Trending Now
Commercial

How Litigation Funding is Impacting the Broader Legal Market

January 29, 2019

How Litigation Funding is Impacting the Broader Legal Market

Ever since its arrival on the stage in the early 1990s in Australia, litigation funding has managed to impact the broader legal climate in which it participates (in early 90s Australis, that was the insolvency market, today in Australia, the UK and America, that is nearly every legal sector). Take class actions, for example. Litigation funding has been proven to increase the rate of settlements  in class actions by 21%. Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University compiled data leading up to July 2017, which showed that funded parties in class actions are 69% likely to settle, whereas unfunded parties are only 48% likely to settle. According to an ICGN report shared on LinkedIn, litigation funding has had a significant impact on various sectors of the legal market. First and foremost is the non-U.S. Securities market. Ever since the Supreme Court’s seminal 2010 ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which found that U.S. securities law applies only to stocks purchased on domestic exchanges, foreign securities investors have been ramping up legal activity across the globe. The growth of litigation funding has (not coincidentally) coincided with this surge in shareholder class actions, as funders can not only help finance claims, but can actually engage with law firms in the laborious process of building claims and sourcing claimants in the first place. This is clearly a major boon to non-U.S. law firms, which are often prevented from working on contingency the way their U.S. counterparts can. And funders have indeed been capitalizing on this opportunity, as it has been estimated that upwards of 50% of all new class action claims in Australia are funded claims. Of course, international arbitration is also seeing a spike in funded claims, with the formal acceptance of third party funding by both Hong Kong and Singapore last year. Arbitration is often a costly exercise, and typically lodged against extremely well-capitalized defendants. Litigation funders level the playing field for global enterprises seeking access to justice. All told, the various impacts of funding are only just beginning to be recognized, as the industry is still in its infancy – or perhaps its mere ‘toddler’ years. There is still plenty of maturation down the road ahead for litigation funding, and if the past few years are any indication, we’re likely to see the wider legal market change drastically as a result.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Trucking Group Presses Case Against Hidden Funding in Crash Lawsuits

The trucking industry is intensifying its scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, arguing that undisclosed outside capital is distorting the economics of truck-crash lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business.

As reported by Land Line Media, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that outside investors — sometimes including foreign entities — are bankrolling crash litigation without transparency, prolonging cases, inflating damages, and leaving plaintiffs with modest returns while funders capture the larger share of any recovery. In some instances, the group warns, foreign government involvement raises national-security questions.

The article frames the issue against a wave of state-level legislation. Ohio has enacted disclosure requirements and barred foreign participation outright, with Rep. Meredith Craig declaring that "foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens and businesses by investing in our courts." North Carolina has gone further, imposing an outright ban on third-party funding backed by fines of up to $50,000, while New Hampshire has prohibited financing by foreign governments and designated adversarial nations. Michigan has approved disclosure and registration requirements and banned foreign entities and incentive payments to attorneys and medical professionals.

Industry voices echo the theme: Tom Balzer of the Ohio Trucking Association argues that such funding "incentivizes frivolous claims, prolongs litigation, and inflates damages." Together, the measures reflect a coordinated push to bring litigation finance in trucking cases into public view — and a signal that transportation is becoming a central front in the national funding-transparency debate.

Commercial

Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Charts Diverging Rules for Litigation Funding

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a multibillion-dollar force across major legal markets, yet the rules governing it remain strikingly inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next, according to a new cross-jurisdictional analysis.

As reported by JD Supra, the review — authored by Arthur Coviello, Colin Dunn, and Mark Selwyn of WilmerHale — examines third-party funding across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court. It notes that funders now manage billions in assets, with an estimated 20% committed to patent litigation, and that the U.S. leads but no longer dominates a market with established industries in the U.K., Germany, and China.

The authors highlight a sharp regulatory divergence. The United States has built a patchwork of state and federal measures, including disclosure requirements, while the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have largely declined to adopt comprehensive rules despite voicing similar concerns about conflicts of interest, funder control, and foreign influence.

The analysis catalogs recent developments: at least five bills pending in Congress addressing transparency and national-security concerns, the lingering effects of the U.K.'s 2023 PACCAR decision and the Civil Justice Council's call for "light touch" regulation, the European Commission's November 2025 decision not to adopt proposed funding rules, and the International Trade Commission's recent disclosure proposal. Without mandatory disclosure, the authors argue, judges and parties cannot reliably assess who holds a stake in a case or where potential conflicts may lie.

Commercial

Funding Collapse Ends Musical-Instrument Collective Action, Triggering £1.5M in Costs

A proposed UK collective action against five musical-instrument manufacturers has collapsed after its litigation funding fell through, leaving the proposed class representative facing roughly £1.5 million in costs.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the withdrawal of five collective proceedings brought by proposed class representative Elisabetta Sciallis against Fender, Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Casio. The claims followed a Competition and Markets Authority finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' freedom to set prices online.

Ms Sciallis had initially pointed to a funding agreement with North Wall Capital, first set at £6.5 million and later increased to £18 million as more claims were filed. Negotiations between the funder and her firm, Pogust Goodhead, ceased in early 2023, but the tribunal found that the funder's departure was not clearly disclosed until shortly before a March 2026 case management conference — at which point the firm confirmed the North Wall agreement had never materialised and that some 25 alternative funders had been approached without success.

The tribunal, which was critical of how the funding position had been communicated, ordered indemnity costs from April 2023 onward, including £608,000 summarily assessed for three defendants and interim orders of £850,000 for two others. Ms Sciallis withdrew all five proceedings ahead of a June 2026 hearing that would have examined the funding. The case underscores how quickly a collapse in third-party backing can unwind even a well-advanced collective claim.