This bill adds a new section to Chapter 115 of Title 28 to put third‑party litigation funding on a statutory footing in certain large federal civil cases. It directs parties and their counsel to provide courts and opposing parties with information about nonparty funders and creates reporting obligations for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Why it matters: third‑party funding has changed litigation incentives and settlement dynamics, and the bill targets transparency and oversight — including potential foreign involvement — while creating new compliance obligations for litigants, funders, and courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires parties or their counsel in specified large federal cases to identify nonparty funders, disclose whether funders are foreign or connected to sovereign wealth funds, and produce funding agreements to the court and opposing parties. It also bars funders from exercising control over litigation strategy and instructs the Administrative Office to publish periodic reports listing identified funders and amounts.
Who It Affects
The rule applies in MDLs, class actions, and coordinated federal proceedings meeting the bill’s size threshold; it therefore touches plaintiffs’ counsel and class representatives, defendants, third‑party funders (domestic and foreign), federal judges managing large dockets, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Why It Matters
Professionals should care because the bill creates both disclosure compliance risk and new enforcement tools (including contempt and discovery sanctions), changes who sees funding contracts, and creates a public record that could affect settlement leverage, foreign investment scrutiny, and funders’ willingness to finance riskier claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new section into Chapter 115 of Title 28 that defines a ‘‘third‑party funder’’ broadly to include commercial enterprises, foreign states, foreign persons, and sovereign wealth funds that provide monetary support or contractually claim a return tied to litigation proceeds. It sets out several targeted definitional rules: covered civil actions include MDLs, class actions, and coordinated proceedings composed of at least 100 civil actions; certain loan‑style arrangements are carved out from the definition of commercial enterprise so long as repayment is limited to principal, modest interest (an explicit formula in the statute), or reimbursement of counsel fees; and nonprofit legal organizations funded by non‑foreign donors are exempt when providing pro bono representation.
Under the disclosure rules, a party or its counsel must put in writing the identity of any third‑party funder and whether that funder is a foreign state, foreign person, sovereign wealth fund, or a commercial enterprise controlled by any of those. The statute also requires production of any agreement that creates the funding relationship — and makes those materials available to the court and all named parties for inspection and copying — unless the court orders otherwise.
Those disclosures are couched as discovery disclosures and the bill makes them subject to existing discovery sanctions.The bill fixes timing: disclosures are due by the later of 10 days after execution of the funding agreement or at the time of service of the action. Parties that learn their disclosures are incomplete must supplement them promptly.
For enforcement, the statute treats the disclosure obligations as falling within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and exposes failures to Rule 37 sanctioning; it also gives courts express contempt powers where a funder improperly exerts control over litigation.To create public visibility, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must submit to Congress and post online reports (first within 180 days, then every 120 days) listing identified funders named under the statute, the court and docket captions where they appeared, amounts provided, and totals per funder for the reporting window. Finally, the bill addresses integrity and confidentiality: it forbids third‑party funders from directing litigation strategy or settlement, authorizes contempt for violations, and bars funders and their agents from accessing discovery materials that are protected under a court protective order unless the court permits it.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Covered civil actions are defined to include MDLs, class actions, and any coordinated federal proceeding that includes at least 100 civil actions.
A party or counsel must produce any funding agreement for inspection and copying by the court and all named parties, unless the court orders otherwise.
Disclosures must be made by the later of 10 days after execution of a funding agreement or the time the action is served.
The Administrative Office must post a public report every 120 days (after an initial 180‑day startup) listing funders identified under the statute, related docket captions, the court, amounts provided, and each funder’s total support in the reporting period.
The statute bars third‑party funders from exercising contractual or practical control over litigation strategy or settlement negotiations and authorizes courts to enforce that bar by contempt (and to exercise district court powers to issue contempt orders).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Delivers the Act’s popular name: the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026. No substantive effect beyond identifying the statute for citation.
Who counts as a funder and what counts as a covered action
This subsection supplies the operational definitions the rest of the law uses: who is a third‑party funder (commercial enterprises, foreign states, foreign persons, sovereign wealth funds), what a covered civil action is (MDLs, class actions, or coordinated proceedings of 100+ cases), and two important carve‑outs — a loan‑style repayment exception with an interest cap formula, and an exemption for certain pro bono nonprofit litigation funded by non‑foreign donors. Practically, these definitions determine scope: whether a finance arrangement triggers disclosure or stays private depends on the character of the payer and the contract’s economic terms.
Identity disclosure and production of funding agreements
Requires written disclosure to the court and all named parties identifying any third‑party funder and whether the funder is foreign or connected to a sovereign wealth fund; it also requires production of the underlying funding agreement for inspection and copying, subject only to a court order to the contrary. The practical consequence is that core commercial terms and allocation of risk between funder and litigant will be visible to judges and adversaries unless a court specially protects them.
When disclosures must be made and obligation to update
Sets the deadline for initial disclosures to the later of 10 days after execution of any funding agreement or when the action is served, and imposes an affirmative duty to supplement or correct disclosures promptly if they are materially incomplete or incorrect. That timing creates a narrow window for counsel and funders to decide what is disclosed and increases the risk that late funding arrangements will trigger motion practice over belated discovery.
Treats disclosures as Rule 26(a) disclosures and attaches Rule 37 sanctions
The statute incorporates the disclosure duties into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure framework by deeming them required disclosures under Rule 26(a) and making them subject to Rule 37 sanctions for failure to comply. Rather than inventing a new penalty regime, the bill leans on existing discovery enforcement tools, which can include exclusion of evidence, monetary sanctions, and other case‑management remedies.
Periodic public reporting by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Directs the Administrative Office to deliver an initial report 180 days after enactment and then every 120 days listing each funder identified under the statute during the reporting window, the caption and docket number, the court, amounts provided, and total support per funder for that period. The provision turns case‑level disclosure into a systemwide, regularly updated public record that can be used by policymakers and researchers — and that may also attract public scrutiny of funders and the cases they support.
Prohibits funder control and restricts funder access to protected discovery
Prohibits any third‑party funder from exerting influence, control, or discretion over litigation strategy, decisions, or settlement negotiations; authorizes courts to hold violators in contempt and to use district court powers to enforce contempt orders. Separately, the statute bars funders, their agents, or counsel from obtaining discovery materials produced under a protective order unless the court specifically authorizes it, and likewise authorizes contempt for violations. Together these clauses aim to separate financial risk‑sharing from legal decision‑making while preserving confidentiality when a court permits it.
Scope and effective application
Adds the new section to the chapter’s table of sections and makes the amendments applicable to cases pending on or commenced after enactment. That retroactivity clause means existing MDLs or class actions may require supplemental disclosures and could prompt immediate compliance work for ongoing matters.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Federal judges and court administrators — they gain structured, statutory access to who is financing large cases and to funding agreements, improving case management and allowing targeted inquiry into conflicts or foreign involvement.
- Defendants in large actions — defendants receive earlier, clearer visibility into backers of plaintiffs’ claims, which can inform defensive strategy, settlement valuation, and challenges to standing or conflicts.
- Policymakers, researchers, and the public — the Administrative Office’s recurring public reports create a dataset for oversight, study of funding patterns, and scrutiny of foreign or state‑linked investments in U.S. litigation.
- National security offices and enforcement agencies — statutory disclosures of foreign‑linked funders make it easier for national security and law enforcement bodies to identify potential foreign influence and coordinate any review.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party funders (domestic and foreign) — they face disclosure of identity and financial terms, potential reputational exposure, and limits on their contractual ability to influence a case, which may reduce funders’ willingness to finance certain matters.
- Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel — discovery production of funding agreements and public reporting can disclose commercial terms and business strategies, potentially chilling access to funding or increasing negotiation costs for confidentiality protections.
- Law firms and in‑house counsel — attorneys must collect, disclose, and supplement funding information, produce agreements, and litigate disputes over confidentiality and timing, increasing compliance work and litigation overhead.
- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — the AO must develop processes to receive, compile, and publish reports every 120 days, creating an administrative and logistical burden and potential privacy/data‑handling responsibilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency and national‑security oversight versus confidentiality and access to justice: the bill increases visibility into who bankrolls major U.S. litigation (and thus reduces hidden influence), but that very visibility — plus limits on funder involvement — may raise costs, discourage risk capital for plaintiffs, and undercut litigation finance’s role in equalizing resources between parties.
The bill addresses two legitimate policy aims that pull in opposite directions. On one hand, transparency of funders (and particularly foreign funders) helps judges, parties, and policymakers assess conflicts of interest, informational asymmetries, and potential foreign influence.
On the other hand, forcing disclosure of commercial funding terms and creating a public reporting stream risks revealing trade‑secret pricing, chilling funders from financing meritorious but risky claims, and imposing compliance costs that could reduce access to justice for underfunded plaintiffs.
Operationally, several implementation questions are unresolved. The statute gives courts discretion to withhold production “unless otherwise ordered,” but it gives no standard for when secrecy is appropriate; courts will have to define protective processes that balance public reporting obligations against confidentiality.
The definition of ‘‘control’’ over litigation strategy is intentionally broad; proving illicit control in practice will require courts to parse contractual rights, advisory versus directive communications, and indirect leverage (e.g., funding withdrawal threats). Finally, the Administrative Office’s public reports could create perverse incentives: naming funders and amounts may encourage adversaries or foreign jurisdictions to politicize or target funding entities, and could pressure funders to shift structures to avoid disclosure thresholds, producing regulatory arbitrage.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.