Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

EU Stakeholder Survey Aims to Inform Litigation Finance Policy

By Tom Webster |
September 4, 2024

EU Stakeholder Survey Aims to Inform Litigation Finance Policy

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

An EU stakeholder survey is gathering practical information on the operation of third-party funding across the European Union. The study, ‘Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) in the European Union’, was given an extended deadline of 3 September 2024.

Conducted by Civic Consulting and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), the research will help the European Commission analyse the legal framework and practical operation of litigation funding in the EU and make policy decisions in the area.

The survey seeks views from stakeholders with experience of third-party funding, including funders, lawyers, consumer organisations, other businesses, public authorities, members of the judiciary and others. As well as questions seeking to discover the extent of funding activity in each EU jurisdiction and typical levels of investment, it also asks for views on both positive and negative effects of litigation funding.

In relation to positive effects, the survey asks a number of questions including whether respondents have observed that current litigation funding practices lead to better access to the courts for parties who could not litigate without funding; whether there is a deterrent effect on companies that serve consumer markets due to the threat of mass claims relating to unsafe products or unfair practices; and whether respondents have seen a filtering effect on claims as those with a low chance of success will not be funded.

In relation to negative effects, questions include whether respondents have observed conflicts of interest; undue influence on decisions such as settlements and appeals; and the funding of frivolous claims.

The EU survey is just one of a number of projects currently examining the litigation funding sector. Also focusing on the EU market, the European Law Institute is undertaking a substantial research project with the aim of establishing a set of principles to identify the issues that should be taken into account when entering into litigation funding agreements.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Legal Services Board recently published a report on litigation funding in England and Wales (https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-review-of-litigation-funding.pdf), and the Civil Justice Council has embarked on a wide-reaching review of the sector (https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/cjc/current-work/third-party-funding/) which will include recommendations in relation to the future regulation of the industry.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Loopa Finance Joins ELFA Amid European Expansion Push

By John Freund |

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.

Commercial

Burford Covers Antitrust in Legal Funding

By John Freund |

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.

Case Developments Commercial

Almaden Arbitration Backed by $9.5m Funding

By John Freund |

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.