(Second New Title) relative to prohibiting foreign adversary persons or foreign entities of concern from financing lawsuits, prohibiting foreign principals from registering as lobbyists, and requires certain disclosures for persons acting on behalf of foreign principals.
HB 1384 creates the New Hampshire Third-Party Litigation Funding Transparency Act, a new chapter in state law governing commercial litigation financing and lawyer financing agreements. The bill defines those arrangements, excludes several categories such as contingency-fee representation, certain health-care-related obligations, ordinary loans not tied to case outcomes, consumer legal funding, and preexisting indemnity or defense obligations, and then imposes disclosure and review requirements on funded civil cases.
Under the bill, a claimant or counsel would have to provide the court, for in camera review, the financing agreement itself and sworn disclosures identifying the parties, the nature of the funding interest, potential conflicts, and whether any foreign entity or foreign person of concern is involved. Lawyer financing agreements would also require a sworn statement to the court and to other parties confirming compliance with the bill’s prohibitions and with professional conduct rules, along with an affirmation that the claimant understands the agreement and had the opportunity to seek independent counsel. The bill also bars financiers from having control over litigation or settlement decisions, from receiving protected confidential materials unless authorized, and from entering into financing agreements with foreign entities or persons of concern.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding in civil cases, including mandatory early disclosures, limited in camera court review, and restrictions aimed at foreign involvement and litigation control. It would apply only to agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027, and it expressly states that disclosed information is not admissible at trial. The measure also includes severability language, preserving the rest of the chapter if any part is struck down.
The available context suggests the bill is being advanced as a transparency and anti-foreign-influence measure, with the caption also indicating related provisions on foreign principals and lobbying. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor debate or recorded vote sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the overall tone appears regulatory and precautionary rather than punitive, focusing on disclosure, conflict prevention, and limits on outside control of litigation.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of disclosure, the burden on litigants and counsel, and the restriction on foreign-linked funding. Potential critics may argue that the bill could chill legitimate litigation finance or create confidentiality and administrative burdens, while supporters are likely to emphasize transparency, protection against conflicts of interest, and preventing foreign adversaries from influencing lawsuits. The bill’s explicit carve-outs for contingency fees, consumer legal funding, and ordinary lending suggest an effort to narrow the reach of the regulation and address concerns about overbreadth.
The bill would add RSA chapter 294-F and impose new reporting, disclosure, and conduct rules for commercial litigation financiers and lawyer financing agreements in New Hampshire civil actions. It would require in camera submission of funding agreements to the court, sworn disclosures to opposing parties, and prohibitions on financier control, access to protected confidential materials, and financing by foreign entities or persons of concern. It also clarifies that the required disclosures are not admissible at trial and applies prospectively to agreements executed on or after the effective date.
No committee testimony or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from the supplied materials. The bill’s text and caption indicate a generally supportive, reform-oriented posture centered on transparency, anti-conflict safeguards, and restrictions on foreign involvement in litigation funding. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context makes it difficult to assess the balance of support and criticism beyond the likely policy debate inherent in the subject matter.
Likely areas of contention include whether the disclosure requirements are too broad, whether in camera review sufficiently protects confidentiality, and whether the foreign-entity restrictions could sweep too widely or burden legitimate financing arrangements. Supporters are likely to focus on preventing hidden funders from influencing litigation strategy, protecting attorney independence, and limiting foreign adversary involvement. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the bill could increase litigation costs, discourage third-party funding, and create uncertainty for claimants and counsel.