Michael Farley, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Ohio Insurance Institute, told the committee that Senate Bill 10 aims to “promote transparency” in third‑party commercial litigation funding and place disclosure obligations on commercial funders similar to those already applied to insurance under Ohio Civil Rule 26(b)(2).

Farley said the substitute version “embraces the need for transparency in commercial funding agreements” so that parties have equal information for settlement evaluation. “This transparency is essential to restoring some level of equality amongst parties and litigants,” he said.

Opponents argued the substitute bill, as drafted, would unintentionally harm either consumer legal‑funding products or commercial litigation funders depending on how scope and caps are written. Kevin Futrick, speaking for the Alliance of Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (presenting testimony for Eric Schuler), said proposed profit restrictions (described in testimony as a 28% + 7% + 7% cap in the amended language) would be “unsustainable” for companies in the consumer‑advance market, where capital costs, operating expenses and case loss rates can push total costs above typical statutory caps.

Futrick said consumer legal funding differs from commercial litigation financing: consumer advances are small, business‑to‑consumer transactions made to represented plaintiffs to cover living expenses while a contingency matter is pending, and repayment is contingent on recovery. He urged the committee to preserve consumer access and cited a companion House bill with provisions such as a 42‑month cap that his clients support.

Dai Wei Chin Feaman of the International Legal Finance Association, which represents commercial funders, said the substitute bill made helpful changes but retained provisions that would be prejudicial if it required automatic production of full funding agreements. He argued funding agreements are written after the event and can reveal litigation strategy or budget; he and his association favor a disclosure regime that provides funder identity, incorporation location, contractual control rights, access to confidential materials, and whether capital is from countries of concern, while allowing the judge in camera review of full agreements.

Committee members asked about average contract terms, caps, and distinctions between consumer advances and commercial financing. Witnesses offered different data points and said they would provide contract examples and additional numbers to the committee. The hearing record includes written proponent testimony from several business groups and written opponent testimony from trade groups representing commercial funders. The committee recorded this as the fifth hearing on Senate Bill 10; no committee vote was taken during the session.