Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

By John Freund |
July 1, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

Guy Nielson is a litigation lawyer with over 25 years’ experience of private practice and in-house counsel litigation and contentious regulatory experience. For over 7 years, he was Global Joint Head of Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement at HSBC Holdings plc with responsibility for managing the Group’s global exposure to material litigation, regulatory enforcement, and investigations, across the UK, Europe, North America, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific.
Stuart Hills is a finance lawyer with over 25 years’ experience in legal private practice. He was a partner for over 12 years for three major law firms, specialising in private and public acquisition finance, project finance and restructurings. His wealth of experience offers clients unique perspectives on the financing and structuring of a broad range of legal finance solutions.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Guy and Stuart:
With your extensive experience in private practice and in-house counsel, what motivated you to found RiverFleet, and what is your vision for the company’s future in the legal finance market?
For the last couple of years, we have been looking into the legal finance industry. It is an exciting market, nascent markets often are, but we have seen it come under increasing attack from various parties.
The industry needs to come together to deal with these threats whilst at the same time advocating for a market regulatory structure that is going to allow for the growth of a world leading litigation finance industry, second to none.
The legal finance market is not without its challenges. It is not the easiest market to analyse. Data is not always forthcoming. As a result, it is not easy for interested investors to enter the market. However, there are investors who are most certainly interested in joining that market, but they need help in doing so.
Our work over the last couple of years also led us to the view that the industry may well be at an inflection point. We believe it is perfectly possible that there will be some funder consolidation. We believe that funds will get increasingly sophisticated in the way they manage their balance sheets. The variety of insurance products has multiplied and, although there have been one or two challenges, we expect that trend to continue.
So we are seeing an industry that is potentially on the edge of massive change. Change brings challenges and it also brings opportunities. With our many years of experience in litigation, finance and investment, we felt that we could offer help and support to all stakeholders in the legal finance market to help navigate that change.
We have aspirations to make a real difference for clients in helping them achieve their goals, and to show thought leadership in a fast-evolving market to help clients navigate some choppy waters.
2. RiverFleet specializes in the global Legal Finance market. What are the key trends you’re observing in this market right now?
Political and regulatory scrutiny
The legal finance industry is currently under political and regulatory scrutiny in particular in the UK and the US, which could have significant ramifications for how funders operate in those markets.
The Civil Justice Council has recently published its final report in respect of its review of litigation funding in the UK, making 58 recommendations for a regulatory overhaul. The Tillis proposal is for the US litigation finance sector to face a substantial tax hike on litigation finance profits.
At the heart of the debate is an ethical consideration of the industry’s role in promoting access to justice. Whether in the UK, the industry can really be trusted to provide fair and proportionate outcomes for consumers and what level of regulation is required to best support the market and to protect those that use it. Whether in the US, the preferential tax rates typically reserved for long-term investment income are justified, or whether litigation finance inflates settlement values and prolongs litigation timelines.
We believe we need to dispel any notion that litigation funding is a dirty answer to an access to justice problem and win the argument that what the industry has to offer is a blessing.
We have to win the argument that the legal finance industry offers broader benefits in respect of the financial opportunities and risk solutions it offers to investors, corporates, law firms, and insolvency practitioners to name but a few, and the positive impact it has on the prosperity and growth of the economy.
Secondary transactions
Duration risk continues to be a major issue for funds and their investors. Case investments do not always stick to a simple predictable timeline. Appeals can take time, sometimes a long time, sometimes longer than the fund term we would all ideally want.
Secondary transactions are a key component in offering an option for funds faced with duration risk concerns.
We need to continue to develop a secondary trading market that works for all stakeholders.
Insurance market evolution
The insurance market now offers a multitude of bespoke contingency risk solutions for the legal finance industry, including;
· After the Event Insurance
· Security for costs
· Own fees cover
· Contingency fee insurance
· Cross undertakings in damages
· Judgment enforcement
· Arbitration award default insurance
We would like to think that as the market continues to evolve, the synergy between insurance and legal finance will drive further sophistication and reshaping of litigation funding into a forever more accessible and mainstream financial tool.
We recognise that not all products have been successful, and we recognise that for some the relationship between the insurance industry and the legal finance industry may at times be strained. However, we remain of the view that the adoption of insurance has the potential to significantly reshape the legal finance landscape. Primarily it enhances risk management optionality, meaning that a funder can better shape the risk profile of a transaction that best suits its investor base.
Working together, the insurance industry and the legal finance industry will continue to drive product innovation, providing bespoke solutions to specific events standing in the way of a transaction.
Increased sophistication and innovation
We recognise that this is a broad heading but across the industry we are seeing an exciting increase in the use of legal finance and innovation in the way that funds are being managed.
The legal finance market has experienced significant growth and transformation as businesses and law firms increasingly recognise its value in managing litigation costs and risks and unlocking the value of hidden litigation assets.
By way of an example, we have seen an increase in patent monetisation investments, where funders have worked with companies holding patents to devise creative solutions to improve the value of patent portfolios of claims, negotiate licences with patent users to generate income streams for patent holders, and pursue litigation funding strategies against patent users who are unwilling to enter into licensing agreements.
From a corporate balance sheet perspective, there’s been an increased recognition that legal finance preserves liquidity and unlocks value from legal assets. It enhances financial ratios and supports the efficient allocation of capital. By keeping litigation costs off the balance sheet, it avoids depressing earnings. With damages awards treated as exceptional items (which do not increase earnings), even winning litigation does not enhance a corporate’s set of accounts. Litigation funding of such actions enables businesses to maintain stronger financial positions and focus strategically on their core growth and competitiveness.
We also believe that litigation funds will become increasingly active in the management of their own balance sheets (if they are not doing so already), which is why matters such as secondary transactions, co-investment partners, securitisation and other risk sharing mechanisms will become increasingly common.
RiverFleet’s website mentions expertise in litigation, finance and structuring, and investment and portfolio management. Can you provide an example of how these three areas intersect to provide unique solutions for your clients?
Sometimes these three skills do not intersect, sometimes they do, but they are three essential skills needed in this industry.
The core asset class is litigation. Having specialist litigation underwriting skills in assessing the legal merits of cases, likelihood of settlement, time duration to trial, and enforceability issues make for a good start. PACCAR is also a telling reminder of the importance of understanding the jurisdiction risk posed by legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding the enforceability of litigation funding agreements. Different jurisdictions also take radically different approaches to issues such as disclosure requirements of funding arrangements and conflicts of interest to name but two.
Litigation may be the asset class, but all good deals need more than an understanding of the asset class to be successful. How best to structure a deal given the wide variety of transaction structures available, choosing the most efficient jurisdiction from a regulatory and tax perspective, and negotiating the key financial and commercial aspects make the world of difference.
How to assess and identify the best-in-class funders with proven track records requires investment management expertise and a deep understanding of effective portfolio and risk management. How to assess investment returns, different risks and rewards associated with portfolio type (for example consumer v commercial sectors, equity v debt investments etc.) and different approaches to managing tail risk and liquidity are all essential tools.
So these three skill sets do not always interact, but they are all essential for investors, funders, law firms and claimants alike. Having them under one roof is rare.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

How Nera Capital Reached $150M in Investor Returns

By John Freund |
Aisling Byrne is a Director at Nera Capital, a leading litigation funder with a global footprint, where she plays a central role in driving the firm’s growth and strategic initiatives. With extensive experience in litigation funding and investor relations, Aisling focuses on building strong partnerships with law firms, funders, and stakeholders while overseeing the operational efficiency of the firm. Her leadership combines a pragmatic, solutions-driven approach with a deep understanding of both consumer and commercial claims.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Aisling Byrne:
Nera recently passed $100 million in investor repayments, citing a “data-driven approach to case selection and risk management” as a key factor. What specific data-centric approaches have contributed the most impact?
At Nera, we see data not as a supporting tool but as the backbone of our decision-making. Our proprietary models assess thousands of variables across historical case outcomes, jurisdictional nuances, law firm performance metrics, and even the efficiency of courts. By feeding this data into predictive analytics, we can more accurately model recovery timelines and probabilities. What’s been most impactful is combining quantitative scoring with qualitative oversight—data helps us remove emotional bias, while our team of experienced professionals ensures the analysis is grounded in real-world legal and enforcement dynamics. That dual approach has allowed us to deliver consistent investor repayments while scaling responsibly.
Nera has now reached $150m in investor returns.
You secured a £20 million funding line from Fintex Capital, bolstering Nera’s ability to support consumer claims and expand funding sources. How do such funding lines influence your ability to take on riskier or less predictable claims, including those where pre-judgment attachment might play a role in enforcement?
Regardless of how many new funding lines we secure, it doesn’t mean our approach changes. In the consumer division, our strategy of supporting proven, legal precedent set claim types and claim selection criteria remains exactly the same—and that high bar has been fundamental to our success and our ability to deliver substantial repayments to investors. The additional capital simply allows us to scale what we already do well, without diluting our standards.
For investors with a different criteria, the commercial division may be better suited. Those cases can sometimes have less predictable timelines, but also offer higher potential returns. In this way, we can align capital sources and timelines with the most appropriate claim types, ensuring consistency in performance while broadening the opportunities we can pursue.
Many financialized legal claims carry the potential for post-judgment or post-award interest and/or enforcement costs. Could you speak to how Nera evaluates the enforceability of judgments, including the likelihood of successful asset attachments (domestic or abroad), in structuring returns for investors?
Enforceability is as important as the merits of the case itself. A favourable judgment is meaningless without a realistic pathway to recovery. At Nera, we always seek to avoid claims where enforceability is in doubt. Before committing, we carry out a comprehensive enforceability assessment, which includes mapping the defendant’s asset profile, reviewing local enforcement regimes, and stress-testing recovery prospects. This rigorous upfront analysis is a cornerstone of our underwriting approach, and in our 15 years of business, we have not experienced enforcement issues—a strong validation of the discipline and prudence built into our process.
Given that litigation finance is often argued to be an “uncorrelated asset class,” how does Nera balance its portfolio of consumer mass claims, commercial disputes, and potential cross-border enforcement matters to provide both stability and high upside for investors?
Diversification is central to our portfolio construction. Consumer claims tend to generate steady, repeatable outcomes that provide stability and heavy settlement cash flows. Commercial disputes, on the other hand, carry larger ticket sizes and higher upside, but sometimes involve greater complexity and longer timelines.
When it comes to cross-border enforcement matters, we take a very cautious stance. We look to avoid supporting claims where enforceability could present difficulties and always conduct an upfront enforcement assessment. By working with leading lawyers and advisers in each jurisdiction, we ensure risks are fully evaluated and mitigated before committing capital.
Because these different claim types are not only uncorrelated with traditional markets but also with one another—thanks to variations in claim structure, jurisdiction, and duration—we can actively balance short-term liquidity against long-term growth. This layered approach allows us to deliver both stability and meaningful upside, while staying true to the uncorrelated nature of litigation finance.
 
As Nera has expanded into the Netherlands and joined the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA), what regulatory, ethical, or procedural hurdles have you confronted? How do these shape your funding models?
Europe presents both opportunities and challenges. In the Netherlands, collective redress mechanisms are still evolving, and with that comes heightened regulatory and judicial scrutiny. By joining ELFA, we’ve committed to the highest standards of transparency, governance, and ethical practice, which we see not as a constraint but as a competitive advantage.
One hurdle has been adapting our funding structures to meet jurisdiction-specific requirements, such as disclosure obligations and court oversight of funder involvement. These challenges have made us more deliberate in how we design our funding contracts and financial models, ensuring they are robust, compliant, and aligned with the long-term sustainability of the sector. Ultimately, we welcome this direction—it elevates the industry and builds trust with investors, law firms, and claimants alike.
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le of Siltstone Capital

By John Freund |

Jim Batson serves as Managing Partner, General Counsel, and Chief Investment Officer of Siltstone Capital’s legal finance strategy, where he leads investment origination, diligence, and portfolio management for global dispute-related opportunities. With over a decade of experience in legal finance, Jim brings a unique blend of legal expertise and investment acumen to Siltstone’s expanding platform.

Before joining Siltstone, Jim served as the Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors, a litigation finance advisory company, and before that, as the Co-Chief Investment Officer – U.S. at Omni Bridgeway, a global litigation finance fund manager. At Omni, Jim was instrumental in expanding the firm’s U.S. presence, implementing the U.S. investment strategy, and developing one of the most respected teams in the industry.

Jim began his career as a trial lawyer. He later became a partner at Liddle & Robinson in New York, where he handled groundbreaking cases, including the seminal e-discovery case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. His experience as both a litigator and investor enables him to evaluate risk and opportunity from multiple angles, making him a trusted partner to law firms, claimholders, and investors.

Robert Le is a Founder and Managing Partner of Siltstone Capital. Prior to founding Siltstone, Mr. Le was a Portfolio Manager at an investment platform of Millennium Partners, a hedge fund located in New York. Mr. Le managed a portfolio of public investments in the energy sector. Before Millennium, Mr. Le helped launch the E&P strategy at Zimmer Lucas Partners (“ZLP”), a Utility and Master Limited Partnership (“MLP”) focused hedge fund. During his tenure, the E&P portfolio became the top performing strategy.

Prior to ZLP, Mr. Le worked as an Analyst at Canyon Capital. Prior to Canyon, Mr. Le was an Investment Banking Analyst at Morgan Stanley in the Global Energy Group. Mr. Le graduated from the University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude and as a Benjamin Franklin Scholar. Mr. Le also received a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship for postgraduate studies in Sydney, Australia.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le:

How does Siltstone integrate legal considerations into your investment strategies, particularly in the niche asset classes you focus on?

At Siltstone, legal analysis is at the heart of every decision we make. Before we commit capital—whether it’s in complex commercial disputes, or intellectual property—we start by looking at the case through a legal lens.

We’ve also developed proprietary software that allows us to quantify and track those risks in a disciplined way. By integrating legal considerations directly into our financial models, we’re able to bridge the gap between legal strength and economic value. Bringing on Jim Batson further strengthens our focus on diligence, given his breadth of experience.

Siltstone emphasizes 'organically sourced alternative investment opportunities.' Can you elaborate on the process of identifying and securing these unique opportunities?

When we talk about “organically sourced alternative investment opportunities,” we mean opportunities that come to us through the network we’ve built and cultivated.  Over the years, we’ve developed deep relationships across the litigation finance ecosystem, including law firms, businesses, claimants, insurers, experts, and brokers.  Those connections give us access to opportunities early, often before they hit the broader market.

We’ve also worked hard to create platforms that connect the industry more broadly, most notably LITFINCON—the premier litigation finance conference. LITFINCON has become a central gathering point for funders, law firms, insurers, investors, and thought leaders. In January 2026, we’ll host our fifth iteration in Houston, where we will once again be at the center of conversations shaping the industry and making connections.

By combining long-term relationships, our collective experience, and the connections we form at LITFINCON, we’re able to consistently identify and secure unique, high-quality opportunities that align with our investment strategy.

Siltstone aims to provide 'uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns.' What strategies do you employ to ensure the portfolio remains uncorrelated and resilient to market fluctuations?

At Siltstone, when we talk about delivering “uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns,” we mean building a portfolio that’s insulated from broader market swings. Case outcomes move on their own timelines and are driven by judicial processes, not by macroeconomic headlines.

Our proprietary risk-assessment tools enable us to model duration, damages, appeal exposure, and recovery probabilities, which provides discipline in portfolio construction and helps keep correlations low.

This mix of uncorrelated assets, disciplined structuring, and diversified exposure makes the portfolio resilient, regardless of broader market fluctuations.

Could you share insights into any recent developments or trends you're observing in the legal finance sector, and how Siltstone is adapting to these changes?

One of the biggest developments we’re seeing in legal finance is the continued professionalization and institutionalization of the space. What was once a niche, under-the-radar asset class is now drawing attention from major investors who are looking for uncorrelated returns. That shift brings both opportunity and competition.

We’re also watching growth in secondary markets—funders and investors are increasingly finding ways to trade exposure midstream, whether through portfolio sales, insurance solutions, or securitized products. That liquidity dynamic is changing how capital flows into the sector and how risk is managed.

Another important development is the ever-changing landscape of insurance. The use of insurance to protect downside risk has become far more sophisticated, with products ranging from adverse costs coverage to judgment preservation insurance. For funders like us, insurance provides an additional tool to de-risk investments and expand our ability to structure creative solutions for clients and investors alike.

We’re also seeing the rise of technology and data-driven tools. From case analytics to AI-driven damages modeling, the sector is moving toward greater use of predictive insights. At Siltstone, we’ve leaned into this by building proprietary software to better quantify and track litigation risk, which enhances both origination and portfolio management.

Finally, the regulatory conversation is becoming more active. We’re paying close attention to potential disclosure requirements and other legislative proposals. Our approach is to stay ahead of the curve by structuring deals with transparency in mind and building flexibility into our agreements so that regulatory changes don’t disrupt performance.

LITFINCON has quickly established itself as a premier event in the U.S. Now that it’s expanding globally, what factors drove that decision?

LITFINCON has quickly become the premier litigation finance event in the U.S., and expanding globally was the natural next step. As we continue to deploy capital and evaluate opportunities, we’re seeing that the market is increasingly international as claims, structures, and counterparties are emerging across multiple jurisdictions. To stay at the forefront, we need to be engaged globally.

We’re also seeing greater diversity in both the types of cases and the investment structures being developed around the world. Expanding LITFINCON beyond the U.S. allows us to explore those innovations directly, while also connecting with new partners and perspectives.

That’s why, in addition to hosting LITFINCON Houston on January 14–15, 2026, we’ll be taking the event global—with a conference in Singapore this July and another in Amsterdam this Fall. Ultimately, going global is about building on the momentum we’ve created by expanding relationships, opening new doors, and growing a broader, more connected LITFINCON community.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing, Moneypenny

By John Freund |
Kris Altiere is the US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, the leading provider of customer conversation solutions for the legal sector. With more than 20 years of experience in marketing and brand development, she is an award-winning strategist who helps law firms and legal service providers enhance client experience, strengthen reputation, and drive growth.  Kris is passionate about blending creativity with data-driven insight, ensuring attorneys and their teams benefit from smarter, more efficient ways to connect with clients while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Kris: Litigation funders and firms are under pressure to respond instantly to client inquiries. From your perspective, how can they meet these expectations without overburdening staff or creating burnout? Across both funding companies and law firms, clients expect clear, informed answers almost immediately. The solution isn’t to expect internal staff to be ‘always on’, that leads to fatigue and errors. Instead, the answer lies in building an intake structure that blends smart technology and AI with flexible human support. At Moneypenny, we see huge success when firms use tools like intelligent call routing or secure live chat to capture every inquiry, triage urgency, and pass only relevant conversations to specialists. By combining in-house capability with trusted outsourced teams, organizations maintain round-the-clock responsiveness without compromising staff wellbeing. Moneypenny’s model offers outsourced communication support. What role can outsourcing play in ensuring consistent, high-quality client interactions, and how do you balance personalization with scalability? Outsourced communication support should never feel outsourced. The best providers act as a seamless extension of your team. At Moneypenny, our receptionists are trained to represent the companies brand, understand escalation paths, and client sensitivities, so every caller feels known and valued. This hybrid model means law firms and funders alike can deliver a highly personalized experience, while still having the scalability to absorb surges in demand. That balance is what protects reputation in high-stakes, time-sensitive matters. What best practices have you seen for maintaining responsiveness while also protecting the wellbeing of in-house teams—especially in high-stakes, time-sensitive legal funding matters? 
  • Define clear service levels: agree internally which inquiries require immediate attention and which can wait.
  • Use shared dashboards and call logs so tasks are visible and distributed fairly.
  • Rotate responsibilities for after-hours or urgent coverage and protect genuine downtime.
  • Partner with specialists like Moneypenny for overflow support during campaigns, press interest, or large case volumes.
  • Celebrate client praise so people see the impact of their professionalism, reframing responsiveness as value, not just pressure.
As the litigation funding market becomes more competitive, pricing alone no longer sets players apart. How important is the client journey—from first inquiry through to resolution—in shaping brand reputation? As competition intensifies, fees alone won’t win loyalty. Clients are looking for reassurance and transparency from the very first call through to resolution. Whether it’s a funder evaluating a claim or an attorney guiding a litigant, the speed, clarity, and empathy of your communications define how your brand is perceived. At Moneypenny, we’ve seen firms use exceptional communication to build loyalty, generate referrals, and justify premium pricing, because a smooth, human-led journey builds trust that competitors can’t easily replicate. Many funders struggle to align their communications, marketing, and operations. What practical steps would you recommend to ensure a seamless and empathetic experience across every touchpoint? To align marketing, communications, and operations:
  1. Map the lifecycle for funded matters and legal cases, capturing every stage from inquiry to closure.
  2. Set a consistent tone and language so outreach, intake, and case updates are aligned.
  3. Adopt shared technology (CRM, case management, call notes) to prevent siloed touchpoints.
  4. Monitor & refine: listen to sample calls, gather client feedback, and adjust scripts or processes to stay aligned with brand values.
Moneypenny partners with firms at each of these steps, ensuring consistency across touchpoints and allowing legal teams to focus on the matters that really need their expertise.