This bill adds a new subtitle to Maryland’s Financial Institutions Article to bring third‑party litigation financing into a statutory regulatory framework. It defines key terms, directs the Commissioner to adopt implementing rules, and signals the General Assembly’s goal of increasing transparency and consumer protections in funding arrangements tied to legal claims.
The measure reshapes the market for non‑recourse funding by establishing a clear legal regime to govern financiers, plaintiffs, and their counsel. The practical effects will fall on entities that provide money in exchange for rights to proceeds of lawsuits, and on insurers and opposing parties who will receive earlier notice about those financial relationships.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires entities that provide third‑party litigation funding to be licensed under specified consumer‑lending subtitles of Maryland’s Financial Institutions Article and treats litigation funding as a loan subject to several Commercial Law provisions. It makes funding contracts subject to proactive disclosure to other parties and insurers and lists those contracts and their participants as permissible subjects of discovery. The State Commissioner is authorized to adopt regulations to implement the regime.
Who It Affects
Third‑party financiers that supply capital in exchange for a share of claim proceeds, plaintiffs and claimants who accept such funding, plaintiff law firms that package or receive funds for portfolios of actions, and insurers with defense obligations who will be entitled to early notice. State regulators and licensing authorities will also inherit new oversight duties.
Why It Matters
By treating funding as regulated lending and forcing disclosure before discovery requests, the bill shifts where and how financing information surfaces in litigation, alters compliance obligations for funders, and raises new interactions between consumer‑finance rules and litigation practice — potentially affecting pricing, contract structure, and case strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by defining the universe it aims to regulate. “Litigation financing” is any financing where repayment is tied to the outcome of a civil claim or where repayment funds come, directly or indirectly, from a judgment, settlement, or other monetary recovery. The statute also draws a line excluding ordinary contingency‑fee agreements and advances made by a lawyer representing the consumer — those remain outside the new financing definition.
Under the clearest operational rule, any entity that provides litigation financing must obtain a license under Title 11 (Subtitles 2 or 3) of the Financial Institutions Article. In parallel, the bill says that litigation financing counts as a loan for purposes of several subtitles of the Commercial Law Article, which pulls existing consumer‑lending obligations (disclosure, usury or fee rules where applicable, and other loan controls) into the treatment of these transactions.On discovery and process, the statute flips the usual timing: a funded party must turn over the financing contract to every other party and to any insurer that owes a duty to defend, without waiting for a discovery request and regardless of whether a civil action has been filed.
That obligation continues: if a party enters into or amends a financing contract, they must produce the new or amended document within 30 days to all opposing parties and affected insurers. Separately, the law makes the existence of a contract, the names of participants in it, and the contract contents all permissible subjects of discovery.Practically, the combination of licensing, loan classification, and mandatory disclosure means financiers will need to build consumer‑lending compliance programs and expect litigation counsel and insurers to demand and use funding information early.
The Commissioner is empowered to issue regulations to clarify licensing requirements, compliance procedures, and carveouts. The bill also includes a severability clause, sets an October 1, 2026 effective date, and limits retroactive application of most provisions — but it leaves the licensing/loan classification section standing without the same prospective restriction, creating immediate compliance implications for entities operating in Maryland.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “litigation financing” to cover money advanced where repayment is contingent on the outcome of a civil claim or where repayment is sourced from proceeds of a judgment, settlement, award, or other monetary recovery.
A person may not provide litigation financing in Maryland unless licensed under Title 11, Subtitle 2 or 3 of the Financial Institutions Article (the state’s consumer‑lending licensing framework).
The statute treats litigation financing as a loan subject to applicable provisions of the Commercial Law Article (listed as Subtitle 1, 3, 9, or 10), bringing consumer‑lending rules into these transactions.
A party who has a litigation financing contract must proactively disclose that contract to every other party and to any insurer with a duty to defend, must do so even before litigation formally begins, and must deliver any new or amended contract within 30 days of entering or changing it.
The law expressly makes the existence of a financing contract, each participant to the contract, and the contents of the contract permissible subjects of discovery in any civil action involving funded claims.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section sets out the bill’s working vocabulary: it defines ‘consumer,’ ‘legal representative,’ ‘litigation financier,’ ‘litigation financing,’ ‘litigation financing contract,’ and ‘portfolio of actions.’ Two practical limits matter most: contingency‑fee engagements by a consumer’s lawyer are excluded, and 'litigation financing' covers arrangements where repayment depends on case outcomes or is paid from proceeds. Those definitions determine whether an arrangement triggers licensing and disclosure obligations.
Legislative intent: consumer protection and transparency
A short declarative provision frames the statute’s purpose: to promote consumer protection and transparency. While not operational, this intent clause will guide regulators and courts in interpreting ambiguous provisions, and it signals that enforcement and rulemaking should prioritize disclosure and borrower protections over commercial flexibility.
Licensing requirement and loan classification
This is the statute’s enforcement hinge. It bars providing litigation financing unless the provider obtains a license under specified consumer‑lending subtitles (Title 11, Subtitles 2 or 3). It also declares litigation financing to be a loan for purposes of particular Commercial Law subtitles, which imports existing loan‑related obligations — such as required disclosures, administrative oversight, and any statutory limits or enforcement mechanisms applicable under those Commercial Law provisions. The practical effect is that many funders will need to treat these transactions like consumer loans and adopt appropriate compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping regimes.
Mandatory, proactive disclosure to parties and insurers
Section 12‑1304 forces funded parties to provide any litigation financing contract to all other parties and to insurers that have a duty to defend — and to do so without waiting for a discovery request. The obligation applies even before litigation is filed. It is a continuing duty: within 30 days of entering into or amending a contract, the funded party must deliver the new or amended agreement to all other parties and to relevant insurers. That timing and breadth change tactical dynamics around settlement, allocation, and insurer decision‑making.
Permissible discovery topics
This provision clarifies that discovery may include the existence of a financing contract, each participant or party to it, and the contract’s contents. By making these items explicitly discoverable, the bill reduces uncertainty about whether funding arrangements are subject to disclosure and makes funding documents and participant identities available to opposing parties and insurers for use in litigation strategy and settlement calculations.
Regulatory authority, severability, retroactivity, and effective date
The Commissioner may adopt regulations to implement the subtitle — this is the mechanism for developing licensing rules, fees, forms, and enforcement procedures. The Act includes a severability clause and an effective date of October 1, 2026. Critically, the Act states that, except for the licensing/loan classification section (12‑1303), the statute applies only prospectively and does not affect financing contracts entered before the effective date. That carve‑out creates an immediate compliance boundary for funders and a transitional landscape for contracts already in place.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Plaintiffs/Consumers who accept funding — They gain earlier visibility into the financial obligations attached to their claims and a legal framework that routes financiers into a regulated licensing scheme, which can reduce the risk of predatory or opaque contract terms.
- Insurers with defense obligations — Mandatory, proactive disclosure gives insurers earlier notice of funding relationships, enabling them to assess coverage, subrogation, and settlement strategies sooner and with full contract visibility.
- State regulators and consumer‑protection agencies — The statute centralizes regulatory authority, giving the Commissioner explicit rulemaking power and a clearer statutory basis to license, monitor, and discipline funders operating in Maryland.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party litigation financiers — They face licensing costs, ongoing compliance obligations, and the possibility that consumer‑lending rules (disclosures, fee limits, recordkeeping) will increase transaction costs or change product economics.
- Plaintiff law firms that structure portfolio financing — Firms that arrange or accept portfolio funding may need to adapt billing, client‑consent processes, and confidentiality practices to meet disclosure and compliance demands.
- Courts and opposing parties — Early disclosure and expanded discoverability can increase pre‑trial motion practice and discovery disputes around privilege, confidentiality, and the use of financing documents, imposing time and cost burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate goals: protecting consumers and increasing transparency versus preserving access to non‑recourse funding that plaintiffs use to pursue claims. Regulation and loan‑style rules reduce the risk of abusive terms and hidden economic relationships, but they also raise compliance costs and confidentiality intrusions that could shrink or extinguish funding options for claimants who rely on third‑party capital to pursue meritorious claims.
The bill combines two regulatory approaches — licensing/loan classification and mandatory litigation disclosure — that produce several implementation challenges. First, treating non‑recourse funding as a ‘loan’ imports a body of consumer‑finance law not designed for outcome‑contingent, risk‑sharing arrangements; regulators will need to adapt licensing standards and consumer protections to transaction structures that differ materially from installment and consumer credit.
Second, the disclosure regime collides with confidentiality expectations in litigation funding deals: funders and counsel rely on contract confidentiality and business secrecy, but the statute forces broad disclosure to opposing parties and insurers, raising disputes about trade secrets, redactions, and protective orders.
Operational ambiguities remain. The statute names several Commercial Law subtitles but does not map specific consumer protections or permissible fee structures to litigation financing, leaving open whether common funder practices (high effective yields, assignment structures, portfolio rights) will be permitted.
The prospective carve‑out for most provisions but not for the licensing/loan classification section creates uncertainty about which existing contracts must be restructured immediately; funders operating before the effective date may need to evaluate whether licensing is required for their current Maryland activity. Finally, the law does not specify enforcement priorities, civil penalties, or how to reconcile these obligations with federal discovery rules and privilege doctrines, inviting litigation and regulatory rulemaking to fill those gaps.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.