Stay on top of regulatory updates taking place throughout various jurisdictions across the globe.

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1215 (SB1215) will become law on Jan. 1, 2026, marking a significant milestone in the state’s role as a national leader in advancing access to justice through litigation funding, positioning Arizona as a model for other states considering similar measures. Arizona’s legislation reflects a broader movement in states such as California and Georgia, where lawmakers are weighing the benefits of litigation finance as a way to level the playing field for plaintiffs facing deep-pocketed adversaries.

To help advance these efforts, Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Pravati Capital, one of the oldest litigation finance firms in the U.S. and supporter of the bill alongside the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the broader legal community, has formed a coalition of litigation funders, attorneys and policy advocates committed to ensuring that states pass responsible regulation that protects plaintiffs. 

The bill’s final passage underscores a consensus reached after months of negotiations and reflects bipartisan compromise, according to Alexander Chucri, founder and CEO of Pravati Capital. SB1215 ensures funding remains a viable option for plaintiffs seeking to stand on equal footing with well-capitalized corporate opponents; it requires greater transparency of legal proceedings and prohibits funding and influence by foreign countries or entities of concern as defined in the legislation. 

“Arizona’s leadership in the area of litigation funding sends a powerful signal nationally,” said Senate Majority Whip Frank Carroll, a key supporter of the legislation. “This legislation is the product of constructive negotiation that demonstrates what’s possible when all sides work toward the shared goal of preserving access to justice.”

“It closes the door on bad actors while ensuring responsible litigation finance firms can continue to help plaintiffs pursue meritorious claims,” said Chucri. “At Pravati, we welcome this as part of an ongoing dialogue.”

SB1215 took effect on September 26, 90 days after the close of the legislative session, and, with a delayed effective date, will become law on January 1. Among key provisions, SB1215:

·       Protects the integrity of cases by restricting involvement by foreign countries or entities of concern as defined in the legislation, ensuring litigation funding remains aligned with U.S. legal and ethical standards.

·       Preserves innovation in legal services, reaffirming Arizona’s pioneering role in allowing alternative business structures (ABS), law firms that permit non-lawyers decision-making authority, to expand access to legal services by partnering with litigation funding firms.   

·       Balances regulation, affirming safeguards such as prohibitions on funders controlling litigation, while maintaining transparency. 

Chucri added, “Pravati has always believed our mission — ‘to befriend, help and protect’ — is best achieved through cooperation and a willingness to educate stakeholders. We will continue to engage constructively in conversations to advance fair, responsible access to justice.” 

About Pravati Capital

Established in 2013, Pravati Capital, LLC is among the oldest litigation finance firms in the U.S., delivering a proven track record as an equalizing force in court and a unique and uncorrelated asset class to investors. Founded by Alexander Chucri, a visionary in developing the industry’s first pioneering model of litigation finance in 2003, Pravati Capital brings together a seasoned team with deep experience across law, finance and successful entrepreneurial ventures. The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based firm delivers strategic capital solutions for attorneys and law firms, helps plaintiffs gain access to justice through financial support, and offers accredited investors an attractive asset class designed to perform independently of traditional markets. Pravati’s mission is its namesake: to befriend, help and protect. For more information, visit PravatiCapital.com. 

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.