Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
Commercial Law Firm Corner

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

By Ken Rosen |
April 7, 2025

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs’ best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney’s obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor’s reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender’s claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define “commercial information.” 

The interpretation of “commercial information” has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined “commercial information” as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that “commercial information” need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity’s competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

About the author

Ken Rosen

Ken Rosen

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Finance Faces Regulatory, MSO, and Insurance Crossroads in 2026

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry, now estimated at roughly $16.1 billion, is heading into 2026 amid growing uncertainty over regulation, capital structures, and its relationship with adjacent industries. After several years of rapid growth and heightened scrutiny, market participants are increasingly focused on how these pressures may reshape the sector.

Bloomberg Law identifies four central questions likely to define the industry’s near-term future. One of the most closely watched issues is whether federal regulation will finally materialize in a meaningful way. Legislative proposals have ranged from restricting foreign sovereign capital in U.S. litigation to taxing litigation finance returns. While several initiatives surfaced in 2025, political gridlock and election year dynamics raise doubts about whether comprehensive federal action will advance in the near term, leaving the industry operating within a patchwork of existing rules.

Another major development is the expansion of alternative investment structures, particularly the growing use of management services organizations. MSOs allow third party investors to own or finance non legal aspects of law firm operations, offering a potential pathway for deeper capital integration without directly violating attorney ownership rules. Interest in these models has increased among both litigation funders and large law firms, signaling a broader shift in how legal services may be financed and managed.

The industry is also watching the outcome of several high profile disputes that could have outsized implications for funders. Long running, multibillion dollar cases involving sovereign defendants continue to test assumptions about risk, duration, and appellate exposure in funded matters.

Finally, tensions with the insurance industry remain unresolved. Insurers have intensified efforts to link litigation funding to rising claim costs and are exploring policy mechanisms that would require disclosure of third party funding arrangements.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that 2026 could be a defining year for litigation finance, as evolving regulation, new capital models, and external pushback shape the industry’s next phase of development.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Liability Insurers Push Disclosure Requirements Targeting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

Commercial liability insurers are escalating their long-running dispute with the litigation funding industry by introducing policy language that could require insured companies to disclose third-party funding arrangements. The move reflects mounting concern among insurers that litigation finance is contributing to rising claim costs and reshaping litigation dynamics in ways carriers struggle to underwrite or control.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the Insurance Services Office, a Verisk Analytics unit that develops standard insurance policy language, has drafted an optional provision that would compel policyholders to reveal whether litigation funders or law firms with a financial stake are backing claims against insured defendants. While adoption of the provision would be voluntary, insurers could begin incorporating it into commercial liability policies as early as 2026.

The proposed disclosure requirement is part of a broader push by insurers to gain greater visibility into litigation funding arrangements, which they argue can encourage more aggressive claims strategies and higher settlement demands, particularly in mass tort and complex commercial litigation. Insurers have increasingly linked these trends to what they describe as social inflation, a term used to capture rising jury awards and litigation costs that outpace economic inflation.

For policyholders, the new language could introduce additional compliance obligations and strategic considerations. Companies that rely on litigation funding, whether directly or through counterparties, may be forced to weigh the benefits of financing against potential coverage implications.

Litigation funders and law firms are watching developments closely. Funding agreements are typically treated as confidential, and mandatory disclosure to insurers could raise concerns about privilege, work product protections, and competitive sensitivity. At the same time, insurers have been criticized for opposing litigation finance while also exploring their own litigation-related investment products, highlighting tensions within the market.

If widely adopted, insurer-driven disclosure requirements could represent a meaningful shift in how litigation funding intersects with insurance. The development underscores the growing influence of insurers in shaping transparency expectations and suggests that litigation funders may increasingly find themselves drawn into coverage debates that extend well beyond the courtroom.

Case Developments Commercial

Diamond McCarthy Backs Lansdowne Oil Treaty Claim Against Ireland

By John Freund |

US-based litigation funder Diamond McCarthy has agreed to back a high-stakes investment treaty claim brought by Lansdowne Oil and Gas against the Irish state, with the claim reportedly valued at up to $100 million. The dispute arises from Ireland’s policy shift away from offshore oil and gas development, which Lansdowne argues has effectively wiped out the value of its investment in the Barryroe offshore oil field.

According to NewsFile, Lansdowne Oil and Gas, a small exploration company listed in London and Dublin, is pursuing arbitration against Ireland under the Energy Charter Treaty. The company alleges that Ireland’s 2021 decision to halt new licences for offshore oil and gas exploration, followed by regulatory actions affecting existing projects, breached treaty protections afforded to foreign investors. Lansdowne contends that these measures frustrated legitimate expectations and amounted to unfair and inequitable treatment under international law.

Diamond McCarthy’s involvement brings significant financial firepower to a claim that would otherwise be difficult for a junior energy company to pursue. The funder will cover legal and arbitration costs in exchange for a share of any recovery, allowing Lansdowne to advance the case without bearing the full financial risk. The arbitration is expected to be conducted under international investment dispute mechanisms, with proceedings likely to take several years.

Ireland has previously defended its policy changes as part of a broader climate strategy aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence and meeting emissions targets. Government representatives have indicated that the state will robustly contest the claim, arguing that the measures were lawful, proportionate, and applied in the public interest. Ireland is also in the process of withdrawing from the Energy Charter Treaty, although existing investments may remain protected for a period under sunset provisions.