Letter Reflects Largest and Most Diverse Support to Date for TPLF Disclosure Rule
WASHINGTON, D.C. – September 14, 2026 – 214 companies – in a significant demonstration of support – are urging the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (the Advisory Committee) to adopt a uniform Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requiring the disclosure of TPLF agreements to parties in federal civil cases nationwide. The companies include large and small businesses spanning a wide variety of industries, including food and agriculture, technology, healthcare, insurance, financial services, energy, transportation, logistics, automotive, aerospace, retail, hospitality, and manufacturing.
The companies’ letter comes just before the Advisory Committee’s meeting on October 21st, where it is expected to discuss its next steps in developing a draft uniform rule to require TPLF disclosure. The letter endorses the specific rule draft proposed to the Committee earlier this year by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). If adopted, it would amend Rule (26)(a)(1)(A) to require disclosure of the identity of any nonparty funder with a financial interest in an action, along with the funding agreement itself, to the parties in the case. These disclosures are necessary to inform parties about who has a financial stake in their case and, like all other required disclosures, would be subject to motions for protective orders.
“After over a decade of consideration, it is time for the Advisory Committee to draft a straightforward rule requiring the disclosure of nonparty financial interests in cases,” said Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel. “A broad spectrum of business leaders agree that nonparty financial stakes in litigation should be disclosed. A rule requiring TPLF disclosure would be consistent with the fundamental principle of transparency that is deeply rooted in our legal system and is critical to courts and litigants who are trying to manage and settle their cases.”
The letter cites LCJ’s analysis demonstrating that TPLF contracts often confer significant control to funders by allowing them to direct case strategy, veto settlements, and, in some instances, continue litigation after the funded party wants to stop – so-called “zombie litigation.” It also highlights recent public testimony where a nonparty funder acknowledged what other funders have long disclaimed – that they have the authority to control litigation and sometimes exercise it.
A recent New York Times investigation uncovers how a funder's undue influence or control over a litigation can severely disrupt it. The Times finds that nonparty funders use the incentive of larger advances to lure plaintiffs toward additional, sometimes unnecessary and risky surgeries in order to increase a claim’s potential value – all of which occurred in secret without any disclosure to the court, opposing parties, or the public.
The letter states that the Advisory Committee should model a TPLF disclosure rule on Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv), which provides an analogous requirement for insurance agreements.
The companies also urge the Advisory Committee to reject the idea of requiring ex parte disclosure of nonparty funding to the court alone. The letter notes that no existing disclosure-related procedural rule – those for real parties of interest, corporate ownership, insurance, or amicus participation – operates via disclosure to the court alone. The letter states: “Allowing litigation funding disclosures to be made ex parte would depart from the Federal Rules’ established disclosure framework and undermine the transparency those rules are designed to ensure.”
LCJ and ILR submitted a comment to the Committee on September 8th focused on why an ex parte rule would be inappropriate and would fail to meet the needs of litigants.
There is growing recognition that nonparty litigation funding must be disclosed. Some federal district courts are adopting local disclosure rules, and individual federal and state courts are adopting disclosure rules specific to nonparty funders. Currently, nearly a dozen states have enacted some level of disclosure or ability to seek disclosure in their respective state courts. This breadth of activity reflects a clear and growing recognition that TPLF disclosure is necessary and reinforces the need for a consistent, transparent, and uniform rule for federal civil cases.
The letter, supported by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Unified Patents, and other industry organizations, follows a 2024 letter to the Advisory Committee signed by 124 companies. More than half of the signers of this letter are first-time supporters of LCJ’s rule advocacy efforts. LCJ’s September 2025 LCJ analysis of TPLF contracts explains why parties need to see TPLF contracts, and a joint LCJ/ILR submission in March 2026 includes proposed draft rule language. LCJ also advocates for a uniform federal rule through its "Ask About TPLF" initiative, which encourages companies and practitioners to ask about undisclosed funding arrangements in their cases.
