Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Disclosure in the Spotlight for Patent Cases with Third-Party Funding

August 29, 2022

Disclosure in the Spotlight for Patent Cases with Third-Party Funding

The topic of disclosure in litigation where there is the presence of third-party funding has been a hot topic in several jurisdictions, with defendants strongly arguing that there needs to be an increased level of transparency when it comes to litigation funding. In a recent development, outlined in The National Law Review, a judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that parties in patent litigation cases must comply with enhanced Rule 7.1 disclosures, specifically those required around funding arrangements. Chief Judge Connolly, in the case of Longbeam Technologies v. Amazon.com, stated concerns around the plaintiff’s lack of disclosure for its third-party funding and stayed the case to allow for the defendant to pursue discovery on Longbeam’s litigation funding. This latest example of a court mandating further disclosure around third-party funding agreements is unlikely to be the last, and as the use of litigation funding increases around the globe, both funders and litigants should keep a close eye on whether courts are mandating a heightened degree of transparency.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Case Developments Commercial

Legal Funding Targets Charter School Safety Gaps

By John Freund |
Litigation finance is moving into education safety disputes, with backers supporting claims over preventable injuries tied to lapses at charter schools. In the Tracy case, plaintiffs’ counsel has secured outside capital to pursue allegations centered on inadequate safeguards and uneven enforcement, aiming to drive remedial measures alongside damages. An article in Daily Journal states that the Tracy case highlights safety standards failures and enforcement gaps in charter schools, and that litigation funding is being used to sustain legal efforts intended to compel stronger protocols and clearer lines of responsibility. The report notes that financing can help develop the evidentiary record—through inspections, training audits, and expert testimony—necessary to test whether supervision, reporting, and facilities maintenance met applicable requirements. The matter underscores the fragmented oversight of charter operators, where responsibilities can be split among authorizers, management organizations, and campuses, complicating accountability. Backers view the matter as a test of whether targeted civil litigation can close regulatory gaps without waiting for legislative change. For funders, such matters present impact-oriented opportunities but require careful assessment of immunities, policy limits, and the feasibility of non-monetary outcomes. If results in Tracy prove durable, similar models could emerge in other jurisdictions where charter oversight is diffuse.