The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has issued a call for major reform of the UK’s collective proceedings regime, warning that the current system invites economically inefficient claims and undermines justice for consumers.

An article in ICLG reports that the IEA estimates over £134 billion in pending class action claims are currently before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, involving approximately 655 million potential claimants—more than ten opt-out claims for every person in the UK. While the regime was initially designed to allow consumers to pursue redress in competition cases, the IEA argues it has increasingly been used for speculative litigation, often delivering poor outcomes. The report cites the Merricks v Mastercard case, which originally sought £14–17 billion but ultimately settled for just £200 million, or less than two percent of the original amount.

The IEA’s critique also extends to the litigation funding models supporting these cases. Following the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in PACCAR, which restricted certain types of litigation funding agreements, the IEA contends that funding arrangements still misalign incentives and may delay compensation to claimants. Among the reforms it proposes are: requiring early payments to a portion of class members before a case is certified; establishing a public valuation mechanism to promote competition among funders; enhancing the economic analysis applied at the certification stage; and simplifying damages assessments by focusing on first purchasers rather than tracing harm down complex supply chains.

While the IEA acknowledges that the opt-out class action system has value, it argues that without reform, it risks damaging business confidence, overburdening the courts, and eroding trust in the legal system. Critics of the report, including funder Winward Litigation Finance, suggest some of the recommendations are impractical and fail to grasp the realities of litigation finance.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has finalized a guideline intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to the use of third-party funding (TPF) in international arbitration. The document addresses practical touchpoints that routinely surface in funded cases, including disclosure expectations, funder–party control, conflicts management, security-for-costs, and termination provisions.

An article in Global Arbitration Review reports that Ciarb’s move follows a multi-year effort to codify best practices as funding becomes a normalized feature of international disputes.

The guideline frames TPF as non-recourse finance that can enhance access to justice, while underscoring the need for transparent guardrails around influence and information-sharing. It also emphasizes tribunal discretion: disclosure should be targeted to the issues actually before the tribunal, with the goal of mitigating conflicts and addressing cost-allocation (including security) without converting funding agreements into mini-trials.

In parallel materials, Ciarb stresses that funded parties need not be impecunious and that funding may extend beyond fees to case-critical costs such as experts and enforcement.

For funders and users alike, the practical effect could be fewer procedural detours and more consistent outcomes on recurring questions (what to disclose, when to disclose it, and how to handle costs). If widely adopted in practice — by counsel in drafting and by tribunals in procedural orders — the guideline may reduce uncertainty premiums in term sheets and, in turn, lower the effective cost of capital for meritorious claims. It also sets a useful marker as regulators and courts continue to revisit TPF norms across key jurisdictions.

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.