Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

As LFJ covered at the end of last month, the first quarter of 2025 had already demonstrated the momentum behind legislative initiatives at the state level aimed at regulating the legal funding industry.

An article in Bloomberg Law highlights the signing of legislation which introduces new restrictions and guidelines on the use of third-party litigation funding in Georgia. Governor Brian Kemp took the final step of signing Senate Bill 69 into law this week, which followed the Senate’s approval of final amendments to the bill’s text that had been made during the committee stage. Kemp celebrated the signing of the bill by saying that it represented a victory for Georgians “who for too long were suffering the impacts of an out-of-balance legal environment”.

SB 69 requires third-party funders register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, as well as prohibiting any foreign individuals or organisation from funding litigation in the state. The bill also sets out disclosure requirements for cases where a litigation funding agreement is present and puts in place restrictions on a funder’s ability to control the litigation process.

The amended bill also added provisions for the Department of Banking and Finance to deny funders’ registration applications, updated disclosure requirements to include any individual with a 10% or greater stake in a funder, and provided more specific language for defining foreign entities involved in litigation funding.

As one of the key organisations that opposed the bill, the International Legal Finance Association’s executive director, Paul Kong expressed disappointment “that the Georgia legislature was unable to find a solution to its concerns with legal funding that did not shut off critical access to the state’s courts systems.” Kong contrasted this legislation with the bill signed by Kansas’ governor earlier this month, which as LFJ reported, was viewed as an acceptable compromise between proponents and critics of third-party funding.

Dubai has enacted Law No. (2) of 2025 which cements the role of the DIFC Courts as a forum for cross-border litigation and arbitration.

According to the Government of Dubai's Official Gazette, the statute formalizes the structure of the DIFC Courts, mandating that all proceedings be conducted in English, and that judges convene hearings in-person or virtually. The law also grants the Chief Justice sweeping oversight, including the authority to issue procedural rules, supervise court officers, and approve judicial appointments.

The DIFC Courts maintain exclusive jurisdiction over civil, commercial, labor, and inheritance matters, while permitting opt-in jurisdiction for external parties by written agreement. The legislation promotes the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, and grants the courts discretion to enforce non-Muslim rulings and appoint judicial custodians where appropriate.

With the repeal of DIFC Laws No. 10 and 12 of 2004, the new law takes immediate effect, positioning the DIFC Courts as a more robust and transparent judicial forum.

The combined strength of experienced law firms and well-resourced litigation funders can be a powerful tool for disadvantaged communities seeking justice and compensation from state authorities. However, a recent settlement approval order in Australia was notable for the judge’s pointed questioning of the commercial business model behind these class actions, which sees law firms and funders receive significant payments whilst the victims they represent receive comparatively meagre compensation.

An article in ABC News covers the approval of a $180 million settlement in the Northern Territory stolen wages class action, bringing to an end the claim brought against the Commonwealth of Australia over historic mistreatment of Aboriginal workers in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971. Whilst Chief Justice Debra Mortimer approved the settlement along with the related payouts to Shine Lawyers and LLS Fund Services for the claimants, her written judgment raised many questions about the costs accumulated by the legal team and the relatively low value of compensation that the workers would receive.

The judgment approved payments of up to $15 million to Shine Lawyers for legal costs, and a funder’s commission of up to $31.5 million to LLS Fund Services. However, Chief Justice Mortimer’s judgment also contained criticism for both these parties, stating that their “good intentions” in supporting the claimants has been somewhat overshadowed by “the pursuit of the business model”. Mortimer expressed doubt that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities would “see much social justice” in an outcome where these “city based non-indigenous participants in this proceeding come out with so much money compared to their family and friends.”

The settlement in the Northern Territory lawsuit is the latest in a series of similar class actions brought against the Australian state, with previous settlements having been reached with the Western Australia and Queensland state governments.

The full judgment from Chief Justice Mortimer in McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia can be read here.

On Thursday, April 17th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key stakeholders in the legal funding for patents and trade secrets markets. The panel featured Anup Misra (AM), Managing Director of IP at Curiam, Robin Davis (RD), Director at Fortress Investment Group, Erick Robinson (ER), Partner and Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice Group at Brown Rudnick, and Scott Davis (SD), Partner at Klarquist Sparkman. The panel was moderated by Salumeh Loesch (SL), Founder at Loesch Patents, LLC.

Below are key takeaways from the panel discussion:

Do you feel like in the litigation world generally, that there is a greater interest in trade secret enforcement and litigation just because of the difficulties with patent enforcement? Do you feel like there's a growing interest from the funder's perspective to fund trade secret cases?

AM: I think every funder is going to be a little bit different on how interested they are in trade secrets litigation. Just to be perfectly candid, for example, Curium has not typically been as interested in this because collectively in our practices and in funding, we haven't had the best experiences with trade secret cases. Other funders, though, probably love trade secret cases.

Now, that's not to say we won't do them. And we certainly see more of them. And we're certainly seeing a lot more sort of combo trade secret / patent litigation, which I think is extremely interesting for funders. And if you can manage that, it really puts your case on the upper shelf of what funders are going to consider.

I want to get a sense of how we should consider the multijurisdictional approach in the patent context and how this applies when you're seeking funding?

RD: Obviously, if you have patents in multiple jurisdictions, the US, Europe, beyond, that is a real asset and obviously something you should be bringing to the attention of a litigation funder if you're seeking investment in your case. The key is going to be to make sure that whatever international strategy you're considering is one that takes advantage of the various strengths and differences between different forums around the world.

For instance, many people have always enjoyed filing in the US because there's the potential for large damages awards. However, US district court litigation, especially with the advent of stays for IPRs, can be slow depending on where you're litigating. There are faster forums in other parts of the world; Germany has long been considered a favorite in that regard. And with the advent of the UPC, the Unified Patent Court, which is now in many of the EU member states, this gives you both a faster timeline to a resolution and a much bigger market now that you've got multiple EU member states that are all able to be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that [PTAB rule changes], in terms of the changes to the types of cases that may potentially arise in both patent litigation and patent litigation funding.

SD: Discretionary denials are increasing. Just in our own practice, we've seen a dramatic change very quickly on that. And I think that's going to continue as a trend for some time, at least until folks filing petitions figure it out as far as what the rules are and as far as what the standards are and what factors are weighed most heavily in the analysis in order to basically present the best argument they can to keep their petition on track.

Certainly in the short term, discretionary denial is a real thing and it's surging. So there's an opportunity to take advantage of that while the rules shake out and both litigants and the board are trying to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Do you have any tips for how companies can protect their trade secrets but still obtain litigation funding?

ER: My first advice to companies is to have a trade secret management system. That can be as complicated as having an entire software suite. That can be as simple as having a spreadsheet that has trade secret, date, who came up with it, and additional details.

That actually feeds into the real answer, which is you need to know what the trade secret is. Once you know what the trade secret is, things get easier. And that's easier said than done. I've been in cases where nobody really knew what the trade secret was until throttle, which is what makes it crazy. The good news is that damages are a lot more flexible, for instance, in the patent world; you can get actual losses, you can get unjust enrichment, you can get reasonable royalty, you can get punitive damages. There's just a much broader system of damages.

To view the entire discussion, please click here.

As LFJ reported last week, Google is the target of a €900 million claim brought against the technology giant in the Netherlands over its alleged anti-competitive behaviour. However, that is not the only lawsuit being brought against the company over such allegations, with a new claim being filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in the UK.

An announcement from Geradin Partners highlights the filing of a new claim brought against Google before the CAT over allegations that the company abused its market dominance to increase prices for Google Ads and harm competitors in the search advertising market. The claim, which has an estimated value of £5 billion, is being brought on behalf of UK-based advertisers who have allegedly suffered losses because of Google’s anti-competitive behaviour. The lawsuit is to represent UK businesses who purchased advertising space on Google search spaces since 1 January 2011.

The opt-out competition damages claim is being brought by Or Brook Class Representative Limited, with Dr Or Brook acting as the proposed class representative. Dr Brook is a competition law expert, currently holding the position of Associate Professor of Competition Law and Policy at the School of Law at the University of Leeds. She is supported by a legal team led by Geradin Partners, with funding for the proceedings being provided by Burford Capital.

Dr Or Brook, provided the following comment on the lawsuit: “Today, UK businesses and organisations, big or small, have almost no choice but to use Google ads to advertise their products and services. Regulators around the world have described Google as a monopoly and securing a spot on Google’s top pages is essential for visibility. Google has been leveraging its dominance in the general search and search advertising market to overcharge advertisers.”

Damien Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, emphasised that “this is the first claim of its kind in the UK that seeks redress for the harm caused specifically to businesses who have been forced to pay inflated prices for advertising space on Google pages.”

The full announcement from Geradin Partners can be read here.