Disclosing litigation funding to a judge or arbitrator.

In an arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), each party discloses the existence and identity of the third party funding its claims or defences. Already part of the 2021 Rules, the requirement sits in Article 12(6) of the Rules in force since 1 June 2026 Source [1]. In France, the Act of 30 April 2025 deals with such funding only for group actions. The entity bringing the action publishes who funds it, and the court may, if this is challenged, require documents Source [2] Source [3].

What each text requires.

Arbitration and the independence of arbitrators.

Under French law, an arbitrator must disclose, before accepting the appointment, any circumstance that may affect their independence or impartiality (articles 1456 and 1506 of the Code of Civil Procedure) Source [11].

The ICC Rules place a duty on the parties “to assist prospective arbitrators and arbitrators in complying with their disclosure obligations” Source [1]. Each party “must promptly inform the Secretariat, the arbitral tribunal and the other parties, of the existence and identity of any non‑party that has entered into an arrangement for the funding of claims or defences”. The non‑party in question has, under that arrangement, “an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration”. The 2021 Rules already laid down this duty in Article 11(7).

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has gone further since 1 July 2022 Source [4]. Its Rule 14 requires each party to submit a written notice of the name and address of any non‑party funding its case. It even covers funds received as a donation or grant. For a legal person, the notice also names those who own and control it. The tribunal may order disclosure of further information about the agreement and the funder. It takes the existence of such support into account when deciding on security for costs (Rule 53).

On 21 February 2017, the Paris Bar Council adopted a resolution on third‑party funding of arbitration Source [12]. Under it, a funded party’s lawyer must encourage the client to tell the arbitrators that a third party is paying for the case. Counsel must also warn of the possible consequences of silence, in particular the annulment of the award and obstacles to its enforcement. Our analysis of international arbitration describes who funds these proceedings.

Group actions and the 2020 directive.

Article 16 of Act no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 is the first French statute to refer expressly to third‑party funding, for group actions Source [2]. The entity bringing the action may accept outside money if this gives the backer no influence against the interests of the people represented.

The statute leaves the publication rules to decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025, in force since 1 January 2026 Source [3]. Under its article 7, the entity publishes the list of third parties that fund it, at the latest on the day it brings the action. It does so in particular on its website. The list covers its ten largest funding sources of the previous year, and any funding above 5% of its annual resources or €20,000 over twelve consecutive months. It adds the essential terms of those contracts, including any payment to the third party, updated every year. The decree mentions neither the court nor the lawyer.

In an action for damages, the claimant must avoid conflicts of interest and shield the action from third‑party influence against the interests of the people represented. If this is challenged, the court may order it to produce documents showing there is no such conflict Source [2]. If it finds a breach, it declares the action inadmissible and refuses to approve any settlement between the parties. Since decree no. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025, article 849-12 of the Code of Civil Procedure lets the court raise this ground of inadmissibility of its own motion Source [13].

Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020, which the Act of 30 April 2025 transposes, covers consumer representative actions Source [5]. In an action for redress, where “justified doubts” arise about a conflict of interest or undue influence by a funder, the court or administrative authority reviews that support. The qualified entity then discloses “a financial overview that lists sources of funds used to support the representative action”. The court must be able to require it to refuse or change the funding and, if necessary, to reject its legal standing. Our article on group actions in France describes the procedure.

European and British recommendations.

On 13 September 2022, the European Parliament asked the Commission for a directive on the private funding of litigation Source [6]. The text it proposes would require claimants to disclose to the court the agreement binding them to a third party, and that backer’s identity (article 16). They would also give the court, at its request or the defendant’s, “a complete and unredacted copy” of the contract. This resolution has no binding force. On 30 June 2026, the Commission saw, at this stage, no reason to revisit its choice not to legislate Source [14].

The European Law Institute principles, approved on 8 October 2024, are not binding either Source [7]. Their Principle 5 asks the funded party to tell the court and the other parties that it is funded, and by whom.

In the United Kingdom, the Civil Justice Council delivered its final report on 2 June 2025 Source [8]. Its Recommendation 13 calls for the fact of funding, the funder’s name and the ultimate source of the money to be disclosed to the court and the other parties. This should happen at the earliest opportunity after the agreement is signed. The terms of the contract would generally stay confidential, except before the court for consumers and collective actions (Recommendation 20). On 17 December 2025, the government announced legislation and a new framework for fair and transparent agreements, without setting a date Source [15]. Our analysis of the PACCAR ruling traces this reform.

US courts.

In the United States, no Act of Congress or nationwide procedural rule requires a party to disclose funding in a civil case Source [16]. According to the Federal Judicial Center, the research agency of the US courts, some judges require it by order, and a few districts in their own rules.

Since 21 June 2021, Local Civil Rule 7.1.1 of the District of New Jersey has required a separate statement within 30 days of the initial pleading Source [9]. The party gives the funder’s identity, says whether the funder’s approval is needed for litigation or settlement decisions, and describes the nature of its stake. The other side may seek the terms of the agreement only by showing good cause, such as a conflict of interest. In Delaware, Chief Judge Connolly has required the same information in his cases since 18 April 2022.

The Federal Judicial Center found funding disclosed in 104 civil cases in New Jersey between June 2021 and June 2026, about one filing per 1,000 cases Source [16]. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which drafts the rules of civil procedure for the US courts, set up a subcommittee on the issue in 2024. Its current focus is a possible requirement in Rule 26(a)(1), and the subject is on the agenda of its meeting of 21 October 2026.

In Kansas, an act signed on 7 April 2025 requires the funded party to give the agreement to the court, which reviews it alone Source [10]. The other parties receive a sworn statement. Our article on the US market describes the laws of other states.

What a party discloses, and why.

Most texts stop at the fact of funding and the funder’s identity Source [1] Source [7] Source [8]. The European Parliament resolution and the Kansas act reach the agreement itself, given to the court Source [6] Source [10]. One reason is the impartiality of those who decide the case. An arbitrator or a judge cannot rule out a conflict of interest with a funder they do not know about Source [1] Source [7]. The commentary on the European Law Institute principles adds that the other side needs to know who the backer is to seek security and costs orders Source [7].

An individual case in France.

For an individual lawsuit before a French court, no statute prohibits or organises the funding agreement. The Versailles Court of Appeal recognised its validity on 1 June 2006. Such an agreement rests on freedom of contract and on the lawyer’s professional rules, as the framework in France sets out. The disclosure rules of the Act of 30 April 2025 concern group actions only.

Hello Justice is the first French company dedicated to mid‑market litigation funding, from €100,000 at stake. It has more than 600 live cases, taken on since 2024, and also reviews arbitrations. A lawyer can present a client’s case, and the lawyers page explains what follows.

The online eligibility test and submitting a case are free of charge. Outside the Swiss franc loan programme, the case analysis that precedes any funding costs €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT), whatever the opinion. For an accepted case, Hello Justice pays the lawyer’s fees and receives a commission of 30% of the sums recovered (including VAT for an individual, excluding VAT for a business), only on success. If the case is lost, the client repays nothing, and the agreement settles how the procedural indemnity under article 700 is handled. A Swiss franc loan is checked free of charge, and the programme has its own terms.

Frequently asked questions.

Do I have to disclose my funder in an ICC arbitration?

Yes. The ICC Rules require each party to inform the Secretariat, the arbitral tribunal and the other parties promptly of the existence and identity of the third party funding it Source [1]. They do not call for the agreement itself.

Does a French court need to know that a third party is funding the case?

For a group action, the entity bringing it publishes who funds it, and if this is challenged, the court may require documents showing there is no conflict of interest Source [2] Source [3]. For an individual case, no statute organises the funding contract, which rests on freedom of contract and the lawyer’s professional rules. Before arbitrators, the Paris Bar asks lawyers to encourage their clients to disclose that a third party is paying Source [12].

Does the funding agreement have to be given to the other side?

It depends on the text. Most stop at the fact of funding and the funder’s identity Source [1] Source [7] Source [8]. In New Jersey, the other side can seek the terms of the agreement by showing good cause, such as a conflict of interest Source [9]. In Kansas, the contract goes to the court alone Source [10]. For a group action in France, the entity publishes the essential terms of its main funding contracts Source [3].