行业动态和会议信息
诉讼成本与风险推动法律融资成为企业决策工具
Litigation Costs and Risk Are Driving the Adoption of Legal Finance
Burford Capital与《The Lawyer》联合发布的《2026年伦敦争议解决报告》显示，诉讼成本和风险正成为企业放弃合理索赔的重要原因。调查中，67%的资深法律专业人士认为，许多具有胜诉前景的案件因成本过高或风险过大而未被提起；85%的受访者认为，法律融资等风险转移工具有助于提升诉讼决策质量，84%表示企业对诉讼成本确定性的要求已超过律所传统收费模式的满足能力。此外，73%的受访者认为企业董事会越来越倾向于将诉讼和仲裁视为可管理的金融资产，60%认为案件和解往往受管理层“诉讼疲劳”影响，而非案件本身实力。报告表明，随着成本压力、风险管理需求和企业财务思维增强，法律融资正逐步成为企业争议解决的重要战略工具。
A new study by Burford Capital and The Lawyer shows that litigation costs and risk continue to prevent many meritorious claims from being pursued. According to the London Disputes Report 2026, 67% of senior legal professionals believe that strong claims are frequently abandoned because of the expense or uncertainty associated with litigation. The survey also found that 85% of respondents believe risk-transfer tools such as legal finance improve litigation decision-making, while 84% said businesses now demand greater cost certainty than traditional law firm billing models can easily provide. In addition, 73% reported that corporate boards increasingly view litigation and arbitration as financial assets, and 60% said settlement decisions are often driven by management fatigue rather than the legal merits of a case. The findings suggest that growing cost pressures, more sophisticated corporate governance, and broader acceptance of legal finance are making litigation funding an increasingly important strategic tool in business dispute management.
佐治亚州诉讼融资登记制度落地，40余家机构完成注册
Georgia’s Litigation Funding Registry Launches as More Than 40 Funders Register
佐治亚州2025年《第69号参议院法案》（SB 69）实施后，已有41家以上诉讼融资公司完成注册，标志着这一长期缺乏透明度的行业开始接受监管。该法案由州长布莱恩·坎普于2025年4月签署，自2026年1月1日起要求相关融资机构通过全国多州许可系统向州银行与金融部登记注册。除注册外，法案还限制外国资本控制及与外国敌对势力相关的融资，要求在民事诉讼中披露融资安排，并建立消费者信息披露制度，要求公开所有权结构及相关刑事犯罪记录。支持者认为，新规有助于提升行业透明度和规范发展；但也有观点认为，仅靠注册制度而缺乏更严格的执法和融资条款披露，仍难真正揭示诉讼资金来源及运作方式。
More than 41 litigation funding companies have registered under Georgia’s new litigation funding registry, marking an early step toward greater oversight of an industry that has long operated with limited transparency. Established under Senate Bill 69 (SB 69), signed by Governor Brian Kemp in April 2025, the law requires commercial litigation funders to register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System beginning January 1, 2026. In addition to registration, SB 69 restricts foreign ownership and funding linked to foreign adversaries, makes litigation funding arrangements discoverable in civil cases, and introduces consumer disclosure requirements, including reporting ownership information and criminal convictions. Supporters view the law as an important framework for improving transparency and accountability, while critics argue that registration alone—without stronger enforcement or disclosure of funding terms—may have only a limited impact on revealing who finances litigation and under what conditions.
俄亥俄州推进第三方诉讼融资监管法案，强化注册披露并禁止外国资方
Ohio Advances Third-Party Litigation Funding Bill Focused on Transparency and Foreign Funding Restrictions
美国俄亥俄州正推进第三方诉讼融资监管立法。已获州参议院通过并提交州长Mike DeWine签署的《第105号众议院法案》（HB 105）要求商业及消费类诉讼融资机构向州政府注册，并在案件结案后向州检察长披露融资协议。法案还禁止资方干预案件处理或和解，并禁止与美国境外个人或实体签订诉讼融资协议。该法案借鉴美国全国保险立法者会议（NCOIL）的《第三方诉讼融资透明度示范法》，旨在建立统一的注册和监管框架。与北卡罗来纳州全面禁止第三方诉讼融资不同，俄亥俄州更侧重通过提高透明度和限制外国资本参与加强监管，其模式或将为其他州相关立法提供参考，也有助于诉讼各方更清晰了解案件背后的融资利益关系。
Ohio is moving closer to regulating third-party litigation funding through House Bill 105, which has passed the state Senate and been sent to Governor Mike DeWine for consideration. The legislation would require both commercial and consumer litigation funders to register with the state and disclose their funding agreements to the attorney general after cases conclude. It also prohibits funders from influencing litigation strategy or settlement decisions and bars funding agreements involving individuals or entities domiciled outside the United States. Drawing on the National Conference of Insurance Legislators’ (NCOIL)Transparency in Third Party Litigation Financing Model Act, the bill establishes a standardized registration and oversight framework. Unlike North Carolina’s recent outright ban on third-party litigation funding, Ohio’s proposal emphasizes transparency and safeguards against foreign influence rather than prohibiting the industry altogether. The approach could serve as a model for other states considering similar legislation while providing litigants and defense counsel with greater visibility into the financial interests supporting legal claims.
新罕布什尔州缩减诉讼融资监管，聚焦外国资金限制
New Hampshire Narrows Litigation Funding Reform to Focus on Foreign Financing
新罕布什尔州最终放弃了对诉讼融资行业实行全面注册和监管的计划，转而通过《第三方诉讼融资透明法》（Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act，源于HB 1384），重点限制外国资金介入。新法禁止与美国联邦法律认定的外国敌对势力或受制裁实体直接或间接相关的商业诉讼融资，并要求原告或其律师在案件立案及融资协议发生变更时，向各方及负有抗辩或赔偿义务的保险公司披露相关融资协议。法案同时豁免符合《国内税收法》第501(c)(3)条规定、为原告提供公益法律服务的非营利组织及其资助方，大部分条款将于2027年1月1日生效。此次立法反映出美国各州监管趋势正从全面监管诉讼融资行业，转向优先加强对外国资本参与诉讼融资的透明度和限制。
New Hampshire has scaled back its proposed regulation of the litigation finance industry, opting for a narrower approach that focuses on foreign-funded litigation rather than comprehensive oversight of commercial funders. Enacted as the Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act (originating as HB 1384), the law prohibits commercial litigation financing that is directly or indirectly linked to foreign adversaries or federally sanctioned entities. It also requires claimants or their attorneys to disclose any commercial litigation funding agreement to all parties when a civil action is filed and whenever the agreement is amended, with insurers that have a duty to defend or indemnify entitled to the same disclosure. The statute exempts qualifying nonprofit organizations under Section 501(c)(3) that provide pro bono representation, as well as their funders, from the definition of commercial litigation financiers. Most provisions will take effect on January 1, 2027. The legislation reflects a broader trend among U.S. states toward prioritizing transparency and restrictions on foreign litigation funding rather than imposing comprehensive regulation on the domestic litigation finance market.
英国律师监管机构加强对消费者集体诉讼及诉讼资助监管
SRA Tightens Oversight of Consumer Claims and Litigation Funding
英国律师监管局（SRA）正进一步加强对英格兰及威尔士高量消费者索赔业务的监管。截至2026年6月底，SRA已对68家律所展开94项调查，并关闭7家律所，同时设立专项监管工作组，以提前识别和干预行业风险。SRA指出，该领域存在七类主要消费者风险，包括信息披露不足、误导性行为及法律服务质量不达标等。其中，SSB Law倒闭事件因大量消费者索赔案件受影响，以及其背后的第三方诉讼资助安排受到广泛关注，成为监管改革的重要导火索。与此同时，SRA正就第三方诉讼资助新规公开征求意见，拟要求律师在消费者索赔案件中使用或安排第三方诉讼资助时履行通知义务、开展风险评估、充分披露资助安排，并确保律师独立性不受资助方影响。咨询将持续至2026年9月17日。相关举措表明，英国监管机构正从风险识别逐步转向制度化监管，以应对第三方诉讼资助在消费者诉讼领域日益广泛的应用。
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is intensifying its oversight of the high-volume consumer claims sector in England and Wales, reflecting growing regulatory concern over litigation funded by third parties. As of the end of June 2026, the SRA had 94 active investigations involving 68 law firms and had intervened in seven firms, while also establishing a dedicated supervision taskforce to identify and address risks at an earlier stage. The regulator identified seven key categories of consumer harm, including inadequate information, misleading practices, and poor-quality legal services. The collapse of SSB Law—which exposed weaknesses in the management and funding of mass consumer litigation—has become a key catalyst for increased regulatory scrutiny. At the same time, the SRA has launched a public consultation on new rules governing the use of third-party litigation funding in consumer claims. The proposals would require solicitors to notify clients of funding arrangements, conduct risk assessments, provide enhanced disclosures, and maintain independence from litigation funders. The consultation remains open until 17 September 2026, signalling a broader shift toward more active regulation of litigation funding in the consumer claims market.
Uber更新用户协议，要求披露第三方诉讼融资安排
Uber Requires Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding in Updated User Agreements
Uber近期修改了司机和乘客服务协议，要求任何起诉公司的原告披露案件是否获得第三方诉讼融资支持，并向Uber提供相关融资协议副本；该要求同样适用于仲裁程序，并意味着签约方需放弃融资文件在律师—客户特权及保密方面的部分保护。Uber表示，此举是其反对第三方诉讼融资行动的一部分，并长期与多家企业共同推动限制或禁止该融资模式，认为其助长滥诉。法律界人士则认为，新条款可能使诉讼资方因尽职调查等信息被迫公开而放弃支持针对Uber的案件，从而增加维权难度。该政策出台之际，Uber正面临数千起乘客性侵诉讼，并在近期一宗联邦示范案件中被判赔偿850万美元，引发外界对诉讼融资透明度与司法可及性之间平衡的进一步讨论。
Uber has revised its rider and driver agreements to require anyone bringing legal claims against the company to disclose whether their case is supported by third-party litigation funding and to provide Uber with copies of the underlying funding agreements. The requirement also applies in arbitration proceedings and effectively waives certain attorney-client privilege and confidentiality protections for documents shared with litigation funders. Uber says the changes are part of its broader campaign against third-party litigation funding, arguing that external financing encourages abusive litigation, and the company has supported legislative efforts to restrict the practice. Legal experts, however, warn that the provisions could discourage funders from backing claims against Uber because they would be required to disclose sensitive due diligence and funding information. The policy comes as Uber continues to defend thousands of passenger sexual assault lawsuits, including a recent federal bellwether case that resulted in an $8.5 million verdict against the company, further intensifying debate over transparency in litigation funding and access to justice.
Meru案件凸显印度第三方诉讼融资市场的发展机遇
Meru’s Appeal Withdrawal Highlights the Untapped Potential of Third-Party Litigation Funding in India
印度网约车平台Meru放弃对Ola和Uber提起的长期反垄断上诉，引发市场对第三方诉讼融资（TPLF）作用的讨论。国家公司法上诉法庭（NCLAT）批准Meru撤回其针对印度竞争委员会（CCI）2018年决定的上诉，理由是公司经营和收入持续恶化，已无力继续承担诉讼成本。有观点认为，此次撤诉并非案件缺乏胜诉基础，而是融资不足所致；若能获得第三方诉讼融资支持，Meru或有能力继续维权。虽然印度法律并未禁止第三方诉讼融资，相关协议主要受《印度合同法》和律师执业规则约束，但市场发展仍较为有限、监管体系尚不完善。随着2026年商事诉讼改革推进，以及科技、能源和基础设施等高价值争议增多，第三方诉讼融资正逐渐成为企业法务和财务管理的重要战略工具，Meru案例也凸显了这一融资模式尚未充分发挥作用的现实。
Meru’s decision to withdraw its long-running antitrust appeal against Ola and Uber has drawn attention to the limited development of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) in India. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed Meru Travel Solutions to withdraw its appeal against the Competition Commission of India’s 2018 decision after the company’s deteriorating financial condition made continued litigation economically unviable. Commentators argue that the withdrawal reflects a lack of access to litigation financing rather than the merits of the underlying claim, suggesting that adequate third-party funding could have enabled the company to continue pursuing its case. Although Indian law does not prohibit third-party litigation funding, with funding agreements generally governed by the Indian Contract Act and professional conduct rules, the market remains underdeveloped and lightly regulated. As commercial litigation reforms take effect in 2026 and high-value disputes in sectors such as technology, energy, and infrastructure continue to grow, third-party litigation funding is increasingly viewed by corporate legal and finance teams as a strategic financing tool, with the Meru case illustrating the cost of its limited adoption.
英国集体诉讼凸显确立完善第三方资助机制的重要性
UK Collective Action Highlights the Importance of Robust Litigation Funding
英国一宗针对Fender、Yamaha、Roland、Korg及Casio五家乐器制造商的集体诉讼，因第三方诉讼资助未能落实而最终撤诉，拟任集体代表人被裁定承担约150万英镑诉讼费用。该案源于英国竞争与市场管理局（CMA）认定相关企业限制零售商自主制定线上售价。原告曾表示已获得North Wall Capital提供的诉讼资助，并随着案件增加将资助规模由650万英镑提升至1800万英镑。然而，资助协议最终未能达成，而这一情况直到案件管理会议前夕才向竞争上诉法庭充分披露。法院指出，原告及其律师事务所在资助情况披露方面存在问题，并裁定自2023年4月起适用赔偿性费用令，包括部分被告获简易判付60.8万英镑，另两名被告获85万英镑临时费用令。案件凸显，在集体诉讼中，第三方资助一旦中断，即使案件已推进较深阶段，也可能迅速导致诉讼终止并产生沉重成本风险。该案件凸显确立完善第三方资助机制的重要性。
A proposed UK collective action against five musical instrument manufacturers—Fender, Yamaha, Roland, Korg, and Casio—has been withdrawn after third-party litigation funding failed to materialise, leaving the proposed class representative facing approximately £1.5 million in legal costs. The claims stemmed from a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' ability to set online resale prices. The claimant had indicated that funding from North Wall Capital was in place, with the commitment reportedly increasing from £6.5 million to £18 million as additional claims were filed. However, the funding agreement was never finalised, and the Competition Appeal Tribunal found that this development was not properly disclosed until shortly before a case management conference. The tribunal criticised the handling of the funding position and ordered substantial indemnity costs against the proposed representative. The case highlights the critical role of litigation funding in collective proceedings and demonstrates how the collapse of funding can quickly derail even well-advanced claims while exposing claimants to significant adverse costs.The case underscores the importance of a robust third-party litigation funding framework.
