As the litigation funding industry continues to evolve, Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal shares insights into the sector and Fenchurch Legal’s approach and practices. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Louisa Klouda:

What drew you to the world of litigation funding?

My entry into the world of litigation funding wasn't a direct one, but rather a spark of curiosity during my previous role in corporate finance and the asset-backed lending world. I came across the concept of litigation funding and found myself instantly drawn to its unique characteristics. I discovered a market dominated by large funders focusing on large cases like class actions. However, I noticed a significant gap: a lack of support for smaller claims, particularly in areas like housing disrepair and the challenges the law firms faced in accessing funding for these meritorious claims. Recognizing the gap in the small-claims market, I saw an opportunity to create Fenchurch Legal in 2020. The aim of the business was twofold: to facilitate access to justice for smaller claims and to provide an avenue for investors looking for alternative investment opportunities.

Can you provide an overview of small ticket litigation funding and its significance in the UK legal landscape?

Small ticket litigation funding plays a vital role in the UK legal landscape, offering an alternative approach to financing legal claims. In essence, it involves providing funding to law firms for smaller value cases across various areas like personal injury, housing disrepair, and financial mis-selling, unlike large-ticket funding which targets high-stakes class actions. Small-ticket funders like Fenchurch Legal focus on quantity, funding a high volume of smaller cases. These case types have clear legal precedent, and are protocol-based and process-driven consumer claims, with high success potential. This subset of litigation funding addresses a gap in the legal financing ecosystem created by rising legal costs and resource-intensive cases. Small ticket litigation funding ensures that even modest claims, like housing disrepair receive the backing necessary to navigate the legal process, ultimately facilitating access to justice and contributing to a more balanced and inclusive legal landscape.

How does this subset of litigation funding attract investors?

The appeal of small-ticket litigation funding to investors is multifaceted, driven by three key factors -  flexible entry points, portfolio diversification, and unique security features. Firstly, it provides investors with lower entry points compared to larger funders. This is particularly attractive to those moving away from traditional markets and seeking a more balanced investment approach with steady returns. The accessibility of smaller minimum investment amounts aligns with the preferences of investors aiming for a diversified and resilient portfolio. Small-ticket funders focus on quantity, funding a high volume of smaller cases. This diversification approach effectively spreads the risk across various law firms, multiple cases and case types, reducing the reliance on the success of a single case. Investors are drawn to the stability and risk mitigation inherent in this investment strategy. Moreover, investors like the insurance-backed nature of this investment. All cases are supported by an After the Event (ATE) insurance policy, covering all costs and disbursements if the case is unsuccessful. Additionally, upfront interest is charged, debentures are in place and there is an assignment over the case proceeds.

How has Fenchurch emerged and established itself in this market, and what key strategies contributed to its growth?

Our key strategy is to have a niche focus on smaller claims within specific case types where we have a deep understanding and only partnering with fully vetted law firms. Recognizing growing interest in litigation funding as an alternative asset class, Fenchurch strategically lowered investment entry barriers making it a more accessible investment solution. This has enabled us to broaden our investor base, enabling us to raise more capital and support a wider range of law firms seeking funding.

How have you seen the landscape of small ticket litigation funding evolve, and what trends do you anticipate for the future?

There's a noticeable shift towards recognising the significance of smaller-scale claims in the funding market. I anticipate the market to continue its expansion into new case types beyond traditional areas but with that will come changes in the regulatory landscape, potentially impacting market dynamics and requiring adaptation from funders. As a funder specialising in small ticket claims, especially those funded at volume, staying ahead of regulatory changes is important. We remain cautious about specific case types, recognising that shifts in litigation trends could render a case type unviable, as witnessed in the Road Traffic Cases (RTA) cases when fixed costs were brought in. Funders must develop a broad network of contacts to stay informed about evolving market conditions. Another trend I see growing is wider tech adoption within the industry. Technology is playing a pivotal role in streamlining processes, enhancing risk assessment and driving efficiency and scalability. Recognizing the limitations of off-the-shelf solutions, we developed our own loan management software, providing a bespoke platform for managing loan repayments, monitoring, and onboarding. Continued tech integration is needed to enable automation, boost efficiency, enhance risk assessment capabilities, and improve investor reporting. I also see increased awareness and interest from investors. I think small-ticket litigation funding will become increasingly more attractive as investors become more familiar with the potential benefits and opportunities, resulting in a rise in investment inflows. Lastly, the focus on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations is likely to gain prominence, influencing investment decisions and funder strategies. The growing recognition of the value and impact of small-ticket litigation funding aligns with ESG requirements.

What sets Fenchurch Legal apart from other funders? What are your unique value propositions?

Our core strength lies in our deep understanding of the small-ticket claims landscape. We have developed a rigorous and data-driven selection process tailored to this specific segment, allowing us to identify top-tier law firms and high-potential case types with lower individual risk profiles. Through discussions, we've learned that law firms often face challenges with other funders, including issues like complex drawdown procedures, undisclosed fees, and the non-funding of crucial costs like WIP capital or case acquisition expenses. Recognizing these pain points, we've developed an offering specifically designed to avoid these issues. As mentioned before having access to our own proprietary software has been a game-changer. It has significantly enhanced our whole business operations, driving efficiency and enabling us to scale. This technological edge not only sets us apart but also positions us as an innovative and forward-thinking player in the industry. Additionally, our team is a vital component of our unique value proposition. Made up of experienced professionals who understand the industry, our team ensures we look thoroughly at both legal merit and financial viability. This dual expertise ensures that every funding decision is based on a thorough understanding of the legal intricacies and financial soundness of each case.

Could you elaborate on your approach to case selection and investment criteria?

Our selection process is multi-layered, considering both legal merit and financial viability. In the initial stages, we conduct an in-depth evaluation of case strength, law firm expertise, financial strength and claim history, while also examining the specific legal and procedural landscape surrounding each claim. After completing the underwriting process, we grant each firm a facility limit. They can regularly draw down against this limit, as long as they adhere to the terms of the agreement, including providing a list of claims for auditing and granting us access to their systems. We also employ robust financial modelling and stress testing to evaluate potential returns and manage risk effectively. This approach ensures we invest in case types with strong success potential and manageable risk profiles. So far, we’ve funded various case types with strong merits, including Plevin, Motor Finance Mis-selling (PCP), Tenancy Deposit Schemes, and Housing Disrepair claims. Our compliance criteria for each case type involve thorough vetting, examining details such as case referrals, fee earners, and the experience of law firms. This process enables us to partner with trusted law firms, further mitigating risks associated with our investments. Importantly, Fenchurch Legal only provides funding for cases where After the Event (ATE) insurance has already been obtained. This insurance covers costs and disbursements in the event of an unsuccessful claim. By advancing the premium directly to the ATE Insurer, we ensure that each policy is live at the time of funding, adding an extra layer of security to our investment strategy. This unique security feature enhances the attractiveness of funding ATE claims, aligning with our commitment to minimising associated risks.

The recent PACCAR ruling in the UK has sparked discussions about the future of litigation funding. What are your thoughts on its implications and potential impact on the industry?

The recent PACCAR ruling didn’t impact Fenchurch as our small ticket business model is focused on charging a fixed return per case, regardless of the outcome and not a percentage of damages recovered. However, whilst the ruling presents certain challenges, I believe it ultimately presents an opportunity for the industry to strengthen its practices and regulations.

Could you share your vision for Fenchurch Legal's future growth and expansion plans?

We plan to maintain our focus on small-ticket litigation funding, leveraging our experience, growing our loan book, and onboarding new borrowers. As the business grows, we plan to deploy more capital aiming to reach a loan book value of £75 million within the next two years. We will also recruit key roles to bolster our team.

Lastly, for investors considering small ticket litigation funding, what key factors should they take into account, and how can Fenchurch Legal add value to their investment strategies?

For investors contemplating small ticket litigation funding, several key factors should be carefully considered to make informed and strategic decisions. Firstly, understand the specific criteria and due diligence processes the litigation funder uses and pay attention to their track record in managing and funding small ticket claims.  Risk management is vital and investors should seek funders with robust strategies in place. This includes an assessment of how the funder mitigates risks associated with smaller claims and adapts to changing circumstances. In the case of Fenchurch Legal, our approach to small-ticket litigation funding is grounded in a commitment to comprehensive due diligence, case assessment, and risk management. We have created an offering suitable for investors seeking diversification, lower risk profiles, access to a broader market, and lower entry points.

Last week, Brown Rudnick hosted its third annual European Litigation Funding Conference, proving once again to be one of the premier gatherings of industry thought leaders and executives. The one-day event featured an agenda full of insightful discussions, as senior representatives from funders, law firms, insurers, and other industry firms, all provided their perspectives on the most pressing issues facing the European funding market. The conference served as a reminder of the growing interest in litigation finance, as the venue was packed with attendees and without an empty seat in sight at the start of proceedings. Before the panel discussions began, the event kicked off with a keynote speech from Camille Vasquez, partner and co-chair of the brand & reputation management group at Brown Rudnick. Vasquez, who gained international recognition for her involvement in the Depp v. Heard trial, offered an alternative perspective on litigation funding, exploring its potential use in defamation cases brought by high-profile individuals or companies. As Vasquez explained, whilst it is commonly assumed that celebrities and other public figures have access to large amounts of liquid capital, this is often not the case. In such situations, Vasquez suggested that litigation funders may be able to play a crucial role in supporting high-profile plaintiffs who are eager to pursue defamation litigation but lack the funds to seek justice. A Post-PACCAR World and the Future of Regulation Unsurprisingly, the hottest topic at the litigation funding conference was the ongoing impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling and the recent announcement by the UK government that it would introduce legislation to reverse the effects of that decision on litigation funding.  Looking at the long-term impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, Susan Dunn from Harbour provided the quote of the morning, when she emphatically stated that the PACCAR ruling would be remembered as “a footnote in history, not a chapter.” Similarly, Nicholas Bacon KC of 4 New Square Chambers, described it as “a blip in the landscape” of the UK funding market, and pointed out that the situation had in some ways had positive effects as it had brought wider public attention to litigation funding. However, speakers across the day recognised that PACCAR had created unnecessary uncertainty for investors considering engaging with the UK market, and had created fresh talking points for the most vocal opponents of third-party funding. NorthWall Capital’s Alexander Garnier reported that the Supreme Court’s judgement had “made people more nervous about investing in the UK and London”, because it had increased the risk of investments or had increased the perception of those risk levels. According to Professor Rachael Mulheron KC, another negative side-effect of the decision has been the “unfortunate conflation between regulation and PACCAR,” which has made productive discussions around the future of industry oversight more challenging. As the event’s participants discussed the effects of PACCAR, these exchanges naturally turned to the government’s announcement of new legislation and a potential review into the litigation funding market. With the review suggesting the possibility of enhanced regulation of third-party funding, Woodsford’s Charlie Morris admitted that this aspect of the government’s announcement was unfortunate, as it had “given an opportunity for the anti-funding lobby” and compared it the “politically motivated campaign” that took place in Australia to crack down on litigation funders. As to what future regulations could (or should) look like, speakers at the conference were divided on certain issues such as a potential cap on the level of returns a funder could take from any award or damages. Morris once again emphasised the need to avoid “broad brush statutory prohibitions”, whilst Dunn firmly argued that a cap on funders’ returns “should not be part of any regulation.” In contrast, Garnier expressed an openness to some form of cap, explaining that he would “welcome clarity” on industry regulations, “even if it involves a regime that includes a cap on damages.” Offering the most succinct perspective on the funding industry’s view of new legislation, Matthew Lo from Exton Advisors argued that there is “nothing to be afraid of about regulation in general, but the devil is in the detail.” On a similar note, Professor Mulheron suggested that the most important thing for any government plans to introduce new regulations is that “funders have to be around the table” for these discussions. The Impact of the Post Office Scandal Closely tied to the UK government’s ongoing attempts to soften the blow of PACCAR, is the role played by the Post Office scandal and the impact it had on bringing the vital role of litigation funding in securing access to justice to the public’s attention. One of the highlights of the day’s discussions was the insight provided by Neil Purslow of Therium, who offered a fascinating account of the funder’s involvement in the sub-postmasters litigation and expressed some frank reflections on the ways it had highlighted the nefarious tactics of defendants. Purslow described the case as a perfect example of a defendant “spending money on lawyers rather than doing the right thing”, and noted that the Post Office had spent £100 million to fight the case rather than actually providing compensation to the victims upfront. Purslow emphasised this fact in combination with a rebuttal of the oft-repeated claim that Therium had taken 80% of the damages awarded to the sub-postmasters, explaining that the actual return for the funder was around 41%. In light of these facts, Purslow described the arguments in favour of a broader cap on funders’ fees as “nonsense”, and instead highlighted the case as yet another instance of defendants taking “a scorched earth approach to litigation.” Purslow concluded his contribution to the day’s discussion by recognising that whilst the PACCAR decision had been “a self-inflicted wound”, the industry and government’s reaction has clearly demonstrated that the UK “is a jurisdiction that is supportive to litigation finance.” Furthermore, Purslow praised his fellow litigation funders for “working together collaboratively and sharing ideas” to protect the UK funding industry, and highlighted the value of institutions like ILFA in providing a powerful voice that could “address the issue and get the government to act.” Economic Pressures, Corporate Cases and Law Firm Funding During the day’s panel discussions, speakers offered their views on the trends, opportunities and challenges that industry participants have seen over the last twelve months. As many industry leaders have spoken about in the last year, whilst litigation funding is broadly seen as an uncorrelated asset class, that does not mean that it has been, as Matthew Lo put it, “immune to the wider economic environment”. The majority of panellists agreed that the rise in interest rates had continued to apply pressure on funders’ pricing, which then increased cost of financing creating challenges for those funders looking to raise capital. However, due to these challenging economic conditions, speakers noted that there has been an increase in demand for funding from law firms and corporations, both of whom are facing similar budget pressures whilst still looking to manage their litigation strategies. As Christiane Deniger of Burford Capital explained, many listed companies are actively seeking funding for a portfolio of cases and are “ready and willing to not spend their own money if they can take ours.” Rocco Pirozzolo from Harbour Underwriting added that these corporate cases were often attractive, because key decision makers at these companies share the funder’s perspective that “they have to be commercial and they have to be reasonable.” When it came to working with corporate GCs and CFOs, there was a broad consensus among the industry leaders present that there was still plenty of work to do around educating these inhouse decision-makers on the nuances of litigation funding. Ayse Yazir from Bench Walk noted that there is often still “concern over the control of the case”, with critics of the litigation finance industry contributing to fears that funders would seize control of the litigation process. Nathaniel Cortez of Moelis acknowledged that whilst these corporate leaders “don’t need to be experts on litigation finance”, it was clear that many GCs and financial directors did not “understand the breadth and depth of the industry”. The discussions focused on law firm funding proved to be some of the most enlightening exchanges of the conference, with funders and lawyers alike sharing their perspectives on some of the unique challenges and opportunities that this avenue of investing entailed. Hugo Lestiboudois from SYZ Capital made a clear delineation between straightforward litigation financing and the process of lending directly to law firms. He explained that law firm funding “is not as commoditised as litigation finance is today”, with investors needing to approach it from a business perspective and often having to “compete on terms, rather than on price.” Reinforcing this viewpoint, Chris Benson from Leigh Day argued that this type of funding crucially involves “getting lawyers to think like economists”, and acknowledged that this can be challenging as “a lot of lawyers have no interest in finance.” Looking at the practical steps involved in law firm funding, both in terms of the due diligence undertaken pre-funding and the ongoing monitoring and reporting that must take place post-funding, the speakers once again provided useful insights. Joshua Katz from Gramercy said that from his firm’s perspective, part of the journey was understanding the law firm’s wider strategic objectives, saying that Gramercy recognised that for a firm there are “some cases you should pursue even if they’re not economical, for the greater good.” Similarly when it came to the ongoing relationship between the funder and law firms, it was not only crucial for practical issues like reporting systems to be in alignment, Lestiboudois highlighted the need for a “cultural fit” between firms. A High Benchmark for Industry Conferences By the end of the day, the event’s attendees had been treated to a plethora of engaging discussions across seven separate panels, bolstered by plenty of opportunities for networking and connections between sessions. The full scope and detail of every speaker’s insights could not be encompassed in this single overview of the day’s proceedings, but by the time the agenda concluded with informal refreshments, the conference had succeeded in providing an impressively diverse array of perspectives on litigation funding in Europe. Brown Rudnick’s third European Litigation Funding Conference proved to be an enlightening experience for those in attendance, with the proceedings expertly guided by the conference chair Elena Rey and fellow moderators from Brown Rudnick, who skilfully guided the event’s packed schedule. LFJ’s team were delighted to meet with fellow attendees who expressed their enjoyment of the event, and we are already looking forward to covering next year’s iteration of Brown Rudnick’s conference.

A leading litigation finance firm is investing circa £2m into AI technology as the company looks to continue its meteoric global growth.  Nera Capital, which has offices in Dublin, Manchester and a newly established presence in The Netherlands, plans to significantly enhance its process optimisation and strengthen data analytics.  The investment is expected to significantly benefit the various law firms across Europe, UK and the US that are currently partnered with the company as it seeks to expedite the legal process and ultimately create greater access to justice.  Director Aisling Byrne highlighted the impact of technology on the company’s future plans: "Our investment in AI shows our commitment towards efficiency and innovation.  "We believe this increase in investment will enhance our entire operations, revolutionising further the way we approach various aspects of our business. By leveraging advanced AI technologies, we aim to further streamline processes, boost efficiency, and drive innovation across the board. The decision is a huge step forward, and I am proud of our continued commitment to staying at the forefront of advancement in legal technology.” Since the company’s inception in 2011, Nera Capital has grown to become a major global player in the world of litigation finance, with operations across several European locations. The company is a specialised funding provider catering to law firms by extending support across diverse claim portfolios such as financial mis-selling, data breach, Cartel damages, personal injury and Antitrust. 

It previously announced the creation of 10 new jobs in key areas including legal, auditing, finance and origination, after opening a new office in Weert, Netherlands. Aisling added: “I take immense pride in witnessing the remarkable growth of Nera Capital as it expands worldwide.

“In the face of a rapidly evolving world, our industry has often been considered slow to adapt in relative terms. We are determined to break free from that inertia and lead the charge towards meaningful change. By embracing cutting-edge AI technology, we have entered a transformative chapter for our firm. The fusion of innovation and data-driven insights empowers us to navigate legal landscapes with even greater efficiency, ensuring our partnered law firms receive the swift and insightful solutions they deserve which can hopefully speed up the justice process for those that need it.” 

Nera Capital are expected to look at further expansion into new locations in the near future. 

About Nera Capital

• Established in 2011, Nera Capital is a specialist funding provider to law firms.
• Provides Law Firm Lend funding across diverse claim portfolios in both the Consumer and Commercial sector.
• Headquartered in Dublin, the firm also has offices in Manchester and The Netherlands.
• www.neracapital.com