SB894 adds a new Subtitle to Maryland's Financial Institutions Article to bring third‑party litigation financing squarely within the state's consumer‑lending regime. It makes persons who provide litigation funding subject to Maryland licensing requirements under Title 11 (consumer loan law) or the State's installment‑loan provisions, declares litigation financing to be a loan for purposes of the Commercial Law Article, and requires parties to disclose funding contracts to other parties and insurers.
Beyond licensing, the bill imposes procedural transparency: litigation financing contracts that confer a contingent right to repayment must be delivered to opposing parties and to any insurer with a duty to defend without waiting for discovery, and those contracts (including their existence, participants, and contents) are explicitly listed as permissible subjects of discovery. The measure also authorizes the Commissioner to adopt implementing regulations and contains standard severability and timing provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB894 requires litigation financiers to hold a Maryland consumer‑lending or installment‑loan license and treats litigation financing as a loan under specified Commercial Law subtitles. It mandates immediate, continuing disclosure of any funding contract that conditions repayment on the outcome of an action, and makes the existence, participants, and contents of those contracts discoverable.
Who It Affects
Maryland‑focused third‑party funders, law firms that take portfolio or assignment‑style financing, plaintiffs who receive such funding, defense parties and their insurers (including carriers with a duty to defend), and the Maryland Commissioner who oversees consumer‑lending licensing and enforcement.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts litigation funding from an often‑unregulated marketplace into the consumer‑lending framework, which will change compliance obligations, commercial economics, and the information available to courts and insurers — with direct consequences for access to capital for plaintiffs and for defense strategy and settlement dynamics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB894 starts by defining the central players and transactions it covers. It uses a broad working definition of “litigation financing” to include any financing where repayment is contingent on winning or is sourced from proceeds of a claim, and it defines “litigation financier” to capture entities formed specifically to provide such financing.
The statute carefully excludes ordinary attorney contingency‑fee agreements and cost advances made by a legal representative from the definition of a litigation financing contract.
The bill's core regulatory move is to classify litigation financing as a regulated loan activity. It bars a person from providing litigation financing unless licensed under Maryland’s consumer‑loan licensing rules (Title 11, Subtitle 2 or 3) and says that litigation financing is a loan for relevant Commercial Law subtitles.
That language imports state licensing, oversight and any associated statutory obligations or prohibitions that apply to consumer lending into the market for third‑party funding.On transparency, SB894 requires a party who has entered a litigation financing contract that gives the funder a contingent right to payment to provide that contract to every other party in the action and to any insurer that owes a duty to defend — immediately and without waiting for a discovery request. The disclosure is ongoing: if a contract is entered or amended, the party must deliver the new or amended contract within 30 days.
Separately, the bill makes the existence of funding agreements, the participants, and the contract contents expressly permissible subjects of discovery, even before a case is formally filed.Finally, the bill gives the Commissioner rule‑making authority to implement the subtitle and includes ordinary statutory housekeeping: a severability clause, a prospective‑application rule that preserves pre‑existing contracts except as to the licensing provision (with a specific carve‑out), and an October 1, 2026 effective date. Taken together, those elements both extend regulatory reach over a previously lightly regulated market and build in procedural transparency that will surface funder involvement to all parties and insurers early in litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute’s formal definition treats as litigation financing not only contingent repayment arrangements but also advances where repayment funds are derived from proceeds of a claim, capturing a wide range of funding structures.
A litigation financing contract does not include a lawyer’s contingency‑fee agreement or cost advances made by the legal representative who is representing the consumer.
Disclosure must be given without waiting for a discovery request and must be updated within 30 days after any new or amended litigation financing contract is entered into.
The act makes three specific categories discoverable: the existence of the contract, each participant or party to the contract, and the contract’s contents.
The bill contains a rule that it applies prospectively to pre‑existing contracts except for the licensing provision (Section 12‑1303), and it authorizes the Commissioner to issue implementing regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — who and what the law covers
This section sets the perimeter: ‘civil action’ is broadly defined to include claims, cases, administrative proceedings, and portfolios; ‘consumer’ is any individual domiciled, residing, or present in Maryland who is or may become a plaintiff; and ‘litigation financing’ covers contingent repayment or repayment sourced from claim proceeds. Practically, the definitions sweep in many modern funding arrangements and explicitly exclude attorney contingency‑fee arrangements, which narrows the law away from directly regulating lawyer fee agreements while still capturing third‑party capital.
Legislative intent — consumer protection and transparency
A short statement of purpose frames the subtitle as driven by consumer protection and transparency. That matters because it signals the legislative rationale the Commissioner and courts may use when interpreting ambiguous provisions, tilting interpretive questions toward protecting plaintiffs and ensuring disclosure rather than preserving funder confidentiality.
Licensing requirement and loan characterization
This is the statute’s enforcement backbone: it prohibits providing litigation financing unless the funder is licensed under the Maryland consumer‑loan statutes (Title 11, Subtitle 2 or 3). It also declares litigation financing to be a loan subject to specified Commercial Law subtitles. For funders that previously operated without a consumer‑lending license, this triggers immediate licensing and compliance obligations (unless the prospective‑application clause governs), and it pulls financing terms into the Commercial Law regime — with potential consequences for permitted fees, disclosures, and enforcement remedies.
Upfront and continuing disclosure to other parties and insurers
Section 12‑1304 requires a party to deliver any litigation financing contract that gives the funder a contingent payment right to each opposing party and to any insurer that has a duty to defend — without waiting for discovery. The duty is continuing: new or amended contracts must be disclosed within 30 days. This provision changes normal litigation practice by making funder involvement and the precise terms of funding visible early, which can affect defense, coverage, and settlement tactics.
Permissible discovery topics about funding
The statute makes three topic areas explicitly discoverable: whether a funding contract exists, who is a participant or party to the contract, and the contract’s contents. By placing these subjects beyond dispute, the law reduces litigation over whether funding information is discoverable — but it stops short of categorically mandating production formats, privilege waivers, or protective‑order contours, leaving those procedural questions to the courts.
Regulatory authority
The Commissioner is authorized to adopt regulations to implement the subtitle. That gives the regulator levers to define licensing standards, application and renewal procedures, supervisory reporting, and potentially capital, escrow, or disclosure rules — details the statute omits but that will materially shape compliance burdens and market conduct.
Housekeeping and timing — retroactivity carve‑out
The bill includes a severability clause and an October 1, 2026 effective date. Critically, it instructs that, except for the licensing section (12‑1303), the Act applies only prospectively and may not be applied to litigation financing contracts entered before the effective date. That creates an unusual carve‑out that preserves prior contracts from the disclosure and discovery regime while leaving open how licensing applies to pre‑existing funders.
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) — Benefit from statutory transparency and the consumer‑protection frame that brings funders under licensing and oversight, which can reduce predatory funding terms and produce standardized disclosures.
- Defendants and defense counsel — Gain early visibility into whether a plaintiff’s claim is funded, who the funder is, and contract terms that could affect settlement leverage, indemnity allocation, or litigation strategy.
- Insurers with a duty to defend — Receive direct notice of funder involvement and contract terms, which affects coverage decisions, reservation‑of‑rights analysis, and subrogation or contribution strategies.
- Maryland regulator (Commissioner) — Receives clear statutory authority to regulate funders and to set rules that standardize licensing and supervision across the industry.
- Courts and litigants generally — Benefit from reduced discovery disputes about whether funding exists, cutting down tactical gamesmanship and late surprises during litigation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party litigation financiers — Face new licensing, compliance, and supervisory costs (application fees, ongoing reporting, potential bonding or capital requirements), and they may need to reorganize business models to conform with lending statutes.
- Law firms that engage in portfolio financing or assign claim proceeds — May see reduced flexibility because common portfolio structures could now fall within the licensing or loan characterization, changing economics and contracting practices.
- Out‑of‑state or boutique funders — May be chilled from funding Maryland plaintiffs if they choose not to obtain Maryland consumer‑loan licenses, reducing the pool of available capital for claimants.
- Maryland’s regulatory agency — Will need resources to process licenses, supervise funders, and promulgate regulations; enforcement costs may increase without an explicit funding allocation.
- Plaintiffs in niche cases — Could face reduced access to funding if smaller or higher‑risk funders exit the market or raise prices to cover licensing costs, which could indirectly affect access to justice for certain claimants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against each other: protecting plaintiffs and increasing market transparency by regulating funders, versus preserving access to third‑party capital and the confidentiality of funding terms that support settlements; tightening licensing and discovery rules may curb harmful practices but also could raise costs or drive funders out of the market, which in turn may restrict plaintiffs’ ability to pursue meritorious claims.
Several implementation questions and trade‑offs could shape the law’s real‑world effect. First, the provision that litigation financing is a loan and must be provided only by licensed entities pulls a varied market into the consumer‑lending code without specifying how commonly contested topics — e.g., permissible fees, annual percentage rate calculations, or usury ceilings — will apply to contingent, nonrecourse arrangements.
The Commissioner’s future regulations will be decisive, but the statute leaves many technical definitions and compliance mechanics unresolved.
Second, the disclosure and discovery rules collide with confidentiality, settlement‑negotiation privileges, and some funders’ business‑sensitive information. The bill forces early production of contract contents, but it does not set protections for commercially sensitive terms or clarify privilege boundaries (for example, when a funding agreement is integrated into settlement negotiations).
Courts and regulators will have to calibrate protective orders, in camera review, or redaction practices to reconcile transparency with legitimate confidentiality concerns. Finally, the prospective‑application clause that exempts pre‑existing contracts from most provisions but excepts the licensing requirement (12‑1303) creates legal uncertainty: it is unclear whether the General Assembly intended licensing to apply retroactively to continuing funding relationships or only prospectively to future transactions, which could prompt litigation over retroactive enforcement and raise due‑process or takings questions for incumbent funders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.