders, helping them manage customer conversations and deliver great client service. We’ve seen firsthand how AI, when applied with care and purpose, can reshape the client experience from the inside out.

Easy Access to the Right Information

In any busy legal setting, timing is everything. Whether it’s a client call, intake conversation, or case status update, having instant access to accurate information is key. That’s where AI comes in. It can surface the right details in real time so teams can respond quickly and confidently.

Take legal funders, for example, they often need to assess case viability quickly, AI tools can instantly surface key case milestones, funding eligibility criteria, and prior correspondence to accelerate decision-making and reduce friction.

Smarter Call and Message Routing

Any business fields a wide range of calls and messages in a day, and not every inquiry belongs on the same desk. AI can now analyze keywords, tone, and context to route communication to the right person, and it does it automatically.

That means clients reach the right person faster, and your team spends less time untangling misdirected messages. In an industry where responsiveness matters, this kind of behind-the-scenes efficiency is a real win.

Getting Ahead of Client Needs

What’s more, AI doesn’t just react, it can anticipate too. By looking at past interactions and analyzing the data, it can identify patterns and flag issues before they arise.

Let’s say a client regularly asks about timelines or paperwork. AI can flag repetitive requests for status updates from claimant attorneys or co-counsel, prompting automated reporting or scheduled updates to improve transparency and communication between parties. This level of attentiveness not only reduces frustration but also builds trust and reassures clients, something especially valuable in the high-pressure, high-emotion legal industry.

Seamless Experience Across Channels

Today’s clients want to communicate on their own terms, whether that’s by phone, email, live chat, or text. And they expect consistency, no matter the channel. AI can help to make that happen.

By bringing together data from multiple sources, AI ensures that whoever answers the phone or replies to a message (whether that is call one or message five) has the full context. The result is that clients feel heard and known, not like they’re starting over every time, and it is that kind of continuity that can turn a routine exchange into a relationship.

Real-Time Support for Your Team

Think of AI as a digital assistant, offering prompts, surfacing information, and making sure the person handling the call or message has exactly what they need. It is helping people deliver their best work.

At Moneypenny, our AI tools support our legal receptionists during conversations, pulling up relevant details, suggesting next steps, and helping maintain a personalized touch even during peak periods. It’s about helping good people be even better at what they do.

Scaling the Personal Touch

There’s a common misconception that AI makes things feel impersonal or robotic. But when it’s used well, it actually allows businesses to be more personal, and at scale. Imagine being able to greet every client by name, remember their preferences, and respond in a way that feels tailored, even when your team is managing thousands of interactions. That’s what we aim to deliver every day. And AI makes it possible.

For legal funders juggling a portfolio of diverse cases and law firm partners, AI can ensure consistency in tone, terminology, and updates so that funders can maintain an attentive, personalized service level without scaling up staff headcount.

The Big Picture: Human + AI = A Better Experience

Whether you’re running a law firm, operating a litigation finance business, or managing client services across the legal ecosystem, one thing is clear: clients want service that’s fast, accurate, relevant and personal. AI helps make that happen, by enhancing the human touch.

The real transformation isn’t just happening in space that the client sees but in the systems behind the scenes that power that experience. For leaders across legal industry and beyond, the takeaway is this: the future of service isn’t just about upgrading the visible. It’s about building smarter, more supportive systems that let your people do what they do best.

That’s where AI delivers its real value and where the real competitive edge lies. 

Sentry Funding’s free tool enabling litigators to instantly search the funding market on behalf of clients has been expanded.

Sentry’s free ‘decision in principle’ feature enables lawyers to evidence to clients that they have conducted a broad market search, even if funding is not ultimately taken out.

Having deployed £125m in funding across a range of case types, Sentry now has access to an even broader funding marketplace, covering 34 global jurisdictions. Finance is provided by 13 funders, five of which are members of the Association of Litigation Funders.

With the recent addition of Sentry’s first US-based funder, the US offering will now be expanding over the next few months. 

A faster process

Sentry has deployed the latest technology to make the search for funding even easier. 

• The intuitive application process now only asks questions relevant to previous answers, saving lawyers time.
• The commercial marketplace has been redeveloped with 63 new data points added to the funder criteria matrix – improving the accuracy of case / funder matching
• Sentry has also begun building out its AI capabilities, starting with an automated auditing tool for live case progression audits. 

Tom Webster, chief executive officer at Sentry Funding, said:

‘By broadening our reach and speeding up the process, we’re making it even easier for lawyers to raise funding. We’re also giving litigators an easy way to show clients they have fully researched the market, rather than just approaching one or two funders. 

‘The service is free to use, so even if clients decide they do not ultimately want funding or if none is available for that case, for the lawyer, it makes sense to use our “decision in principle” feature, so they can put evidence on file that they did check the market.’

Sentry Funding is an SaaS (software as a service) technology provider that gives solicitors access to a diverse marketplace of litigation funders. It works with solicitors, funders and third-party providers to ensure claimants are getting the most efficient service for their funding needs. 

The Sentry Portal also acts as a case management system that runs a transparent digital case file for solicitors, funders, after-the-event insurance providers, barristers, cost lawyers and other relevant third parties.

Victory Park Capital (VPC), a global alternative asset manager specializing in private credit, has announced that Justin Maleson will expand his role to Managing Director, co-heading the firm’s legal credit investment strategy. The promotion underscores VPC’s ongoing investment in its legal finance capabilities and follows Maleson’s initial appointment in 2024 as Assistant General Counsel.

An announcement from Victory Park Capital details Maleson’s new responsibilities, which include sourcing, analyzing, and managing investments across legal assets, while maintaining oversight of the firm’s legal operations. He joins Chad Clamage in co-leading the strategy, working alongside team members Hugo Lestiboudois and Andrew Pascal, under the continued oversight of VPC CEO and founder Richard Levy.

Maleson brings a strong background in litigation finance and commercial law to the position. Before joining VPC, he served as a director at Longford Capital, where he specialized in originating and managing litigation funding transactions. His earlier tenure as a litigation partner at Jenner & Block further deepened his exposure to complex legal matters, equipping him with the expertise needed to navigate the nuanced legal credit space.

VPC’s legal credit team emphasizes an asset-backed lending model, prioritizing downside protection and predictable income streams. The firm aims to capitalize on inefficiencies within the legal funding market by leveraging its internal expertise and broad network of relationships. With Maleson’s appointment, VPC signals its intent to further scale its legal credit strategy, positioning itself as a key player in the evolving legal finance sector.

Maleson’s elevation comes at a time of increasing sophistication in litigation finance, where experienced legal minds are playing a pivotal role in portfolio construction and risk management. As VPC bolsters its leadership, the move may foreshadow further institutionalization of legal asset investing and heightened competition in a maturing market segment.

In this episode, Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel of Unified Patents discusses the impact of the Litigation Funding Transparency Act on the IP and patent claims funding market.

Golden Pear Funding has extended and upsized its investment-grade corporate note to $78.7 million, further bolstering the firm’s capacity to serve the expanding litigation finance sector. The New York-based funder, a national leader in both pre-settlement and medical receivables financing, said the proceeds will support working capital and fuel strategic growth initiatives.

A press release from Golden Pear outlines how the capital raise reflects continued investor confidence in the firm’s business model. CEO Gary Amos noted that the infusion is critical as Golden Pear seeks to scale alongside the “rapidly expanding litigation finance market.” CFO Daniel Amsellem added that the new funding aligns with the company’s capital allocation strategy, aimed at optimizing operational efficiency and executing strategic projects.

Brean Capital, LLC acted as the exclusive financial advisor and sole placement agent on the transaction.

Founded in 2008, Golden Pear has funded more than $1.1 billion to over 87,000 clients and remains one of the largest specialty finance companies in the U.S. Its business model spans legal case funding and medical receivables purchasing, with backing from a network of private equity partners that provide institutional support for continued expansion.

In a pointed rebuttal to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Fortress Investment Group President Jack Neumark has challenged claims that litigation funders—particularly those with foreign investors—exploit U.S. tax loopholes to avoid paying capital gains taxes on lawsuit proceeds.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Ending a Tax Break for Lawsuits” supporting a legislative proposal from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would increase taxes on litigation finance returns. In response, The Wall Street Journal published Neumark’s letter, where he firmly stated that Fortress is an American company whose legal asset investments are made by U.S.-based leadership and taxed under standard corporate or ordinary income rules—not as capital gains.

Neumark argued that Fortress-managed funds do not provide any capital gains tax exemption for foreign investors, pushing back against the editorial’s implication that litigation funding primarily benefits non-U.S. entities seeking to exploit the American legal system. He defended litigation finance as a tool for U.S. businesses to more efficiently pursue justified legal claims, reducing costs and allowing for reinvestment in growth and job creation.

Challenging the editorial’s portrayal of funded claims as “dubious,” Neumark highlighted that many have resulted in jury verdicts or settlements amounting to billions. He underscored the legitimacy of the U.S. court system in weeding out meritless suits and ensuring fair compensation for real damages.

Neumark concluded by warning that the Tillis-Hern tax measure would extend well beyond foreign investors, affecting domestic investors such as pension funds and effectively doubling tax rates on companies pursuing litigation—creating a precedent for ideologically motivated tax targeting.

This public defense signals a broader resistance among funders to legislative efforts that blur the lines between tax reform and ideological opposition to litigation finance. As these proposals gain traction, expect more funders to enter the public arena to protect what they view as vital access-to-justice infrastructure.

LionFish Litigation Finance Ltd has released a new suite of model litigation funding documents, updating its original set from February 2021. The revision comes on the heels of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Final Report on Litigation Funding, issued on 2 June 2025, which calls for a regulatory structure informed by best practices, including key principles published by the European Law Institute (ELI) in October 2024.

A LionFish press release details that the updated suite incorporates several of the ELI Principles (notably 4-12) and broader CJC recommendations, except where doing so would require legislative or procedural reform. LionFish’s goal, according to Managing Director Tets Ishikawa, is not to dictate market norms but to foster industry-wide standardisation and efficiency. This proactive move is also intended to spark further collaboration between funders, insurers, and legal practitioners to develop trade practices akin to those in mature financial markets, such as those promoted by the Loan Market Association and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

The new suite includes three core documents: a litigation funding agreement, a priorities deed to define proceeds distribution, and an assignment deed for insurance benefits. Notably, LionFish has also added documentation for co-investment arrangements, reflecting a growing trend in syndicated funding deals. The funder has already closed seven such transactions.

Managing Director Tanya Lansky emphasised that while litigation funding remains complex, making documentation public enhances transparency and facilitates quicker deal closings—an essential factor for sustaining market growth.

As litigation finance continues to mature, this move by LionFish highlights a shift toward professionalisation and standardisation. With regulators increasingly focused on transparency and fairness, such initiatives may set a de facto benchmark for others in the industry. The question remains: will other funders follow suit, or will regulatory mandates be needed to compel alignment?