Long debate in Judiciary Committee over bill to require disclosure of some litigation funders; amendment offered to narrow scope to foreign-controlled funders
Loading...
Summary
H.R.7015, addressing third‑party litigation funding (TPLF), triggered extended debate. Supporters argued for judicial transparency to guard against foreign or strategic manipulation of U.S. litigation; opponents warned mandatory disclosures would chill access to justice for plaintiffs and advantage well‑funded defendants. A narrowing amendment limiting disclosure to foreign‑controlled funders was offered and debated.
The Judiciary Committee engaged in a protracted and often partisan debate over H.R.7015, a bill that would require parties to disclose certain third‑party litigation funding to the court and, under some conditions, to opposing parties.
Proponents, including Rep. Issa and Rep. Fitzgerald, argued for transparency because secret funders can exercise control over litigation strategy, sometimes with veto rights over settlement decisions, and because foreign adversaries or strategic competitors could use funding to influence U.S. lawsuits. Rep. Fitzgerald cited instances where funders exercised decision‑making power in litigation.
Opponents from both parties — including Reps. Jayapal, Lofgren, and other members — warned that broad disclosure requirements would chill legitimate funding that allows plaintiffs to pursue meritorious claims, especially small inventors, consumer suits, and public‑interest litigation. They argued that courts already have in‑camera powers to examine financing when relevant and that mandatory disclosure to defendants could enable corporate defendants to use that intelligence to bleed plaintiffs of resources through prolonged discovery and motions.
In response to the broad criticism, Rep. Massey offered an amendment to narrow the bill’s scope to disclosures tied to non‑U.S. persons and entities — effectively limiting mandatory disclosure to cases where a funder is a foreign person or an entity controlled by foreign persons. That amendment drew lengthy debate; several members across the aisle indicated they would consider supporting a foreign‑narrowed version of the bill.
The committee recessed for scheduled floor votes before pursuing final action on the TPLF legislation; the Massey amendment was pending at recess.
What to watch: The Massey amendment (narrowing to foreign‑controlled funders) is a potential pivot point for supporters seeking a narrower bill acceptable to a broader bipartisan group; proponents said an in‑camera judicial review remains a feature of the base bill.
