Explore LFJ’s Thought Leadership library and stay informed through cutting-edge insights and expert perspectives from industry leaders who are defining the legal funding landscape.

When my co-founder and I were litigators, we kept running into a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: it takes capital to investigate, plead, and evidence a claim, yet most funders will not release significant capital until that work is already complete. Ignitis was created to bridge that gap. We deploy funds at the riskiest, earliest stage, when key questions still need answers, so our clients can generate the data points future funders require. That litigation experience is baked into everything we do, from how we assess cases to the speed at which we commit capital.

Can you describe some of the unique challenges your clients face and how Ignitis addresses them?

Every client faces a need for initial funding to unlock further case development such as expert analysis, merits opinions, damage opinions, and/or legal fees. Without that seed capital, even highly meritorious claims can stall. Ignitis supplies that early-stage capital quickly, allowing our clients to build out the factual and legal record, refine damages models, and position the matter for larger financing and filing.

How does Ignitis differentiate itself from other companies in the legal funding space?

• Early-Stage Focus. Early-stage, high-risk funding is our core product. Our comfort in doing this is the result of years of litigating on risk through contingency fee structures such that we are very comfortable with case selection and early risk.
• Decision Speed. Once we receive a complete information set, we aim to have an investment decision within days, giving our clients a genuine first-mover advantage.
• End-to-End Support. Because we have lived the due-diligence grind ourselves, we help package the matter for later-stage funders and insurers, freeing lawyers to concentrate on litigation rather than capital raising.

What recent developments or innovations at Ignitis are you most excited about?

Specializing exclusively in early-stage funding has allowed us to build proprietary triage and diligence workflows. Coupled with a lean decision-making structure we can deploy capital faster than traditional funders can schedule an investment-committee meeting. The result is a nimble platform that adapts as the market evolves.

How do you see the future of legal funding evolving, and what role do you envision your company playing in that future?

The asset class is attracting an increasingly diverse pool of capital — family offices, credit funds, and insurers, not just dedicated litigation funders. By providing rigorous case development and structured risk-transfer tools (including tailored portfolio and insurance solutions), Ignitis converts what was once viewed as binary litigation risk into an investable, partially self-insured product. Our goal is to expand access to justice worldwide by matching meritorious claims with capital that understands and is comfortable with the underlying risk.

You've spent decades in corporate finance and investment management before founding CAVEAT CAPITAL. What gaps in the dispute-finance market did you see from that vantage point, and how does your traditional finance background influence the way you underwrite and structure litigation-funding deals today?

Coming from a background in corporate finance and investment management, I saw a significant disconnect between the legal world’s approach to dispute resolution and the way capital markets assess risk and return. Many claims with strong legal merit were overlooked because they lacked financial packaging that investors could understand and trust.

When I founded Caveat Capital, I wanted to bridge that gap. My training and experience in structured finance, risk allocation, and asset modeling helps us treat legal claims as investable instruments. At Caveat Capital, we apply commercial due diligence standards, build funding memoranda that speak to capital providers in their language, and structure deals with clear risk-sharing, milestones, and contingencies. In essence, we bring investment discipline to a domain often driven purely by legal instinct.

CAVEAT CAPITAL is a litigation-funding consultancy in the Middle East. What regulatory or cultural hurdles have you encountered in bringing third-party funding to claimants and law firms across the GCC and wider MENA region, and where do you see the biggest growth opportunities over the next five years?

The regulatory landscape across the GCC and MENA region is still evolving when it comes to third-party funding. There’s a historical conservatism—both cultural and legal—around external financing of disputes, particularly in jurisdictions without codified frameworks. However, we’re seeing a shift, especially in arbitration-centric hubs like the DIFC, ADGM and DIAC, which have explicitly recognized third-party funding.

Culturally, there’s also a learning curve. Many claimants and law firms are unfamiliar with the mechanics of litigation finance, or associate it with loss of control. At Caveat Capital, our role often begins with education—demystifying the process and building trust on both sides.

As for growth, I see major opportunities in sovereign-commercial disputes, infrastructure claims, and enforcement actions across the GCC. As regional economies diversify and dispute volumes rise, the demand for smart, risk-sharing capital will grow exponentially.

Unlike many capital providers, CAVEAT CAPITAL sits between claimants and funders as an independent adviser—from drafting funding memoranda to negotiating term sheets. How do you balance neutrality with advocacy in that role, and what does a “successful” engagement look like for you and your clients?

Balancing neutrality with advocacy is the cornerstone of our model. We’re not aligned to one capital source or fund; our fiduciary duty is to the commercial success of the deal. That means we must present the claim with honesty and rigor—highlighting both strengths and weaknesses—to ensure funders can price risk accurately and sustainably.

A successful engagement is one where all stakeholders feel heard, the terms are balanced, and the funding leads to a fair and enforceable resolution. We’re proudest when we unlock funding for a claim that may have otherwise gone unfunded—not by overselling, but by translating complexity into commercial clarity.

Your firm was named “Global Litigation Funding & Advisory Firm of the Year” at the 5th Global Legal Association Conference in Dubai. What differentiators—whether in case selection, risk analytics, or stakeholder management—do you believe earned CAVEAT CAPITAL that recognition, and how will you build on it?

That recognition affirmed the value of our differentiated approach. We focus on bespoke structuring, funder-agnostic matchmaking, and deep regional knowledge—especially in jurisdictions where funding is emerging, not established. Our ability to navigate both the legal and financial sides of a deal—while bridging cultural and jurisdictional nuances—is what sets us apart.

We also apply a multi-metric risk model that considers not just legal merits but recovery pathways, enforceability, counterparty behavior, and geopolitical exposure. Going forward, we’re investing in technology, cross-border enforcement networks, and regional educational outreach to strengthen the funding ecosystem across emerging markets.

You’ve written about the disruptive impact of AI on litigation finance. Which emerging technologies do you think will most materially change case-assessment accuracy or deal economics, and how is CAVEAT CAPITAL preparing to integrate those tools into its workflow?

AI will change litigation finance in three major areas: predictive analytics, document review, and portfolio modeling. Tools that analyze prior judgments, jurisdictional patterns, and tribunal behaviors are already helping improve case scoring. When layered with machine learning, they offer faster, data-informed decisions that were previously reliant on human judgment alone.

At Caveat Capital, we’re partnering with LegalTech providers to build internal dashboards that combine predictive analytics with our human-led risk matrices. We're also exploring tools for ongoing case monitoring—tracking timelines, budget burn, and procedural triggers in real time. The future is hybrid: AI-augmented human judgment, not AI replacing it.

• Opportunities:
  • Moment‑of‑decision engagement: With advanced AI analytics, retailers can deliver real-time, tailored promotions and planogram adjustments at the point of sale.
  • Data‑driven merchandising: AI enhances restocking alerts, product layout insights, and foot‑traffic understanding—critical for smart inventory and offline marketing.
• Challenges:
  • Integration complexity: Corner-to-corner deployment requires retailers to adopt compliant camera systems, data pipelines, and staff workflows.
  • Privacy regulations: As solutions leverage image/data analytics, Alpha Modus and partners must navigate evolving consumer-privacy and data protection laws.
  • Retail adoption costs: Smaller retailers may delay implementing cutting-edge digital media due to capital and cultural constraints.

• Tailor digital ads by aligning promotions to demographics, store layout, and real-time shopper behavior .
• Optimize inventory by monitoring sales velocity and product interest, triggering restock or product-swapping alerts before stockouts occur . This data‑driven approach helps brands display relevant promotions, refine merchandising, and reduce lost sales from out‑of‑stock scenarios.

• Expanding the IP‑ecosystem: After VSBLTY, the Company plans more licensing deals and reseller relationships in smart‑retail, media, and inventory-tech domains.
• continued legal defense & monetization: Aggressive IP enforcement (e.g., Wakefern, Brookshire, Walgreens, Broadcom, Cisco) signals dedication to monetizing patents while feeding war-chest for future innovation and signing new partnerships as settlements are agreed.
• Operational scale‑up: With Tim Matthews now leading deployment strategy to accelerate rollout of CashX kiosks (June 5, 2025), the Company is building infrastructure to deliver in‑store tech at scale.
• Potential R&D pipeline: Their patent applications (e.g., personalized marketing, planogram management) and recent capital restructuring further empower future in-house product innovation.

We’ve seen increased interest in portfolio-based insurance solutions, particularly as the judgment preservation market has tightened.  What’s driving this shift, and how are clients adjusting their risk strategies in response?

When I first joined the insurance industry back in 2019, after about a decade as a trial and appellate lawyer at Boies Schiller, we were primarily insuring single-case defense-side risks with what we now call adverse judgment insurance or “AJI” policies.  Shortly after I started, the focus shifted to the plaintiff side, though most insurers still preferred insuring single cases with what came to be called judgment preservation insurance or “JPI” policies.  These policies protected plaintiffs who had already won at trial or on summary judgment against appellate risk, effectively guaranteeing a minimum recovery from their trial court judgments no matter what happened on appeal.

JPI was the driving force behind the explosive growth in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market for several years, in large part because these policies allowed plaintiffs to monetize judgments more cost-effectively than they could without insurance.  And as the market grew, so did the size of the judgments that were being insured and the amount of coverage limits that insurers were putting up, both individually and collectively, on these policies.  It got to the point where policies providing over $100 million in coverage for multi-hundred-million-dollar judgments became commonplace, and several policies were written that provided more than $500 million in coverage on billion-dollar-plus judgments.  Individual insurers were also sometimes betting tens of millions of dollars on the outcome of a single case as part of some of these JPI larger policies.

Unfortunately, while more modestly sized JPI policies on smaller judgments have generally performed as expected, with insurers not having to pay many claims, some of these larger, more high-profile JPI policies have run into significant challenges on appeal, on remand, and in places like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  And the nature of this insurance is such that one big loss on a multi-hundred-million-dollar policy can more than wipe out the premium gains for insurers on several smaller policies.

The JPI losses that insurers have already incurred, and those they look likely to incur in the near term, have understandably caused many of them to reassess their approach to litigation and contingent risk insurance more broadly.  For some insurers, that has meant pulling back from the space or taking a “back to basics” approach and returning to a focus on defense-side risk.  But for many insurers, it has meant mirroring the pivot that much of the litigation finance industry made several years ago away from single cases – where financial outcomes can hinge entirely on one jury, one trial court judge, or one panel of appellate court judges – and toward a portfolio-focused approach that better spreads risk across multiple diverse cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets.  In fact, the insurers who have come into the market following the JPI boom, and who therefore have no exposure to any of the large JPI policies of recent years, are generally focused, at least for the time being, exclusively on providing this sort of portfolio-based coverage.

Our clients at WTW are embracing this new paradigm.  Where a client may previously have sought to insure a single large patent infringement judgment with a similarly large JPI policy, they might now seek a portfolio-based policy that guarantees a minimum recovery from the combination of that judgment, several other earlier-stage cases that are pending in different trial courts, and numerous other patents they may seek to enforce through litigation in the future.  We’re also working with litigation funders who may previously have sought to insure individual investments on a piecemeal basis once they reached the judgment stage to instead insure portfolios of diversified investments throughout all stages of the litigation lifecycle, including in some cases entire funds or designated sleeves of funds.  Patent and mass tort case aggregators are also increasingly looking to avail themselves of portfolio-based insurance solutions that can be tailored to the unique risk profiles of their businesses and used as a financial tool to spur growth and increase profitability.

Law firms are getting in on the action, as well.  We are seeing tremendous interest in “work-in-progress” or “WIP” wrappers that insure, on a cross-collateralized basis, a law firm’s anticipated contingency fee recovery across a portfolio of cases.  Many of the recent WIP insurance placements that we’ve worked on recently have involved patent infringement cases and IP litigation boutiques, but we are also seeing interest from mass tort, personal injury, and product liability law firms, as well as among AmLaw 200 firms that focus on many different categories of high-value, capital- and labor-intensive plaintiff-side commercial litigation.

Can you walk us through what a portfolio-based insurance wrapper actually looks like – both for a litigation funder and for a law firm? How do the structures differ, and what risks are typically covered?

The basic structure of a portfolio-based insurance wrapper is very straightforward.  Essentially, an insured purchases a policy with a specific amount of coverage limits that guarantees the insured will recover an amount equivalent to those coverage limits from the cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets that comprise the portfolio that’s being insured.  If, at the end of the policy term – or if the policy doesn’t have a specific term, once the last of the covered cases or investments has ended – the insured’s recovery is less than the limits on the policy, the insurers will pay out a “loss” on the policy that effectively trues the insured up to policy limits.

Recovery against the policy limits is measured differently depending on who the insured is:  for litigants insuring pools of plaintiff-side litigation, insurers look to any amounts the litigant earns through damage awards and settlements on those cases; for litigation funders, hedge funds, or others insuring investments in litigation-related assets, insurers look to their returns on those investments; for lenders insuring loans to law firms or other participants in the plaintiff-side litigation ecosystem, insurers look to the amount of principal plus interest repaid on those loans; and for law firms insuring their work-in-process or “WIP”  on a group of cases, insurers look to the contingency fees that the law firm collects on those cases.

For a litigation funder, it’s as simple as identifying a set of investments, loans, or other assets to go into the portfolio, identifying the amount the funder has invested in whatever it is that collateralizes the portfolio, and then insuring a minimum recovery that is some significant percentage of the funder’s overall investment.  And as I mentioned earlier, these policies can insure an entire fund, a designated portion of a fund, a specific LP within a fund, or even a more bespoke portfolio comprised of select investments from within a given fund or from a cross-section of different funds.

As with portfolio policies for litigation funders, WIP policies can be placed on a programmatic basis across a firm’s entire contingency fee case book or on a more selective basis across certain specifically identified cases.  Here’s an example of how a WIP policy might work:  Imagine that a law firm was litigating ten cases on contingency, with an anticipated recovery of more than $100 million in contingency fees and expected WIP of $50 million across the portfolio of cases.  The firm could potentially purchase a WIP policy with a $40 million limit, equal to 80% of its expected WIP, which would provide coverage if, over what is typically a five- to seven-year policy term, the ten cases in the portfolio collectively earn the firm less than $40 million in total contingency fees.  If, at the end of the policy term, the firm had only recovered $20 million in total contingency fees, the policy would cover the $20 million shortfall against the $40 million in policy limits.

WIP policies are often used as a mechanism to attract litigation funding at a much lower cost of capital than otherwise would be available without insurance, including from sources of capital that don’t typically invest in litigation-related assets because of the high risk involved.  There are dozens of different capital sources beyond traditional litigation funders – including hedge funds, family offices, private equity firms, private credit lenders, and other alternative sources of capital – who are keenly interested in lending against WIP policies, as well as against other portfolio-based and single-case insurance policies.

WIP insurance can also be a very useful tool for lawyers within firms where the billable hour is king to get approval from executive or contingency fee committees, or from the broader partnership, to bring high-value contingency fee cases.  These policies provide the firm with a guaranteed minimum recovery from contingency fee litigation by the end of the policy’s term such that, if the cases don’t ultimately work out as planned, the financial result to the firm will be the same as if the lawyers on those cases had spent several years simply billing their time on non-contingency fee matters for clients who received a small discount on those lawyers’ hourly rates.

I should also note that, for any portfolio-based policy, as with some of the more traditional single-case policies like judgment preservation and adverse judgment insurance, premiums are generally in the form of one-time upfront payments.  But for portfolio policies more than single-case policies, there are also mechanisms like deferred and contingent or “D&C” premiums that insurers are increasingly willing to employ to bring down the upfront premium cost in exchange for a modest piece of the recovery waterfall if the cases or investments that comprise the insured portfolio are highly successful.

How are insurers underwriting these portfolio-based structures differently than single-case policies?  Are there specific underwriting thresholds, case mix requirements, or expected returns that make a portfolio “insurable”?

Most insurers define a “portfolio policy” as one that is insuring at least three to five cases, and the more the merrier.  These cases should be uncorrelated, such that they should not all rise and fall together, and the more diversity that can be introduced into the portfolio – with regard to identity of plaintiffs, identity of defendants, specific causes of action, subject matter of the litigation, etc. – the better, as well.

That being said, it is common for an insured portfolio to be comprised of cases from a single plaintiff or representing only a single subject matter area from a litigation funder, law firm, or group of lawyers within a law firm who specialize in that subject matter area – think patent infringement, antitrust, or mass tort litigation.  And of course, insurers are highly vigilant about adverse selection, and will not insure portfolios that they suspect to be comprised of a prospective insured’s cherrypicked worst or riskiest cases or investments.  The easiest way to mitigate this suspicion as a prospective insured is to insure a “complete set” – whether the entirety of a given fund from a litigation funder, a law firm’s entire contingency fee case book, a patentholder’s entire patent portfolio, or a litigant’s entire portfolio of plaintiff-side cases.

Underwriting one of these portfolios is a very different exercise than underwriting a JPI or AJI policy.  Rather than a single case with an extensive, well-developed record (including, as was often the case with JPI placements, the exact appellate record that would be put before an appellate court when they are asked to decide the case), insurers are often faced with a high number of cases and less detailed and voluminous information about each individual case.  Often, cases that are already underway will have a limited history of case filings and unfiled cases will have only a preliminary case description and damages evaluation.  Accordingly, while the number of cases increases substantially, having less information per case can result in the amount of underwriting time, and associated underwriting fees, being relatively similar to a JPI or AJI policy.

In terms of the actual underwriting process, it’s important to keep in mind that insurers do not need to put all their eggs in a single basket on portfolio polices like they do for a JPI or AJI policy.  Instead, they determine the likelihood of success for each case in the portfolio and then assign an expected return to that case.  Then, using a weighted average of all the cases, the insurer determines exactly how likely it is that the portfolio will collectively return an amount that exceeds the limits being purchased.  Insurers are also looking at other things, as well, like a law firm or litigation funder’s track record on similar cases or investments, the underwriting guidelines being used to select cases or investments, the bona fides of the key individuals involved, case budgets, and the judgment collection and enforcement risk presented by the relevant defendants.

It's also important to keep in mind that the structure of portfolio-based insurance policies makes it much less likely that a policy could suffer a full limit loss given the number of cases or investments that would need to go poorly in order for that to happen.  This is another key differentiator from JPI, where a single adverse appellate court decision or bad remand outcome can sometimes cause a full limit loss.

Lastly, as I noted earlier, insurers will often look to include a deferred and contingent or “D&C” premium in portfolio-based policies, which allow the insurer to participate in the upside of a portfolio of cases or litigation-related investments if the portfolio turns out to be highly successful.  Since a D&C premium only kicks in after the insured has recovered an amount in excess of coverage limits, underwriters of portfolio-based policies with a D&C component will also evaluate the probability that a portfolio brings in proceeds well in excess of limits, thus entitling them to that additional backend premium.

For litigation funders raising capital or structuring new vehicles, how critical is it to have an insurance solution baked in from day one? Are LPs demanding it, or is it still seen as an optional enhancement?

It ultimately depends on the type of investment capital that a funder is looking to attract.  Traditional litigation finance LPs, who seek to make high-risk, high-reward investments, often view insurance as antithetical to why they are investing in litigation finance in the first place, because the premium costs – whether upfront or D&C – cut into their returns.  These investors, and those funders who follow the same ethos, are generally not interested in wrapping their funds with any form of principal protection insurance coverage because they don’t want to forfeit any of their upside in order to do so.

On the other hand, a litigation funder who wraps a new fund with principal protection insurance can attract an entirely new class of investors that typically does not invest in litigation finance – investors who don’t need to understand litigation funding, or even litigation itself, in order to invest.  These LPs may invest in an insurance-wrapped fund precisely because their downside is de minimus or, depending on the limits of the relevant policy, essentially zero, but with a high potential upside – albeit, not as high as the upside would be without insurance.  This makes insurance-wrapped funds an ideal target for certain investment banking, pension fund, private equity, private credit, university endowment, sovereign wealth, family office, and other investors who will happily accept lower returns in exchange for lower – or, again, depending on the specific policy structure, potentially zero – risk.

So based on that, I see insurance coverage on a fund-wide basis as an optional enhancement that is very funder- and LP-dependent.  But it’s important to remember that we have a significant amount of flexibility in how we can structure these policies to best achieve our clients’ financial and risk management goals.  To give one example, there was a deal I worked on that involved a loan that a funder made to a law firm where the funds for the loan came from multiple different LPs, some of which needed principal protection coverage and some of which did not.  We were able to structure an insurance policy that only insured the portion of the loan attributable to the LPs who needed insurance coverage and effectively treated the portion of loan funds that came from the other LPs as co-insurance on the policy.  The significant co-insurance piece brought the cost of coverage down from where it would have been had we insured the entirety of the loan or a high percentage of the loan funds coming from all LPs.  So even in situations where there are distinct or even polar opposite LP needs on a single investment, loan, or other transaction, we can often create an insurance-based solution that works to deliver an optimal balance of risk and reward for everyone, enabling deals to get done that just would not have happened without insurance.

As the Founder and CEO of Fenchurch Legal, Louisa is responsible for overseeing all business operations, including fundraising, and ensuring the business’s overall success.

Louisa founded Fenchurch Legal in 2020 after an interest in the litigation finance market sparked an idea to apply a secured lending model to litigation finance. She discovered a market largely dominated by funders focusing on high-value, complex cases such as class actions, however, there was a lack of support for smaller claims. This insight led to the creation of Fenchurch Legal.

Before launching Fenchurch Legal, Louisa operated the broking and dealing desk for a corporate brokerage and finance firm in London. In this role, she gained extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and investment product structuring. Her role involved daily interactions with both retail and professional investors, as well as corporate clients.

Fenchurch Legal operates differently from traditional litigation funders in several ways. Firstly, we focus on high-volume, low-value, process-driven consumer cases such as housing disrepair and financial mis-selling, where there is strong legal precedent supporting the claim type. Whereas larger litigation funders typically invest in high-stakes commercial disputes or class actions with multimillion-pound claims.

Secondly, the way we structure our lending is different. Traditional funders invest in cases on an outcome basis, taking equity-style positions – meaning they only receive a return if the case is successful, so they bear the risk of loss if the case is unsuccessful. In contrast, Fenchurch Legal operates as a direct lender, providing secured revolving credit facilities to law firms to draw down against costs and disbursements are repaid regardless of case outcomes. This structured lending model offers stability for both law firms and investors, ensuring predictable outcomes and controlled risk.

The key differentiation is that traditional funders invest in cases, whereas we provide loans.

That’s a great question and one we often get asked. The answer is simple: Fenchurch Legal is a lending business, not a law firm.

Operating within the private debt sector, we provide business loans specifically for consumer legal case costs and disbursements with minimal litigation. Our expertise lies in secured lending, structuring loans and managing financial risk – not litigating cases.

We partner with law firms by providing them with the financial resources they need to run cases efficiently, while we focus on risk management, due diligence, and loan security.

Before entering a specific case type, we work with legal advisors to obtain counsel’s opinion and review case law and outcomes to assess viability and risk.

As part of our underwriting process, we outsource legal expertise where needed to assess a law firm's legal procedures, compliance with SRA regulations, as well as case viability. Additionally, we continuously audit and monitor the firms we fund, ensuring they meet strict legal and regulatory requirements, both internally by our team and by outsourcing to specialist legal professionals.

Unlike traditional litigation funders who take an active role in case strategy, our role is purely financial. We lend, monitor, and safeguard investor capital, ensuring that the law firms we fund have the financial resources and oversight needed to handle legal claims successfully.

One of the biggest opportunities the small-ticket claim market brings is the ability to fund cases with a clear legal precedent against highly liquid defendants, such as government bodies, banks, or insurers. This ensures that we have no risk of non-payment of damages and costs.

Another advantage is the scalability of our model. By funding high volumes of claims, we can diversify risk across multiple law firms and case types. To date, we have funded over 15,000 small consumer claims. Out of the 6,145 loans that have been repaid, 92% were successful. For the 8% that were unsuccessful, ATE insurance provided the necessary coverage, reinforcing our robust risk management framework.

One of the challenges of funding smaller cases is the operational complexity of managing a high volume of claims efficiently. However, we have developed strong due diligence, auditing, and monitoring systems that allow us to track performance and mitigate potential risks. We also have our own loan management software which provides a complete overview of our loan book and how our law firms are performing.

How does Fenchurch handle security and risk management concerns? 

At Fenchurch Legal, security and risk management are at the core of our lending model. As a direct lender, we structure loans to safeguard investor capital while ensuring law firms can operate effectively. Our key risk management strategies include:

• Secured Lending Structure – Loans are backed by ATE Insurance, case proceeds, debentures and personal guarantees, ensuring capital protection.
• Comprehensive Due Diligence – Before lending, we assess law firms’ track records, financial health, and case viability to ensure they meet our lending criteria.
• Legal Precedent & Expert Review – We consult with barristers, law firms, and experts to evaluate claim types and expected outcomes.
• Ongoing Monitoring & Auditing – We track performance, flag risks early, and ensure compliance with agreed terms.
• Diversification – We fund a high volume of small, process-driven cases to spread risk across multiple firms and claims.

How do investors benefit from Fenchurch Legal's differentiated approach to the market? 

Investors choose Fenchurch Legal because they like our approach, which provides a predictable and secure investment opportunity. We operate as a direct lender offering structured loan facilities, meaning our investors benefit from a more stable, fixed-income-like investment model.

Our secured lending structure, combined with unique features such as risk management and diversification across a high volume of cases, provides investors with lower risk exposure and predictable returns.

As I often say, I come from a secured lending background, not a legal one. You wouldn’t ask us to stand up in court and argue a case, but you can trust us to look after investor money by structuring loans and managing risk effectively – that’s what we are good at.

I personally believe and during my professional experience I have seen that the UAE’s legal sector has experienced significant expansion, driven by economic growth, international investments, and regulatory advancements. This transformation has directly influenced the demand for litigation funding, as businesses and individuals seek financial support to navigate complex legal disputes without upfront costs.

Let me explain, what are few major factors driving demand in UAE market:

Increase in Commercial Disputes:

• With the UAE’s rise as a global business hub, contract disputes have surged, particularly in high-stakes sectors like construction, real estate, and finance.
• The growing reliance on arbitration and cross-border transactions has made litigation funding a strategic necessity

Dual Legal Framework:

• • The UAE’s unique system—onshore civil law courts and offshore common law jurisdictions (DIFC, ADGM)—creates a dynamic environment for litigation funding.
  • Offshore jurisdictions provide clear regulatory frameworks for third-party funding, increasing confidence among investors and litigants.

• • High litigation and arbitration costs often deter claimants from pursuing valid cases.
  • Litigation funding ensures businesses and individuals can seek justice without financial constraints, shifting the cost burden to funders.

• • The DIFC’s Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 and ADGM’s Funding Rules 2019 have legitimized litigation funding, fostering investor confidence.
  • This has encouraged global litigation funders to enter the UAE market, increasing competition and accessibility.

At WinJustice, we are committed to spreading awareness and advancing the adoption of litigation funding across the MENA region. Our commitment is reflected in various initiatives, including education, thought leadership, and industry awareness.

As part of this mission, we are excited to announce the launch of our LinkedIn newsletter, "Litigation Funding MENA Insight"—the first dedicated newsletter in the region focusing on litigation funding. This initiative is particularly significant as it is led by a UAE-based company, bringing deep regional expertise and global perspectives.

Our newsletter will serve as a trusted resource, providing insights, case studies, and expert discussions on litigation funding. To ensure accessibility and reach, it will be published in both Arabic and English, making it the go-to platform for businesses, legal professionals, and investors interested in this evolving field.

The key Impacts on the Legal Industry: 

• There is Enhanced Access to Justice: SMEs and individuals can now challenge well-funded opponents without financial barriers.
• Market Competitiveness: The entrance of international funders has led to the adoption of global best practices, benefiting claimants.
• Stronger Negotiation Leverage: With financial backing, businesses can negotiate settlements more effectively, knowing they have the resources to litigate if necessary.

Also, there are reports that litigation funding in the UAE increased by 40% over five years, with SMEs as the largest beneficiaries. Hence, we can say that litigation funding has become a crucial tool in the UAE’s evolving legal ecosystem. As regulatory clarity improves and market awareness increases, its role in providing financial access to justice will only strengthen.

2. In your experience, how do cultural and legal nuances in the UAE influence the way litigation funding investments are sourced and structured?

According to my experience, The UAE’s litigation funding market is shaped by deep-rooted cultural values and a dual legal framework that integrates both civil and common law principles. For anybody, understanding these nuances is essential for structuring investments effectively.

I can say that broadly Cultural & Legal Influences includes factors such as:  

• • The UAE business community traditionally favors dispute resolution methods like arbitration and mediation over lengthy court proceedings.
  • Litigation funders must tailor their models to prioritize arbitration financing, particularly for high-value commercial disputes.

1. • Many UAE businesses operate under Islamic finance principles, requiring litigation funding models to be structured without interest-based arrangements.
   • Alternative funding structures, such as success-based fees and equity-sharing, are gaining traction.

1. • Businesses and high-net-worth individuals value discretion in legal matters.
   • Litigation funders must implement strict confidentiality agreements and strategic case management to ensure reputational protection.

1. • Offshore jurisdictions (DIFC & ADGM) have explicit litigation funding regulations, making them attractive venues for funded claims.
   • Onshore courts lack clear regulations, requiring funders to conduct extensive due diligence before financing claims.

1. • Disputes involving government-linked entities require additional compliance measures and strategic planning.
   • Litigation funders must account for potential regulatory scrutiny when financing such cases.

If you research, you may find incidents like Dubai-based firms have secured litigation funding for a contractual dispute against a overseas partner, leveraging the ADGM’s favorable legal framework.

Precisely speaking, Cultural and legal nuances make the UAE a unique but highly promising market for litigation funding. Tailored investment structures that respect local customs, regulatory landscapes, and business preferences are key to success. In fact, we estimate that 60% of funded cases in the UAE involved arbitration, highlighting the preference for ADR.

Actually, if you see, The UAE is rapidly emerging as a key market for litigation funding, but as with any evolving legal landscape, obviously funders have legitimate concerns about investing in the region. Addressing these concerns requires a deep understanding of the regulatory environment, enforcement mechanisms, and legal complexities that define the UAE’s legal system.

Few genuine concerns for Litigation Funders could be: 

• • • Unlike jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia, UAE’s onshore courts lack a well-defined framework for litigation funding.
    • Offshore jurisdictions like the DIFC and ADGM have established regulations, but clarity is still evolving in onshore courts.

1. 1. • A favorable judgment does not always guarantee successful enforcement, particularly in cross-border disputes.
      • UAE’s legal system allows for appeals and potential delays in execution, which can extend the time before a funder sees returns.

1. 1. • Funders must assess whether cases have strong legal merit and a high probability of success.
      • There is also concern over whether claimants will be able to recover awarded damages, particularly if assets are difficult to trace.

UAE courts do not always follow strict precedents, which creates unpredictability for litigation funders who rely on historical case outcomes for underwriting decisions.

However, the good thing is we can address these concerns through initiating appropriate measure, like:

• • Encouraging claimants to litigate within DIFC or ADGM courts can provide a more predictable legal framework with explicit third-party funding regulations.

1. • Litigation funders should conduct thorough case assessments, including analyzing asset recovery potential before committing to funding.

1. • Collaborating with asset recovery firms and legal experts to ensure judgments are enforceable across jurisdictions.
   • Utilizing treaties such as the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

1. • Structuring agreements with contingency elements can mitigate risks.
   • Working with law firms that offer success-based fees ensures that all stakeholders are aligned in their objectives.

To summarise, The UAE is a lucrative but complex market for litigation funders. By strategically selecting jurisdictions, conducting robust due diligence, and leveraging international enforcement treaties, funders can mitigate risks and take advantage of the growing demand for litigation finance in the region.

At WinJustice, we firmly believe that managing duration and collectability risk is one of the most critical aspects of litigation funding. In the UAE, these risks can be more significant due to procedural timelines and enforcement challenges. However, with a structured and strategic approach, they can be effectively mitigated. This is precisely what we implement at WinJustice—ensuring that every case is managed with precision, minimizing risks while maximizing successful outcomes.

Lets understand Duration and Collectability risks:

• • • Court proceedings in UAE onshore courts can take longer due to multiple appeal stages.
    • Arbitration cases tend to resolve faster, particularly within DIFC and ADGM jurisdictions.

1. 1. • Even if a judgment is awarded, claimants may face difficulties in collecting damages.
      • Defendants may shift or conceal assets, making enforcement challenging.

Our suggested strategies to manage these risks are:

1. Prioritize Arbitration Cases:

1. 1. • Arbitration is often faster than litigation and provides clear enforcement mechanisms.
      • DIFC and ADGM arbitration courts have robust mechanisms for enforcing awards internationally.

2. Early Case Assessment & Due Diligence:

1. 1. • Before funding a case, funders must evaluate the financial stability of the defendant and whether they have recoverable assets.
      • Engaging forensic accounting experts helps in asset tracing.Structuring Litigation Agreements with Milestones:

1. 1. • Including timelines in funding agreements helps ensure claimants and their legal teams are progressing cases efficiently.
      • Phased funding disbursements can incentivize timely case resolution.Working with Local Legal Experts & Asset Recovery Teams:

1. 1. • Partnering with firms specializing in UAE asset recovery and judgment enforcement can strengthen collectability efforts.

If we compare UAE to Other Jurisdictions:

• • UAE vs. UK: UK has established litigation funding precedents, making duration risk lower.
  • UAE vs. US: US litigation is costly but has a well-defined process for class action and third-party funding.
  • UAE vs. Singapore: Singapore offers a structured approach similar to DIFC, making it a comparable market.

Therefore, while duration and collectability risks are slightly higher in UAE than in more mature markets, leveraging arbitration, strong due diligence, and phased funding agreements can significantly reduce risks for litigation funders.

In my opinion, Litigation funding in the Middle East is at an inflection point. Over the next decade, the region will witness increased adoption of legal financing, supported by regulatory advancements, growing market awareness, and technological integration.

Some of major trends & developments shaping the Future, are like

• • • Onshore UAE courts may introduce formal litigation funding regulations, similar to DIFC and ADGM frameworks.
    • Governments in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are exploring third-party funding regulations, expanding the regional market.

1. 1. • More law firms and corporate clients will turn to litigation funding, especially in high-value commercial disputes.
      • The construction and real estate sectors, which are prone to disputes, will see a rise in funding demand.

1. 1. • Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play a key role in risk assessment, helping funders predict case outcomes with higher accuracy.
      • AI-powered analytics will enhance due diligence and underwriting processes.

1. 1. • Arbitration is expected to dominate litigation funding in the region due to faster resolution timelines and enforceability.
      • Growth of regional arbitration centers such as DIAC (Dubai

International Arbitration Centre) will further facilitate funded cases.

1. 1. • Large international litigation funders are likely to enter the Middle East, increasing competition and refining best practices.
      • Institutional investors, including hedge funds and private equity firms, will seek exposure to litigation funding as a diversified asset class.

Yes, there could be some challenges that may shape the future, like:

• • Ensuring ethical litigation funding practices to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
  • Balancing regulatory oversight with industry growth to maintain market credibility.

So, the next 5-10 years will see the Middle East, particularly the UAE, become a key hub for litigation funding. With regulatory progress, market maturity, and technological advancements, the region is poised for significant growth in third-party legal financing, offering both opportunities and challenges for funders and legal professionals alike.

Ondrej is Partner and Head of Investments at LitFin, which he joined shortly after its foundation. He is particularly responsible for the legal agenda, investments, and business relations. Prior to LitFin, he gained professional experience as a lawyer focusing on transactions and corporate law and as an investor in the private sector. Ondrej graduated in law from Masaryk University (Czech Republic) and Brussels School of Competition (Belgium).

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ondrej Tylecek: 

LitFin has become one of the most prominent litigation funders in the continental EU for follow-on group litigations. Can you take us through the company's growth process - how were you able to effectively scale your business?

I think the key to our success is that, unlike other funders, LitFin is a vertically integrated structure. With that being said, we’re not just deploying the capital into cases brought to us on a silver plate, but we’re actively building the cases from the bottom, going the extra mile, which other players on the market typically don’t. For example, we’re creating personalized onboarding strategies and trying to keep an individual client approach at all times, not relying on third parties doing the work for us, because we want to be sure that the best quality is secured at all times. Also, unlike other litigation funders, we’re not paid managers who take a management fee every year, but we have the ‘funders mentality’ because together with our investors, LitFin’s partners have their own money at stake. That’s what sets us apart, and that’s why we have extra motivation to succeed on the market.

How challenging was it to educate the continental EU market on litigation funding? And what have you noticed in regard to the market's understanding and acceptance of litigation funding as the sector has evolved?

At first it was challenging indeed, because lots of clients could not imagine that such a great service with which we approached them could even exist. Not spending a cent on a court proceeding and only share when the case was successful? That must be a scam then! Nevertheless, I think that we went quite far from there, and nowadays prospective clients typically are aware of the industry and the benefits it brings to them. As litigation funding in Europe matures, besides pricing, the clients typically look into the funder’s track record, legal representation, and overall trustworthiness.

What are LitFin's plans for growth - both regionally / jurisdictionally, and also in terms of product offerings?

Most importantly, due to our rapid growth, LitFin is actively seeking an additional strategic partner to solidify its position as a leading EU litigation funder specializing in follow-on group litigations arising from competition law infringements. With that regard, we are already in discussions with several top-tier potential new business partners in the USA and locally. Our conservative target is to raise EUR 100 million within the next six to nine months to allow us to seize even more opportunities in the litigation finance space and expand our current portfolio, which already exceeds EUR 4 billion in claim value funded with a success rate over 90%.

From a regional perspective, 2024 was a breakthrough year for us in France and the Benelux region, where we successfully funded cases and strengthened our local presence. Our expansion in these markets has been driven by new colleagues from France, led by Juraj Siska, who joined us from the European Commission and who now serves at LitFin as the Director for France & Benelux. Building on this momentum, our focus for this year is on Spain and Italy, where we are already active and see strong potential for further growth.

Regarding product offerings, we remain committed to our core activities in the distressed sector in Central Europe. Beyond that, we have some exciting new products in development, which we prefer to not disclose at this stage. However, regardless of expansion plans, our top priority remains delivering bespoke, high-quality litigation funding solutions tailored to our clients’ needs.

What are LitFin's plans for growth - both regionally / jurisdictionally, and also in terms of product offerings? Last year you have established the first regulated fund (SICAV) in CEE (and one of the first in continental Europe) focused purely on the litigation funding industry. How have investors responded to the fund's launch, and do you foresee additional fund launches in the future?

The investors responded very well, even though we focused on the Czech and Slovak region only and the fundraising period was short. Primarily, we were able to successfully test an interest in this new, uncorrelated asset class and are happy that investors, both institutions and individuals, perceive litigation funding as an interesting and valued addition to their investment portfolios. Regarding the SICAV fund, we’ll be launching a new evergreen sub-fund called ‘Credit’ with a target return of 13% p.a., which will allow qualified investors to be part of our success story without time limitations on the entry.

How are the recent regulatory frameworks such as the Voss Report impacting the funding industry? Do you see industry regulation as a risk for litigation funders going forward?

As one of Europe’s leading litigation funders, LitFin obviously closely monitors regulatory developments like the Voss Report. While it has raised concerns about potential industry regulation, we believe much of the criticism within the report misrepresents the realities of litigation finance. The report suggests excessive funder control over cases and a lack of transparency, but in practice, funders do not dictate legal strategy—claimants and their legal teams remain in charge. Moreover, existing contractual safeguards and ethical obligations already ensure accountability and fairness.

From my perspective, the biggest issue with the Voss Report is that it overlooks the essential role litigation funding plays in access to justice. Many businesses and consumers would be unable to challenge well-resourced defendants without financial backing. As Omni Bridgeway’s Wieger Wielinga rightly pointed out in a recent LFJ interview, ensuring a level playing field in litigation requires financial equality between counterparties, making litigation funding essential. Creating an artificial barrier would ultimately benefit large corporations at the expense of fairness.

We do not see regulation as an existential threat to the industry. If regulation is introduced, we expect it to focus on transparency rather than prohibition, ensuring credibility while allowing the market to function effectively. Markets like the UK and Australia have thriving litigation funding sectors under clear regulatory frameworks, and we expect Europe to follow a similar path. For reputable funders like LitFin, well-structured regulation could actually be beneficial, reinforcing trust in the industry and attracting institutional investors.