Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

US Judicial Committee to Study Disclosure of Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |
October 15, 2024

US Judicial Committee to Study Disclosure of Litigation Funding

With federal lawmakers following in the wake of some state legislatures in introducing draft legislation to impose new regulations on litigation funding, it is perhaps no surprise that the US judiciary has now seen fit to take a more proactive approach in examining the role of third-party legal funding in the country.

An article in Reuters covers the news that the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed last week to begin a study into litigation finance, to ascertain whether a federal rule governing disclosure of third-party funding was necessary. The decision followed a panel meeting last Thursday in Washington, D.C., and notably comes shortly after over 100 companies signed a letter calling on the judiciary to introduce greater transparency measures for litigation funding. 

The chair of the Advisory Committee, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, said that the debate over third-party legal funding “is an important issue” and that it “is not going away.” Following the committee’s decision, a subcommittee will be created to study the issue but as the Reuters article highlights, this does not provide a timeline on when, or even if, a new rule governing disclosure would be introduced. U.S. District Judge John Bates, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, seemed to make a distinction between the “theoretical problem” that litigation finance could pose, and the study’s purpose to uncover whether there were “actual problems”.

In response to the committee’s decision, Page Faulk, senior vice president of legal reform initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, called on the judiciary “to move forward swiftly in adopting mandatory disclosure requirements.” In contrast, the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) said that it welcomed “the opportunity to be a part of the conversation to demonstrate how legal finance is a valuable part of the legal economy and has not resulted in any of the negative outcomes that the U.S. Chamber has cut from whole cloth.”

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.