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.