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

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.

The world’s largest litigation financier wasted no time responding to Capitol Hill’s surprise tax gambit. Hours after the Senate draft dropped, Burford Capital issued a statement warning that taxing funding profits at ordinary rates would “make it more expensive for businesses to secure litigation financing” and could stall innovation.

Burford Capital notes that the House version of the reconciliation bill omits any mention of litigation finance and stresses that reconciliation rules limit unrelated revenue raisers, foreshadowing a procedural challenge. The firm also highlights the draft’s retroactivity, arguing that investors priced cases under existing tax assumptions and could face punitive clawbacks if rules change midstream.

Market reaction was swift: Burford’s London-listed shares dipped 3 percent before recovering as analysts handicapped the bill’s prospects. Rival funders privately debate strategy—some push for a technical carve-out, others want the clause scrapped entirely. Defense counsel predict a burst of settlement offers aimed at closing cases before any rate hike can bite.

Burford’s rapid intervention shows the industry cannot afford silence while its business model is rewritten. Expect funders to beef up government-relations teams, demand wider tax indemnities from claimholders, and explore non-U.S. opportunities should Washington decide their profits look more like wages than capital gains.

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?