Trending Now
Commercial

Republican Senators Reintroduce Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

A group of Republican Senators has reintroduced a bill that would mandate disclosure in class action and MDL contexts. The Senators first introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act (LFTA) last year, but it went nowhere. Now they are making another push with the same legislation.

As reported in Law.com, Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska all proposed the legislation that seeks to mandate disclosure of third party financing in class actions and MDLs. The bill stipulates disclosure within 10 days of a case being filed, or 10 days after a litigation funding agreement is signed, assuming the agreement comes mid-case.

The bill would also require disclosure in the consumer legal funding context, as plaintiffs seeking cash advances against the outcome of their cases would also have to disclose their funding agreements.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a narrower version of the bill, which stipulated disclosure only in class actions. Subsequent to that, the GOP Senators introduced the LFTA. That bill failed to make any traction, and that was during a GOP-led Congress. Now that the Democrats have taken control of the House, any push for regulating the legal industry is seen as having even less chance to reach approval.

Many are viewing the bill’s reintroduction as the result of a continued push by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to regulate the litigation funding industry. Lisa Rickard, president of Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, recently issued a statement supporting the bill. “When litigation funders invest in a lawsuit, they buy a piece of the case; they effectively become real parties in interest. Defendants (and courts) have a right to know who has a stake in a lawsuit and to assess whether they are using illegal or unethical means to bring the action,” the statement reads.

Vannin Capital Managing Director, Michael German, had this to say: “The proposed Act is another example of special interest groups using their reach in Washington to implement legislation that goes well beyond the issue they purport to address. Vannin has been a vocal proponent of disclosure of (i) the fact that a litigant is funded and (ii) the identity of the funder. Any disclosure in excess of these facts is an overreach that does far more than solve the potential conflicts raised by Senator Grassley and his counterparts. Instead, the proposed Act would unfairly permit defendants facing legitimate lawsuits to gain an improper advantage, and force the parties and the courts into an irrelevant sideshow regarding funding terms.”

The bill’s reintroduction comes on the heels of the shock letter issued by GCs and senior litigators from 30 companies, asking the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to mandate disclosure of all funding agreements in civil actions. Companies like Microsoft, General Electric, AT&T and Home Depot were all signatories of the letter.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

AALF Chairman: UK Should Avoid Repeating “Australia’s Flirtation with Overbearing Regulation”

By Harry Moran |

With the UK funding industry awaiting the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s review of third-party litigation funding, most of the commentary about what direction the government should take has come from those professionals practicing inside the UK. However, in an example of transnational solidarity between funding markets, the head of Australia’s industry association has spoken out to encourage the UK government to act to protect its legal funding sector.

In an opinion piece for The Law Society Gazette, John Walker, chairman of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF), presents a strong argument that the UK government must avoid following Australia’s past mistake of overregulating the legal funding industry. With the prospect of the CJC’s review soon reaching its conclusion, Walker argues that the government’s “priority must be addressing the uncertainty created by the PACCAR decision”, rather than acceding to the demands of “the powerful, well-resourced and disingenuous minority perspective of the US Chamber of Commerce.”

Walker points to the recent history of legal funding in Australia, where the strength of these critics’ views led to the previous governments introducing strict regulations that created an environment where “access to justice for claimants was denied, corporate wrongdoers were protected, and claims started to dry up.” As Walker explains, the true lesson from Australia was the reversal of these regulations by the new government in 2022, which has seen funding rebound and drive a wave of class actions representing Australians seeking justice once more.

Taking aim at the opponents of the litigation funding industry, Walker highlighted the “myths pedalled” by groups like Civil Fair Justice as being “built on falsehoods that risk clouding reality and choking off access to justice.” Putting the often-repeated claim of funders supporting frivolous claims in the crosshairs, Walker notes “in reality, funders in the UK fund as few as 3% of the cases they're approached about.”

Commercial Legal Innovation

Qanlex Rebrands as Loopa Finance

By Harry Moran |

Litigation funding startups are a common occurrence, especially in recent years. However, the rebranding of an established funder is less common, yet worth keeping an eye on.

In a new blog post, the litigation funder formerly known as Qanlex announced that it is rebranding and will now operate under the name: Loopa Finance. The funder emphasised that it is still “the same team, the same values, and the same focus”, but with a new name that represents  the adoption of a “a clearer, more modern, and more memorable identity.”

The blog post goes on to provide a fuller explanation of the new name: “Loopa refers to our way of working: examining each opportunity with a magnifying glass and creating virtuous loops of funding, access to justice, and efficient conflict resolution.” The announcement also clarifies that the rebranding “does not imply any structural, corporate, or operational modifications.”

Loopa was founded as Qanlex in 2020, offering litigation finance services for cases in Latin America before expanding its funding solutions to commercial claims and arbitrations in continental Europe. As LFJ reported in January of this year, the funder revealed that it was refining its Latin America strategy using new technologies and focusing on specific sectors within individual jurisdictions in the region. Examples of this sector focus include energy cases in Ecuador, real estate development matters in Costa Rica, and oil and energy cases in Colombia. 

More information about Loopa Finance can be found on its website. 

Case Developments Commercial

Echo Law and LLS File Class Action Against Toyota Finance in Australia

By Harry Moran |

Class actions in Australia continue to be viewed as desirable opportunities for litigation funders, with the first half of 2025 already seeing a number of funded claims brought on behalf of consumers wronged by the state or large corporations. 

A joint media release from Echo Law and Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that they are pursuing a new class action against Toyota Finance in Australia, this time over the sale of “junk” add-on insurance to consumers. The claim, which has been brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleges that Toyota Finance and insurer Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia (ADICA), engaged in “unjust, unfair, misleading and unconscionable” conduct that breached the Corporations ACT, ASIC Act, and National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

The class action has been filed on behalf of any consumers who took out a car loan with Toyota Finance and were sold a Toyota branded add-on insurance policy between 1 January 2010 and 5 October 2021. The allegedly “junk” insurance policies covered by the class action include Toyota Payment Protection Insurance, Toyota Finance Gap Insurance, and Toyota Extended Warranty Insurance.

Alex Blennerhassett, Principal Lawyer at Echo Law, said that “this class action is about holding Toyota Finance and ADICA to account for knowingly selling junk insurance to everyday Australians, even though these policies offered no value.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Emma Colantonio, Chief Investment Officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a strong example of litigation funding enabling access to justice and supporting consumers in holding major financial players to account.”

This class action is separate to the Flex Commissions claim which was filed by Echo Law against Toyota Finance in February 2024. That class focuses on allegations that car dealers secretly inflated the interest rate on consumers’ car loans, resulting in additional interest fees. The Supreme Court has ruled that these separate class actions can be managed together, and Ms Blennerhassett said that they expected “there to be a significant number of persons who are group members in both proceedings”. 

LLS is providing funding for both class actions brought against Toyota Finance. More information on both class actions can be found on Echo Law’s website.