Third-party litigation funding:
procedural positions and the funder’s liability in individual civil
lawsuits
Name: AURÉLIO FERREIRA DE MORAES NETO
Publication date: 27/05/2026
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| CARLOS FREDERICO BASTOS PEREIRA | Examinador Externo |
| RODRIGO REIS MAZZEI | Examinador Interno |
| TIAGO FIGUEIREDO GONCALVES | Presidente |
Summary: This research investigates third-party litigation funding. This topic is closely linked to the
PPGDIR’s area of focus, in that it examines the influence of this institution of substantive law
on the subjective structure of the procedural relationship. The problematic lies in the lack of a
systematic framework for defining the funder's procedural position in Brazilian civil
proceedings and the procedural responsibilities arising from its actions, which encourages
forms of participation that lack transparency and are potentially incompatible with the
fundamental rules of civil procedure. The problem lies in how to legally characterize the
funder’s conduct in Brazilian civil proceedings and to what extent it is possible to hold the
funder liable for procedural responsibilities, including in cases of covert participation in the
proceedings. The objective of the research was to demonstrate that the funder may assume
multiple positions in the procedural relationship, depending on the content of the funding
agreement and the form of their participation in the proceedings, as well as to analyze the
feasibility of attributing procedural liabilities to them in light of the fundamental rules of
Brazilian civil procedure. As a theoretical framework, the classic categories of general
procedural theory were used, particularly the concepts of party and third-party, the notions of
ad causam standing, third-party intervention, and ad actum standing, as well as the fundamental
procedural rules enshrined in the Brazilian legal system. For the research, bibliographic and
documentary sources were utilized, including domestic and foreign legal doctrine, civil
procedural legislation, and judicial precedents. It was concluded that litigation financing
constitutes a hybrid institution, capable of placing the funder in different positions within the
procedural relationship — such as a party, intervening third-party, party with ad actum
standing, or hidden procedural party — and that its lack of transparency is incompatible with
due process of law. In such cases, however, the fundamental rules of civil procedure themselves
offer mechanisms capable of mitigating the risks arising from such hidden involvement, notably
the duty to disclose the financing involved, which allows for the identification of both the
existence of the financing and a liability regime applicable to the funder, depending on their
influence on the conduct of the litigation.
