Litigation funder Loopa Finance has officially joined the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA), marking a significant step in its ongoing expansion across continental Europe. Founded in Latin America and recently rebranded from Qanlex, Loopa offers a suite of funding models—from full legal cost coverage to hybrid arrangements—designed to help corporates and law firms unlock capital, manage litigation risk, and accelerate cash flow.

The announcement on Loopa Finance's website underscores the company's commitment to transparency and ethical funding practices. Loopa will be represented within ELFA by Ignacio Delgado Larena-Avellaneda, an investment manager at Loopa and part of its European leadership team.

In a statement, General Counsel Europe Ignacio Delgado emphasized the firm’s belief that “justice should not depend on available capital,” describing the ELFA membership as a reflection of Loopa’s approach to combining legal acumen, financial rigor, and technology.

Founded in 2022, ELFA has rapidly positioned itself as the primary self-regulatory body for commercial litigation funding in Europe. With a Code of Conduct and increasing engagement with regulators, ELFA provides a platform for collaboration among leading funders committed to professional standards. Charles Demoulin, ELFA Director and CIO at Deminor, welcomed Loopa’s addition as bringing “a valuable intercontinental dimension” and praised the firm’s technological innovation and cross-border strategy.

Loopa’s move comes amid growing connectivity between the Latin American and European legal funding markets. For industry watchers, the announcement signals both Loopa’s rising profile and the growing importance of regulatory alignment and cross-border credibility for funders operating in multiple jurisdictions.

Burford Capital has contributed a chapter to Concurrences Competition Law Review focused on how legal finance is accelerating corporate opt-out antitrust claims.

The piece—authored by Charles Griffin and Alyx Pattison—frames the cost and complexity of high-stakes competition litigation as a persistent deterrent for in-house teams, then walks through financing structures (fees & expenses financing, monetizations) that convert legal assets into budgetable corporate tools. Burford also cites fresh survey work from 2025 indicating that cost, risk and timing remain the chief barriers for corporates contemplating affirmative recoveries.

The chapter’s themes include: the rise of corporate opt-outs, the appeal of portfolio approaches, and case studies on unlocking capital from pending claims to support broader corporate objectives. While the article is thought-leadership rather than a deal announcement, it lands amid a surge in private enforcement activity and a more sophisticated debate over governance around funder influence, disclosure and control rights.

The upshot for the market: if corporate opt-outs continue to professionalize—and if boards start treating claims more like assets—expect a deeper bench of financing structures (including hybrid monetizations) and more direct engagement between funders and CFOs. That could widen the funnel of antitrust recoveries in both the U.S. and EU, even as regulators and courts refine the rules of the road.

Almaden Minerals has locked in the procedural calendar for its CPTPP arbitration against Mexico and reiterated that the case is supported by up to $9.5 million in non-recourse litigation funding. The Vancouver-based miner is seeking more than $1.06 billion in damages tied to the cancellation of mineral concessions for the Ixtaca project and related regulatory actions. Hearings are penciled in for December 14–18, 2026 in Washington, D.C., after Mexico’s counter-memorial deadline of November 24, 2025 and subsequent briefing milestones.

An announcement via GlobeNewswire confirms the non-recourse funding arrangement—first disclosed in 2024—remains in place with a “leading legal finance counterparty.” The company says the financing enables it to prosecute the ICSID claim without burdening its balance sheet while pursuing a negotiated settlement in parallel. The update follows the tribunal’s rejection of Mexico’s bifurcation request earlier this summer, a step that keeps merits issues moving on a consolidated track.

For the funding market, the case exemplifies how non-recourse capital continues to bridge resource-intensive investor-state disputes, where damages models are sensitive to commodity prices and sovereign-risk dynamics. The disclosed budget level—$9.5 million—sits squarely within the range seen for multi-year ISDS matters and underscores the need for careful duration underwriting, including fee/expense waterfalls that can accommodate extended calendars.

Should metals pricing remain supportive and the tribunal ultimately accept Almaden’s valuation theory, the claim could deliver a meaningful multiple on invested capital. More broadly, the update highlights steady demand for funding in the ISDS channel—even as governments scrutinize mining concessions and environmental permitting—suggesting that cross-border resource disputes will remain a durable pipeline for commercial funders and specialty arbitrations desks alike.

Litigation funder Legalist is moving beyond its core offering of case-based finance and launching a new product aimed at helping government contractors manage cash flow. The San Francisco-based firm, which made its name advancing capital to plaintiffs and law firms in exchange for a share of litigation proceeds, is now offering loans backed by government receivables.

An article in Considerable outlines how Legalist’s latest product is designed to serve small and midsize contractors facing long payment delays—often 30 to 120 days—from federal agencies. These businesses frequently struggle to cover payroll, purchase materials, or bid on new work while waiting for disbursements, and traditional lenders are often unwilling to bridge the gap due to regulatory complexities and slow timelines.

Unlike litigation finance, where returns are tied to legal outcomes, these loans are secured by awarded contracts or accounts receivable from government entities. Legalist sees overlap in risk profiling, having already built underwriting systems around uncertain and delayed payouts in the legal space.

For Legalist, the move marks a significant expansion of its alternative credit offerings, applying its expertise in delayed-cashflow environments to a broader market segment. And for the legal funding industry, it signals the potential for funders to diversify their revenue models by repurposing their infrastructure for adjacent verticals. As more players explore government receivables or non-litigation-based financing, the definition of “litigation finance” may continue to evolve.

Litigation funding contracts are usually sealed from public view—but recently disclosed agreements suggest they often grant funders much more power than commonly acknowledged. A batch of nine contracts submitted by Lawyers for Civil Justice, a corporate and defense‑oriented group, to a judicial panel considering a proposed federal rule to mandate disclosure reveals funders in some instances reserve the right to reject settlement offers, choose or even replace counsel, and take over lawsuits entirely.

An article in Reuters explains that one example involves a 2022 contract between Burford Capital and Sysco Corp, in which Sysco is forbidden to accept a settlement without the funder’s written approval. Another case shows a contract with Longford Capital treating a change of counsel as a “Material Adverse Event,” again requiring funder consent. These terms reveal control far beyond the “passive investor” role many funders claim.

Currently, many funders argue that because their agreements do not always alter case control in practice, full disclosure of the contracts is unnecessary. But defenders of transparency say even the potential for control—whether or not exercised—can materially affect litigation outcomes, especially in settlement negotiations.

There is increasing momentum toward mandatory disclosure. Over 100 corporations, including those in tech, pharma, and automotive sectors, have urged the U.S. Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to adopt a rule requiring disclosure of funder identities and control rights. Several states (like Kansas, Louisiana, Indiana, West Virginia) have also put disclosure requirements into law. In Kansas, for instance, courts may review full funding agreements in private, while opposing parties receive more limited disclosures.

Litigation Capital Management has pulled funding from a long-running Australian class action brought by commercial fishers against the state-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation, opting to cut its losses and reset capital allocation. The funder said the case has now settled on terms that provide a full release between the parties and a payment to the defendant toward costs—covered in full by after-the-event insurance—pending court approval in late October.

An announcement on Investegate details that LCM will write off A$30.8 million, equal to its cash invested, and has launched a formal strategic review with Luminis Partners. Management attributed the exit to portfolio discipline following adverse outcomes and noted preparation issues and aspects of expert evidence that, in the company’s view, no longer supported the case theory.

LCM is pursuing two potential recovery avenues: a costs assessment it says could recoup a portion of legal fees paid, and a prospective claim against the original solicitors for alleged breach of contract and negligence. Beyond this case, LCM flagged near-term milestones: an expected judgment within roughly three weeks in a separate UK commercial litigation co-funded alongside Fund I (A$20.6 million LCM capital at stake), and a decision soon on permission to appeal an April 1 arbitration loss.

Full-year FY25 results will be presented on October 1, when management plans to update investors on strategy and portfolio priorities.

In a move that could reshape both crypto and legal funding markets, Seven Stars Structured Solutions (UK) and PayTech (Dubai) have announced the launch of the world’s first “Real World Staking” bond—an investment vehicle that allows cryptocurrency holders to fund UK litigation assets and earn a fixed 14% annual return.

A press release from Seven Stars Legal details how the offering bridges the $2.3 trillion crypto market and the traditionally conservative litigation finance sector. Issued under a Dubai VARA-regulated framework and processed through licensed VASP GCEX, the bond enables high-net-worth and institutional crypto investors to earn yield from UK legal claims—specifically, the massive discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) claims market following a recent UK Supreme Court ruling.

Unlike conventional DeFi staking models that depend on volatile smart contracts, this new “Real World Staking” concept ties digital assets to real-world legal outcomes. Proceeds fund Seven Stars’ litigation strategies, which have seen over £40 million deployed across 56,000 cases with a reported 90%+ success rate. Investors can receive returns in USDC or GBP and benefit from a three-jurisdiction compliance structure involving Dubai, the UK, and the EU.

This initiative is being billed as a milestone in the institutional adoption of digital assets, offering crypto holders both fixed income potential and exposure to a highly regulated, historically insulated asset class. It also underscores a broader trend of convergence between blockchain technology and traditional finance.

If successful, this model could set a template for future tokenized legal finance products, raising key questions about the role of crypto infrastructure in expanding access to alternative legal assets. Legal funders and institutional investors alike will be watching closely.

The law firm leading one of the UK’s largest-ever class actions is facing a destabilizing internal revolt that could ripple through a landmark case. Pogust Goodhead—fronting a £36 billion claim against BHP tied to the 2015 Mariana dam disaster—has seen senior lawyers depart and staff raise concerns over governance and independence as tensions mount with its principal backer, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in Financial Times reports that the flashpoint follows the abrupt replacement of co-founder Tom Goodhead as CEO and a subsequent $65 million credit top-up from Gramercy, on top of an earlier substantial funding package. According to the FT, at least two senior partners—previously central to marquee matters, including BHP and Dieselgate—have stepped down, while a staff group has challenged transparency around funder involvement. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is said to be monitoring events as BHP’s counsel queries whether the firm can stay the course. Pogust’s chair rejects any suggestion of external control, insisting the firm remains independently managed and committed to clients.

For litigation finance observers, the story lands at the intersection of capital intensity, governance, and case continuity. Large, multi-year collective actions carry heavy, lumpy spend profiles and complex funder covenants; when leadership flux and fresh capital coincide mid-stream, questions naturally arise about strategic autonomy, settlement posture, and reputational risk.

If the rift deepens, the implications extend beyond a single case: market confidence in high-leverage portfolio strategies could be tested, and counterparties may push harder on disclosure or consent terms. The episode will likely fuel ongoing debates over funder influence and the safeguards needed when billions—and access to justice—are on the line.

Fresh on the heels of Siltstone's announcement of a trade secrets lawsuit against former GC Mani Walia, another funder-versus-insider fight has broken out - this time in Nevada federal court, where Archetype Capital Partners alleges that its former co-founder orchestrated a “lift-out” of confidential risk models and deal intelligence to seed a rival venture.

Reuters reports that the $100 million complaint names Andrew Schneider and Georgia-based Bullock Legal Group, claiming they misappropriated Archetype’s proprietary underwriting, pipelines and client data tied to the firm’s mass-tort thesis—including lawsuits targeting alleged videogame-addiction harms. The suit also points to nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations Archetype says were ignored, with knock-on damages measured in lost opportunities and diverted investors.

Defendants have not yet responded publicly. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (No. 2:25-cv-01686), the case frames a familiar narrative as litigation finance matures: the more funders professionalize and productize origination and risk analytics, the more those intangible assets look like trade secrets worth fighting over. Archetype says its internal marketing strategies, investment criteria and pricing models were lifted to help secure outside capital and counterparties for a competing platform.

Expect more of this as fundraising cycles lengthen and origination competition intensifies. Litigation finance is inheriting private-equity-style playbooks on noncompetes, clawbacks and trade-secret enforcement. The sector could soon see a wave of policy upgrades—employee handbooks, offboarding policies, and standardized NDAs—that add friction in the near term but reduce leakage risk and protect valuation over time.

Litigation funder Nera Capital has announced a major milestone, revealing its portfolio’s expected realisation value (ERV) has now exceeded $1 billion—a figure that reflects both realised and anticipated returns net of investor repayments. The Dublin-based firm, which also maintains offices in Manchester, the Netherlands, and the United States, says this landmark demonstrates its rapid growth and underlines its place among the leading players in the litigation finance space.

A press release from Nera Capital notes that this surge in ERV comes just months after Nera crossed $100 million in cumulative investor repayments. That figure is now expected to top $150 million this quarter. The firm credits its success to a disciplined approach to case selection, a tech-enabled risk management strategy, and an emphasis on scalable funding models—particularly in the realms of financial mis-selling, cartel damages, and mass consumer redress.

ERV, a key industry metric, estimates the net value funders expect to realise after satisfying investor obligations. For Nera, surpassing $1 billion in ERV underscores its capacity to manage high-volume, high-impact litigation with robust financial discipline. “This milestone isn’t just about numbers—it validates our model and our mission,” said co-founder and director Aisling Byrne.

The firm’s trajectory has been marked by strategic expansion, including a $75 million new fund, increased institutional support, and the appointment of seasoned finance lawyer James Benson as General Counsel. Nera also reiterated its commitment to supporting claims with measurable damages, strong merits, and potential for positive societal impact.

A funder-versus-insider fight has erupted in Texas, where Siltstone Capital alleges its former general counsel Manmeet Walia secretly formed a rival vehicle and siphoned opportunities using Siltstone’s confidential materials. The complaint names a would-be investor, Hazoor Select LP, and a new venture, Signal Peak Partners, as pieces of the purported plan.

According to Bloomberg Law, Siltstone contends that Walia set up the competing effort while still employed, diverting deals and leveraging trade secrets. Details on damages and requested relief weren’t immediately available, but the fact pattern reads like a classic private-capital dust-up: restrictive covenants, fiduciary duties, and the hard-to-quantify value of a nascent pipeline in a niche asset class.

The case spotlights the growing institutionalization of litigation finance: the closer the industry looks to mainstream private credit or PE, the more it inherits their playbook of non-competes, IP enforcement, and investor-relations friction.

A decisive ruling could nudge funders toward more standardized employment covenants and trade-secret protocols—especially around deal pipelines and model IP—potentially raising operating costs but lowering leakage risk across the sector.