What are the criteria for investing in a case?

Our criteria: how we evaluate the cases we finance At Loopa, we evaluate each opportunity with the same rigor apllied to high-impact investment: we look for strong cases, sustainable cases with real prospects of recovery. Litigation funding is not just a matter of capital, but also of trust, analysis, and strategy. Therefore, our selection process is based on three main criteria, which we apply systematically before deciding whether to invest in a judicial or arbitral claim. 1. Legal merits The first filter we apply is the legal strength of the case. We only finance litigations and arbitrations that, after a rigorous technical analysis, show robust legal grounds, a coherent procedural strategy, and a reasonable expectation of success. This involves reviewing: The applicable regulations and relevant case law The legal framework of the claim The evidence available or likely to be obtained The quality of the legal team handling the case The procedural stage of the dispute We do not seek speculative, weak, or legally questionable cases. Our capital is directed towards cases with real merit— those that could move forward on their own but are limited by financial or strategic constraints. 2. Reasonable procedural timeframes The second key criterion is the case's time horizon. While we understand that litigations can take time, our maximum tolerance threshold is usually five years, counted from the signing of the agreement until the effective recovery of the economic result. This analysis includes: The estimated duration of each stage of the process Potential appeals and the likelihood they will be filed The efficiency of the corresponding jurisdiction Practical experience in similar cases Possible delays inherent in proceedings against the State In excessively prolonged litigations or those with high temporal uncertainty, the likelihoo of capital recovery diminishes. Therefore, we prioritize cases with reasonable and manegeable deadlines, which allow us to project scenarios with some degree of predictability. 3. Financial solvency of the counterparty The third pillar of our evaluation is the payment capacity of the defendant. A case may be legally well-founded and have a manageable timeframe, but if the counterparty lacks assets, liquidity, or willingness to comply, the economic return is uncertain. Therefore, we analyze: The economic profile of the defendant (company, State, individual) Their history of compliance with judgments or awards The real possibility of enforcing a judgment against them The existence of seizable assets or guarantees The political or regulatory context that may affect collection At Loopa, we do not finance cases with a risk of structural insolvency or unenforceable execution. We aim for each funded litigation to have a realistic path, not only to victory but also regarding collection. Three criteria, one objective: seeing the case through to the end In conclusion, at Loopa we select cases that combine solid legal merits, reasonable timeframes, and counterparts with real payment capacity. This approach not only protects our investment but also protects the client. Financing a weak or uncollectible case only generates more frustration. That's why we prefer to say no early on, rather than moving forward without a strong foundation. Does your case meet these criteria? Complete our online form and we will evaluate the possibility of funding it with you.