Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Fortress Pushes Back on Tillis-Hern Tax Proposal Targeting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |
June 11, 2025

Fortress Pushes Back on Tillis-Hern Tax Proposal Targeting Litigation Funding

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.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

New Hampshire Scales Back Litigation Funding Reform, Enacting Only Foreign-Funder Curbs

New Hampshire has retreated from an ambitious effort to regulate the litigation finance industry, ultimately enacting a narrowed law that targets foreign funders while abandoning the broad registration and oversight powers lawmakers had initially contemplated.

As reported by Intelligent Insurer, the state stepped back from provisions that would have given regulators expansive authority to register and supervise commercial litigation funders, leaving only the measures aimed at foreign financing intact.

The enacted statute, the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act — which originated as HB 1384 — prohibits commercial litigation financing tied, directly or indirectly, to foreign adversaries or sanctioned entities designated under federal law. It also requires claimants or their attorneys to disclose any commercial litigation funding agreement to all parties in a civil action when the case is filed and whenever the agreement is amended, with insurers that have a duty to defend or indemnify entitled to the same disclosure.

The law carves out nonprofits: an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3) that represents a claimant on a pro bono basis, along with its funders, falls outside the definition of a commercial litigation financier. Most provisions take effect on January 1, 2027.

New Hampshire's decision to prioritize foreign-funding restrictions over comprehensive registration mirrors a broader pattern among states, which have increasingly trained disclosure and transparency mandates on overseas capital rather than on the domestic funding market as a whole.

Commercial

FCA Attacks Consumer Group Over Funding in £9.1bn Car Finance Battle

The Financial Conduct Authority has turned on a consumer campaign group in the escalating fight over Britain's £9.1 billion motor-finance redress scheme, questioning how the organization is funded and its ties to the law firm representing it.

As reported by The Guardian, the regulator has urged judges to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Consumer Voice, arguing the group failed to give "a full and frank explanation" of its own interest and that of its solicitors, Courmacs Legal. In court filings, the FCA suggested Consumer Voice had not been honest about its business model or its relationship with Courmacs, and had not disclosed details of its funding arrangements.

Consumer Voice contends the FCA's compensation scheme will low-ball victims of mis-sold car loans, who face an average payout of roughly £829 per agreement — higher than the £695 the regulator floated in its earlier consultation, but still, the group argues, well short of fair value. Lenders including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander, and the finance arms of Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz are on the hook for the £9.1 billion the FCA expects the scheme to cost.

The clash places the funding and structure of claims-side campaign groups squarely in the regulator's sights, echoing a wider debate over transparency in third-party-backed consumer litigation. With millions of drivers due payouts this year, the dispute over who speaks for claimants — and who pays for that advocacy — is likely to intensify.

Commercial

Treasury Rejects Longo’s Warning Over ASIC’s Depleted Litigation War Chest

Australia's Treasury has brushed aside warnings from former corporate regulator chair Joe Longo that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is running short of the money it needs to fund major enforcement litigation, insisting the watchdog is adequately resourced.

As reported by Capital Brief, Treasury said there were no funding concerns around ASIC, despite Longo's plea in May for an urgent top-up at the close of what he described as the regulator's most successful year in court. Longo had warned a parliamentary committee that ASIC's Enforcement Special Account — the reserve built to absorb the costs of large, complex cases — was on track to fall to its minimum viable level by 30 June 2026.

"Absent replenishment, this will impede ASIC's ability to maintain its current enforcement program," Longo cautioned, adding that without additional funding the regulator might have to scale back or defer cases that would otherwise proceed. The account is designed to let ASIC pursue resource-intensive matters against well-funded corporate defendants without straining its operating budget.

The exchange spotlights a tension increasingly familiar to litigation-finance observers: even a public enforcement agency depends on a dedicated pool of case capital to sustain high-stakes litigation, and the adequacy of that pool shapes which matters get pursued. Treasury's rejection of Longo's alarm leaves unresolved how ASIC will bankroll its most ambitious cases as the special account approaches the floor he flagged.