LFJ Conversations is an original content series produced by the Legal Funding Journal editorial team, and featuring key thought leaders from throughout the global legal funding community.

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.

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.

• 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.

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.

• Intake & Triage: Instantly extracting and structuring key data like parties, claims, and timelines from initial documents.
• Diligence Support: Automating timeline creation, document clustering, and red-flag analysis in minutes, not days.
• Portfolio Monitoring: Delivering automated docket alerts and portfolio-wide signals without consuming analyst hours.

• Predicting Final Outcomes: No algorithm can accurately price in the nuance of judicial temperament, witness credibility, or complex negotiation dynamics. AI can surface the data, but the final risk assessment is a human judgment call.
• Automating Core Legal Strategy: The core elements of persuasion and legal argument require a human touch. AI serves as a powerful tool for the strategist, not a replacement of the strategist.

• Accelerated Decision Cycles: The 'time to a yes/no' is a critical metric. We've seen funds cut this down by weeks, allowing them to pursue more opportunities and deploy capital faster.
• Early Loss Prevention: The system automatically flags fatal flaws like expired statutes of limitation or critical missing documents during intake. This saves enormous costs in wasted diligence and external counsel fees on deals that were never viable.
• Increased Operational Leverage: Funds can significantly increase their deal vetting capacity without a proportional increase in headcount or overhead costs.

Robin Ganguly used to be a litigation funder and insurer, and is now a Partner at elite London disputes law firm CANDEY. Robin has almost 20 years of litigation and arbitration experience. He conducts a broad range of commercial, financial and insolvency disputes and has extensive experience of high-value international cases. Robin acts for large corporates and individuals alike, and is praised by clients for his commercial approach.

Prior to joining CANDEY, Robin spent almost 10 years at Magic Circle firm Linklaters, including secondments at investment bank clients, and four years at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, where he led the contentious insolvency practice alongside his broader commercial litigation role. Robin then spent time at litigation funder Burford Capital and in the litigation insurance industry at Aon and Fidelis. Robin is therefore uniquely well placed to assist clients looking to obtain funding and insurance for their disputes, and to advise on disputes in relation to funding agreements and insurance policies.

Robin speaks French, Italian and Spanish. He is qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and can appear himself for clients before the Higher Courts of England and Wales.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Robin Ganguly:

We often work in collaboration with litigation funders to achieve access to justice for clients who have been defrauded and as a result of the fraud do not have funds to pursue expensive litigation. In those situations we use our deep experience of litigation funding and litigation insurance to put together the best structure for the risks in the case to be allocated among different stakeholders, which often means our firm taking on substantial fee risk.

One of our core practice areas is international trusts disputes. These cases are very challenging because they often involve arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions, co-ordinating local firms, freezing injunctions and other emergency applications to attempt to secure assets for enforcement. These are all expensive processes which rely on a law firm (and sometimes litigation funders) to have faith and stand behind their clients for many years to avoid capitulation to the bad actors. When we achieve success in disputes such as these it makes all of the effort worth it.

Our cases often involve multiple offices (various of London, New York, BVI, Vienna, and we’ve got plans to open in Asia), and our ability to serve clients internationally is a key reason why clients come to us. In New York our team provides a transatlantic bridge between the US law firms with whom we co-counsel, and the CANDEY teams in other locations, but having one firm that’s able to take ownership of as many jurisdictions as possible ensures things run smoothly. Due to the way we are structured we are able to explore international contingency fee arrangements for clients, in a way that very few other firms can do.

At CANDEY we believe that everyone should have the right to legal representation so that they can bring their arguments before a court of law. Many firms will refuse to act on certain cases where they fear “biting the hand that feeds them”, or cases where they do not like the potential impact of being associated with certain claimants or arguments, but we feel that if all firms took those views, clients would not be able to test and enforce their legal rights, with a corresponding chilling effect upon the English legal system more broadly.

CANDEY has been vocal in championing the rule of law and refusing, along with the Bar Council, to allow prejudice to prevent anyone from being represented before the Courts on the basis of their race, religion or nationality.

We have a well-established fraud practice and involvement with organisations such as CFAAR in the UK, and we have been seeing increasing numbers of cryptocurrency disputes. These sometimes concern fraudulent investment schemes and in those cases the catch is often obtaining a “book” of victims that is large enough and organised enough to make a case economically viable for a law firm or funder to back. Building the book costs money so it can be chicken and egg. Due to the international nature of cryptocurrency, the cases frequently involve competing claims on frozen assets by different states or prosecutors and therefore have a political dimension which can be difficult to predict.

The litigation funding market in the UK is experiencing some challenges at the moment. As is the global litigation insurance market (other than ATE) following large losses on complex judgment preservation policies. That makes it increasingly important for law firms to be able to share fee risk, either alongside funders or where funding cannot be obtained. We get a large number of enquiries from clients looking to us to represent them in their cases, big and small, and we are able to use our experience of funding and insurance to be able to advise clients whether the case is likely to attract funding and/or insurance and to put them in the best position to secure it. When enquiries come in, my role can feel very similar to my previous role at Burford Capital: assessing the legal theory and case merits but also looking ahead to enforcement and whether the damages are likely to be large enough to make the case viable. In terms of case type, we always see plenty of shareholder disputes, contract disputes and trust disputes, and those types of claim have not seen the same souring of attitudes or aggregation issues among funders or insurers as, say competition cases.

Kevin Prior has been sourcing funding for regulated Law Firms since 2019 and has over 30 years’ experience in investment structuring, principally in the Real Estate development sector. He was responsible for securing the finance line for a high profile UK GLO project, as well as assisting law firms in representing individual claimants in over 15,000 settled cases.

Before moving into the litigation funding sector, Kevin created and piloted a regulated crowdfunding firm and a specialist distressed property fund. He has a background in economics, which coupled with his vast commercial experience allows him to make clear assessments of prospective borrowing law firms from the outset of Seven Stars’ due diligence processes.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Kevin Prior, CCO of Seven Stars Legal: 

What specific strategies does Seven Stars employ to ensure market-leading investor returns in the litigation finance sector?

Our view has always been that the key to successful litigation financing lies in the selection of cases or case types to fund, which is why we take the time to select cases that we believe offer the most secure route to a successful and profitable judgment, delivering results for the business and its investors.

Rather than funding class actions and other high-risk, high-return litigation, we work at the other end of the spectrum, specifically targeting precedent-based claims or claims brought under UK Government compensation schemes or Acts. This approach significantly reduces the risk involved and enables us to target ambitious returns and highlight the opportunity of our litigation finance solution as an alternative asset investment.

We insist on After The Event insurance cover on funded cases where cases may be settled in England or Wales or where a risk of adverse costs may exist. In addition, we only fund cases against liquid entities, such as banks or housing associations, or where claims go to organisations like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which exists in the UK to pay redress to clients when financial institutions or financial advisers fail.

Finally, at claim level, we establish minimum claims values for each specific case type, which as well as ensuring sufficient capital cover means that our investors can achieve a return, the law firm in question can run claims sustainably and, most importantly, that claimants get the compensation they deserve.

In addition, to help ensure liquidity and cash flow via coupon payments for investors, as well as for broader strategic reasons like risk mitigation, we follow what we call the 30/30 rule, meaning that we aim to have no more than 30% of our funds committed to a single law firm or case type, and as we continue to diversify our activities are fast working towards a balance closer to 9% - 11% as our maximum exposure in any one area.

Our due diligence process is multi-faceted, covering our borrowing law firms at both the initial stage of signing a funding agreement, again when the law firm requests a drawdown of funds, and, if we’re funding a case type for the first time, a comprehensive review of the legal position and opportunity around such claims.

To assess whether a specific case type is suitable for funding, we review various aspects including the level of funding required, the potential returns, and sought independent counsel opinion on the claim or case type before making a decision as to whether to fund. The nature of our process means that it’s feasible we would identify that a claim type can generate a specific level of returns but would require too much funding for it to be viable, although likewise, case types that require very little funding may generate relatively small returns, meaning we wouldn’t fund those unless there was a high enough volume of claims to make it worthwhile for all parties.

To come back to the firms, while our partner law firms conduct their own robust due diligence as a prerequisite for their own business requirements, we conduct our own independent verification process. This ensures a second layer of security and aligns with our own stringent criteria, which apply to both the initial funding proposal as well as the specific request for a tranche of funding.

Then, when the borrowing law firm comes to us, we review all the case files for which they are seeking funding, checking their files include all the relevant and correct documents, and a verification of the case and claimant details, the latter being where we’d identify and ensure that the defendant is solvent. For each claim type, we have a strict list of criteria that must be met for us to commit funding to a specific case, so it’s possible that an approved law firm could request a drawdown of funds but we’d only provide funding for the claims that meet our criteria.

The level of due diligence we need to go into differs depending on the case type. For example, if a pension mis-selling claim is going to the FSCS we know that it will pay out, so we can focus less on the solvency of the defendant and more on the technical aspects of the claim and the likelihood of it succeeding.

All of these processes are subject to two levels of due diligence. The first level is our operational management team, who should they approve a specific case type or law firm after collecting and reviewing a substantial tranche of data then pass this information along with a recommendation to our Advisory Panel, which includes a highly regarded King’s Counsel. The Advisory Panel then reviews this information independently to make a decision on whether to fund a specific case type and/or provide funding to a specific law firm.

To further enhance our Governance structure as well as strengthen the level of independent oversight within our due diligence processes, we’re currently at the advanced stages of appointing an external auditor to conduct pre-lending and firm auditing due diligence processes, which will also give us further capacity to scale our due diligence pipeline, attract further investment, and distribute monies to approved law firms.

Our Security Trustee sits external to the whole process, only getting involved on behalf of our investors if we were to default on our payments to them. So the Security Trustee would step in were we to default, and take action based on the debenture and floating charge they hold over all Seven Stars assets, which includes bank accounts, physical assets AND the debentures and fixed and floating charges we hold over our borrowing law firms.

As such we have two layers of structured security for our investors. There is what the Security Trustee holds over ourselves, but there is also what we hold over the law firms, which include fixed and floating charges over their assets, as well as the right to re-assign cases to another law firm in the event they default on their funding agreement with ourselves.

This is further supported by our ongoing risk mitigation and analysis that we conduct in relation to borrowing law firms, which includes our funding going into a segregated bank account within the law firm, conducting monthly management accounts and retaining bank account access, and conducting ongoing audits of the borrowing law firm’s claims book. We’re currently in the process of making our ongoing audits fully automated by introducing AI to conduct this process, while retaining a human, physical element and manually auditing up to 10% of the claims book we’re funding with each law firm per month, depending on borrowings, the claim type, and other factors.

While we have comprehensive governance and risk mitigation strategies in place that inform all we do, our most significant learning – and one that we continue adapting to as we go – is the importance of having room to be agile and flexible in our approach to funding different case types and law firms, which is predominantly led by the 30/30 rule that I explained earlier.

I’ve outlined a little about our case selection process and due diligence earlier, but what I’d add to that is one thing we have picked up on is that there’s often an appetite from investors to commit funds even if a legal picture isn’t 100% clear. And to that end, it’s vital that we continue to monitor and are active in specific sectors even if there’s little to no movement in them. A good example would be business energy claims, where we had committed funding prior to an adverse decision handed down in early 2024, which was subsequently overturned by a later hearing. They key here is that we didn’t overexpose – we were nowhere near 30%, for example – and so were able to continue operating and supporting the borrowing law firm even while the legal picture was unclear.

We’ve seen similar recently in car finance claims – we know of one funder that committed around 80% of its lending book to such cases in 2024, but that cash is now tied up until probably March 2026 at the very earliest, when compensation payments look like they’ll commence. In contrast, we’ve been more cautious around this case type and are awaiting final legal and regulatory decisions before committing to an approach.

An excellent example of our approach to risk management succeeding can be seen in our acquisition of the non-legal assets of Sandstone Legal earlier this year. Sandstone Legal were a firm that we had previously provided funding for and had passed all our usual due diligence checks, but for various reasons continued to face financial difficulties. Our funding agreements ensured that we were able to acquire those cases through the firm’s insolvency and assign them to new law firms to run them to completion, many of which have already started generating returns for our investors. All of this was done with Solicitors Regulation Authority oversight, enabling us to act quickly and help cases to move forward quickly to the benefit of the claimants involved.

The regulatory picture in the UK is still evolving. In June, the Civil Justice Council published its Final Report into third-party litigation funding, which called for minimal regulation where funding is provided to a commercial party and “greater, but still light touch” regulation where funding is going to a consumer or where funding is for a collective action.

Most notably, the CJC called for the reversal of the PACCAR ruling to happen as soon as possible, while the Court of Appeal also subsequently handed down a ruling that supports the litigation funding sector.

With all that being said, against this background there’s a significant opportunity for funders in different areas of the market to speak up, highlight what they do, and educate across the legal services sector as well as those who do seek to introduce stringent regulation.

One thing we’re passionate about and try to address in our content is that a lot of commentary around litigation funding is fairly narrow and exclusively focused on funding in the context of class actions. Now, when you consider stories like the Mastercard collective action where there’s been controversy between the funders and the lawyers and claimants are likely going to walk away with a negligible sum of money, it’s understandable that people will look at that and say litigation funding may cause problems.

But what we do is at the other end of the market, focusing on smaller, individual, mostly precedent-based claims that have a real impact on someone’s life, and collectively on society as a whole. There’s genuine difference-making on a human level in our approach that often isn’t discussed or even considered when talking about regulating the sector and making it difficult to provide funding.

Think the social housing tenant waiting months for repairs when their health is suffering, the pension mis-selling victim who doesn’t know if they can look forward to their retirement, or the bereaved spouse who wants to grieve but is facing an inheritance dispute. These are people who get the financial justice they deserve because Seven Stars and other funders lend a law firm money to run a specific case.

There are real people behind these stories and case studies, and as an industry we owe it to these people to highlight the impact litigation funding can and does have on their lives, rather than allowing the narrative of funding being a cash cow for funders and lawyers to proliferate.

Ken Epstein is a co-founder and principal of Backlit Capital Solutions and brings 25 years of experience in bankruptcy law, commercial litigation, restructuring and finance. Ken leverages his deep industry expertise to provide tailored solutions for companies, law firms, investors, and individuals navigating complex litigation and financial restructuring challenges.

Prior to co-founding Backlit, Ken was a Senior Investment manager and Legal Counsel in the New York office of Omni Bridgeway, a legal finance and risk management company, where he led the company’s U.S. insolvency litigation finance platform. In this role, he originated, structured, and managed a diverse portfolio of legal assets, playing a key role in many of the firm’s most significant transactions. Prior to his tenure at Omni Bridgeway, he was a managing director at MBIA, a public financial services company, where he led large-scale initiatives and crisis management efforts. He was also on the board of directors of MBIA Services Corp. Ken started his career as a lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he specialized in financial restructuring and corporate bankruptcy law.

Ken graduated from Brooklyn Law School (cum laude) and holds an accounting degree from the University of Maryland. Ken has also served as an adjunct professor of bankruptcy law at Cardozo Law School. He has been recognized in Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Third Party Funding Guide and the LawDragon Global Restructuring Advisors & Consultants Guide.

Matt Leland brings over 20 years of experience in commercial litigation and litigation finance to Backlit Capital Solutions.  Most recently, Matt was as an Investment Manager and Legal Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Omni Bridgeway.  There, Matt sourced and evaluated funding opportunities, negotiated deal terms, and monitored funded matters through to resolution.

Before Omni Bridgeway, Matt served as partner and as a commercial litigator for nearly two decades at AmLaw 100 firms King & Spalding LLP and McDermott Will & Emery LLP, experienced in all facets of civil litigation, including appeals, trials, arbitrations, and mediations. He successfully represented corporate clients engaged in diverse legal issues including government reimbursement claims, contractual disputes, unfair business practices, deceptive trade practices, civil RICO, and trademark infringement. Over his career, Matt helped clients recover hundreds of millions in damages and has extensive experience working closely with corporate executives and in-house counsel to develop budgets, fee structures, and strategies for all phases of litigation, including early case assessment, discovery, trial, and settlement. He has repeatedly been recognized in peer-reviewed guides including The Best Lawyers in America, Legal 500, and Super Lawyers.

Matt received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was the Publications Director for The Tax Lawyer and The State and Local Tax Lawyer. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the University of New Hampshire.

While earning his law degree, Matt was as a top aide for former U.S. Senator and Congressman John Sununu, after serving previously as the Deputy Campaign Manager on Mr. Sununu’s first campaign.

There’s been no better time to be a law firm seeking financing, as new investors enlarge the funding universe and options multiply. However, the landscape can be daunting and complex.  We invite those firms to take advantage of our experience.  We have spent years on the funding side of negotiations - evaluating claims and risks - and understand the nuanced distinctions between a fundable investment and one that gets passed over by litigation funders, lenders, and alternate investment sources.

Rather than simply connecting lawyers to potential sources of capital, we collaborate with firms, no matter their experience level, to implement comprehensive strategies that achieve specific financing goals.  We showcase the potential of their assets with smart strategic positioning and precise financial modeling to address the investment concerns of potential funding sources. And to drive successful fundraising, we help firms provide transparency with risk profiling, highlight their operational credibility, and seize upon tactics to mitigate unpredictability so that the firm can showcase high-grade opportunities.

Finally, to ease the burden of this process, we provide end-to-end transaction management.  We take on all of the complex and time-consuming tasks associated with legal funding so that clients can focus on providing first-rate legal services.

We appreciate that these are high-stakes transactions for both the investor and the claimant and our review is disciplined, transparent and robust. Each transaction is different and we provide additional services depending on the client’s need, but here’s how we approach every opportunity:

• Early-Stage “Pressure Testing”:  We test key legal theories, jurisdictional issues, damages, and enforcement risk with input from independent experts before approaching funders. Backlit will only move forward with quality transactions that bring clear value to all parties. Our funders know that we’ve done the work and stand behind every law firm and claimant we represent.

• Contingent Insurance Products:  Whether for judgment preservation or adverse cost coverage, we’ll provide detailed financial modeling and help source appropriate products that can reduce litigation risk and, in turn, improve pricing or expand access to capital.

• Post-funding Oversight:  We offer ongoing monitoring of case progress, legal developments, and emerging risks.  Our proactive oversight, combined with strategic advisory services, allow for early adjustments to protect investments and provide better measures of valuation as the investment moves through the litigation process. Further services include exploration of secondary market options when an investor wants to acquire or monetize a litigation asset.

By combining deep legal and financial expertise with market tools, Backlit ensures that risk is not just identified, but actively managed.   

We’re always focused on potential shifts in the market.  At Backlit, our experience comprises not only litigation finance, but also decades of credit analysis, restructuring, commercial litigation, and government policymaking.  This expertise enables us to identify how trends in financial, legal, and public sectors might influence litigation funding, and this positions Backlit extremely well for what we see as the biggest catalyst in the market – the addition of significant new funding capacity driven by new investors in the sector, like hedge funds, family offices and middle-market institutions. This provides a great opportunity for claimants and law firms looking for funding, but also injects unprecedented complexity into the marketplace.

At Backlit, we developed our services to not only identify, but capitalize, on opportunities for clients on either side of these transactions. Our connections with and understanding of the private capital space allow Backlit to find and structure deals that address the financial, operational and reporting requirements of all parties. As this market continues to grow, we’re positioned to create exciting new investment opportunities for funders and drive strong deals for clients seeking capital.

We expect that over time, most of our business is likely to be on the brokerage side and we are actively working with numerous clients to develop solutions to their diverse funding needs. In the short period since our launch there are two particular engagements that demonstrate the breath of the services we offer beyond traditional funding.

In the first, we have been engaged as an expert in a multibillion-dollar, high-profile bankruptcy litigation to assist a private equity client in the valuation of a complex litigation asset. Backlit has provided counsel, analytics and testimony in support of the client’s position. Our broad in-house capabilities and market expertise allow us to quickly analyze and deliver valuations that support our clients’ goals and survive deep scrutiny.

We have also been engaged on a project basis to help a large multi-billion dollar investment fund evaluate, structure and close a large loan transaction backed by a legal claim.  The borrower’s existing lending relationship ended when the share collateral was involuntarily converted into a legal claim due to litigation surrounding a merger of the entity that had issued the shares.  This was a time sensitive transaction with high stakes for all involved. Selecting legal counsel, working through conflicts, providing assistance on the unique features of legal finance - a discreet asset class - as part of the diligence and in-house deal team was a rewarding experience.

While we work across sectors, we have a proven specialty in maximizing litigation assets for entities in financial distress and insolvency. Claimants facing the challenges of bankruptcy often have few other meaningful assets, and are extremely capital-restricted in their ability to effectively pursue damages. Additionally, these parties have fiduciary duties that need to be satisfied fully and transparently. Running a robust marketing process and ensuring best pricing is in the best interest of the estates, will enable the trustees to defend their fiduciary decisions if challenged, and given the multiple interests in the case, ensure a fair process and optimization of assets.

With such complex interests to manage, these clients demand specialized approaches that differ significantly from traditional commercial litigation support.

• Funding for the debtor or trustee: We can help a debtor, bankruptcy trustee or litigation trustee secure funding to pursue legal claims (e.g., fraudulent transfer, preference, breach of fiduciary duty) or help support ongoing administrative costs. Our process ensures all parties are comfortable with transparency, discipline and reporting.
• Funding for creditors and committees: We can help creditors and committees push back on a debtor’s attempt to bury valuable claims because they don’t benefit management or insiders.  Consulting with us early in the process can help add negotiating leverage and drive up recoveries.
• Sale or assignment: When parties want to divest all or part of an estate asset, we can help sell or assign litigation claims and judgments, accelerating recoveries and ensuring a minimum return to stakeholders.
• Post-confirmation litigation trusts: When establishing a post-confirmation trust to investigate and prosecute claims, we can help drive a competitive process, ensuring that the trust is adequately funded and that key professionals are fairly compensated for their work.

• Financial metrics: The amount of funding sought and the value of the claim must be reasonable and proportionate.
• Duration: The maximum timeframe the fund is willing to wait for a return on its investment is five years.
• Respondent’s solvency: There must be sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the opposing party has the financial capacity to satisfy a potential award.
• Merits of the claim: The likelihood of success must be high, based on a legal and factual assessment.

• In Latin America, where the litigation funding industry is still in its early stages and claims tend to be smaller in value, we have observed increasing demand and a rising number of funding inquiries. We are funding more cases—particularly in the energy, mining, oil & gas, construction, and infrastructure sectors.
• In Europe, our activity has increasingly shifted toward portfolio funding, which provides greater risk diversification and operational efficiency. We are also seeing the rise of hybrid funding structures, involving partnerships with insurers and specialized litigation finance products tailored to complex cases.

Bo Moss is the Co-Founder and President of Bridgehead Legal Capital. A former litigator in Atlanta and Charlotte, Bo earned a reputation for being a tough but fair adversary. His deep understanding of the legal landscape led him to a Charlotte-based litigation funder, where he leveraged his litigation background to successfully underwrite and tailor loans for contingency fee law firms nationwide.

Since co-founding Bridgehead with Scott Richards and Megan Baer in 2021, Bo has spearheaded the company's mission to provide accessible capital to contingency fee lawyers. Under his leadership, Bridgehead has engaged in over 150 transactions, demonstrating his strategic vision and operational excellence. Bo is a graduate of The University of the South (Sewanee) and Samford University Cumberland School of Law.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Bo Moss:

Bridgehead Legal Capital emphasizes "Freedom Through Funding" and aims to be a long-term partner. Can you elaborate on how this mission guides your approach to client relationships and what specific long-term benefits firms can expect beyond just capital?

"Freedom Through Funding" isn't just a catchy phrase for us; it's the core of how we do business. As former litigators ourselves, we see every client relationship as a real partnership, all about helping you achieve sustained growth. So, beyond just giving you capital, here's what else firms gain:

• Smart Advice: We share insights on things like case selection, portfolio management, and growth strategies, drawing directly from our own legal experience. This makes sure our funding acts as a real boost for well-thought-out, lasting expansion.
• More Control: Our predictable capital gives your firm greater financial freedom. That means less pressure to settle cases too soon, the ability to invest in top-notch experts or the latest tech, and the capacity to take on more truly meritorious cases.
• Better Portfolio Management: We work hand-in-hand with you to understand your entire case pipeline, helping you spot opportunities to leverage your existing assets for future growth.
• We're Nimble and Responsive: We anticipate your evolving needs and quickly adapt, offering agile solutions that truly support your journey. We build relationships based on trust and a shared vision for success.

Your services include both Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans. For a small to mid-sized plaintiff law firm, how do you help them determine which product is the most advantageous for their specific financial needs and case pipeline?

Great question. When it comes to choosing between Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans, it really comes down to your firm's specific needs and what your case pipeline looks like. We don't do cookie-cutter solutions; instead, we go through a thorough, collaborative process:

• What are Your Goals? We kick things off by figuring out what you're really trying to achieve – whether it's managing daily expenses, investing in marketing, funding a big, complex case, or growing your team.
• Looking at Your Pipeline:
  • Portfolio Loans are usually best for firms with a diverse, ongoing stream of contingency cases. They let you tap into the collective value of your active cases, giving you consistent cash flow for general operations or bringing in new clients.
  • Asset Purchase Loans are a better fit if you have specific, high-value, well-developed cases. This lets you monetize a portion of the expected future recovery from that particular asset, giving you a bigger lump sum for targeted investments like major trial expenses.
• Comfort with Risk: We'll chat about your comfort level with recourse and how different repayment structures fit your risk appetite.
• Future Cash Flow: We'll project your future cash flow to show how each product impacts your financials, making sure the chosen solution genuinely helps your firm's health.

Ultimately, our job is to guide you in making a smart, strategic decision that truly aligns with your unique business model.

Bridgehead Legal Capital highlights its ability to unlock greater funding for plaintiff law firms by recognizing the value of their case portfolios. Could you explain the unique aspects of your underwriting process that allow you to assess and leverage these portfolios more effectively than traditional lenders?

Our ability to unlock more funding really comes down to our unique underwriting process, which is a big departure from traditional lenders who often just don't have our legal finance expertise:

• Litigator-Led Due Diligence: This is huge for us. Since many on our team, including founders, are former litigators, we inherently understand case merits, legal strategy, and the practicalities of litigation. We analyze legal strengths, attorney experience, jurisdiction, and potential settlement ranges, letting us accurately evaluate the true value of a portfolio where others might only see uncertainty.
• Our Own Valuation Models: We've built sophisticated, proprietary models that dig deep into factors specific to contingency fee litigation. This includes case type, complexity, damages assessment, jurisdictional nuances, and historical performance, allowing us to accurately value future earning potential.
• Portfolio Diversification Analysis: We're really good at understanding the collective strength of an entire portfolio of cases. By looking at diversification by type, litigation stage, and estimated value, we see a more stable asset, which in turn allows us to offer more substantial funding.
• Looking Forward: Unlike banks that often just look at past performance, we focus on the future earning potential of your active cases, assessing success probability and expected recovery.
• Relationship-Based Assessment: Our underwriting isn't just numbers; it's also about understanding your firm's operational efficiency, management capabilities, and overall business strategy. This holistic view gives us a more complete picture of your firm's creditworthiness.

This unique blend of legal expertise, sophisticated modeling, and a forward-looking, relationship-based approach is what allows us to leverage your case portfolio so much more effectively than traditional lenders.

The website mentions categories of loans such as "Start-up," "Case Investments," and "Growth Loan." How do you tailor the terms and support for a start-up firm compared to an established firm seeking a growth loan?

We know a brand-new firm has totally different needs than an established one looking to expand. That's why we tailor our loan terms and support accordingly:

For Start-up Firms:

• Terms: These loans are all about providing that essential working capital to get a solid foundation (think office space, tech, initial marketing, overhead). Repayment structures are often more flexible, maybe with interest-only periods or deferred principal payments, so you can focus on building your case pipeline. Our underwriting here really emphasizes your business plan, the founders' individual legal track records, and how viable your practice area is.
• Support: As former litigators, we offer invaluable mentorship on building a practice, from getting clients to managing cases efficiently. We can also connect you with other professionals in our network and provide scalable funding solutions as your firm matures.

For Established Firms (Growth Loan):

• Terms: These loans are primarily based on the proven value and predictable cash flow of your existing case portfolio, meaning much larger funding amounts are possible. With a solid track record, you'll typically qualify for more favorable interest rates and longer repayment periods. The terms are specifically designed to support your growth initiatives, whether that's expanding into new practice areas or acquiring another firm.
• Support: We provide advanced analysis of your portfolio, helping you spot opportunities for greater efficiency and profitability. We offer data-driven market insights and can help brainstorm strategies for expansion. For complex growth plans, we can even structure customized financial solutions.

Our whole philosophy is about making sure you get the right capital at the right time, with the right level of tailored support, so your firm, no matter its stage, can hit its full potential.

 Given the fast approval process and funds typically delivered within two weeks, what are the key factors that contribute to this efficiency, and what advice would you give to firms to ensure a smooth and rapid funding experience?

Our quick approval process and getting funds to you within two weeks really comes down to our specialized focus and streamlined operations:

• Specialized Expertise: We only do law firm financing. Our team can quickly and accurately assess legal assets without needing a ton of outside help. We just get the nuances.
• Streamlined Due Diligence: We've developed a super efficient process that focuses only on the critical information. We know what we need, and we don't ask for extra paperwork. Our internal systems are built for fast data intake and analysis.
• Agile Structure: As a private lender, we're simply less bureaucratic than big banks. That means quicker internal approvals and faster movement from your application to you actually receiving the funds.

To make sure your funding experience is as smooth and fast as possible, here's my best advice:

• Be Prepared and Organized: Have your firm's financial statements (past 2-3 years) and a detailed list of your active contingency cases (type, stage, estimated value, deadlines, and expenses) all ready to go. The more organized you are, the faster we can move!
• Know Your Needs: Clearly tell us exactly how much capital you need and what you plan to do with it. Saying something to us like “Well I am not entirely sure, maybe something in the range of _____” does not give us confidence that the firm has really spent the requisite amount of time properly reflecting upon their current and future funding needs and how our money is going to be used to assist in growing the firm.
• Designate One Point Person: Pick one person at your firm to be our main contact. This really helps streamline communication.
• Be Responsive: Our efficiency relies on your quick responses to any information requests or clarifications. The faster you get us what we need, the faster we can get you funded!

By partnering with Bridgehead Legal Capital, you're not just getting capital; you're gaining a strategic ally genuinely committed to your long-term success.

John J. Hanley is a Member in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and a key contributor to the firm’s Litigation Finance Practice Group. He advises clients across the litigation finance ecosystem on the structuring, negotiation, and execution of complex funding arrangements and financial transactions. With more than 20 years of experience at leading law firms, John brings deep transactional expertise in first- and second-lien credit facilities, private placements, and the purchase and sale of loans, claims, and other illiquid assets.

His clients include litigation funders, specialty finance companies, business development corporations, hedge funds, CLO managers, SPVs, and other institutional investors. John’s practice bridges traditional lending and litigation finance, allowing him to deliver sophisticated, market-informed solutions that align legal risk with commercial strategy.

Your team is Chambers-ranked litigation finance deal counsel. How does that recognition reflect the value you bring to clients in structuring funding arrangements?

We appreciate the recognition from Chambers in a field as specialized and fast-moving as litigation finance. For us, that ranking affirms the trust our clients place in us to structure and close their transactions and the respect we’ve earned throughout the litigation finance ecosystem.

At McDonald Hopkins, we get deals done. We prioritize what matters by focusing on value, clarity, and results. Our approach is practical and efficient, guiding clients from NDA to term sheet to definitive documents and, finally, to funding with strategic precision.

You’ve worked extensively in both lending and litigation finance. How does that dual experience shape your approach to structuring deals that align interests across the table?

My lending background grounds me in negotiating and documenting deals designed to achieve client objectives while aligning incentives across counterparties. In litigation finance, those fundamentals still apply, but the environment is more nuanced. Every deal involves its own set of dynamics and considerations.

In lending, you have established credit models, conventional security packages, and repayment terms that follow predictable patterns. In litigation finance, we're operating in a space where deal inputs aren’t standardized. Each transaction is built on a unique case or portfolio, layered with legal, factual, and procedural complexities that defy one-size-fits-all modeling. That nuance demands creativity and precision. There's no single template that works for every matter.

At McDonald Hopkins, we recognize that underwriting is typically the funder’s responsibility. When representing funders, our primary role is to translate that underwriting into a legal structure that aligns with the deal’s risk profile and commercial objectives. From time to time we are also engaged to assist with due diligence on the underlying litigation to help ensure that the legal and procedural posture of the litigation supports the funder’s investment thesis.

When representing funded parties, whether claimants or their counsel, our focus shifts to protecting their upside, independence, and long-term position. That involves more than simply reviewing documents. We must understand how the funder views the case, the risk and return profile, and anticipate how the litigation may unfold. With that knowledge, we are equipped to negotiate terms that are fair, enforceable, and sustainable.

What are some of the key legal or regulatory pitfalls funders and claimants should be looking out for when drafting a funding agreement?

A few stand out:

• Control: Excessive funder control can raise enforceability and ethical concerns. Decision-making authority must remain with the litigant in conjunction with their counsel. Overreach may implicate champerty or maintenance restrictions in jurisdictions where those doctrines are still active and may interfere with counsel’s duty of loyalty. Funders can and should monitor progress, but they shouldn’t steer litigation or settlement decisions. Of course, they can be a valuable sounding board.
• Attorney-Client Privilege: Often underappreciated, this area can present serious risk. If privileged information is shared during diligence or monitoring, the NDA must preserve the common interest doctrine to try to avoid waiver. You can’t take shortcuts here.
• Disclosure Risk: Courts and regulators are asking more questions, particularly in class actions, bankruptcies, and patent disputes. About 25% of U.S. federal district courts have local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. Several states have enacted similar laws. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, so agreements should be drafted with the expectation that some level of disclosure may occur. Clarity, compliance, and defensibility are essential.
• Intercreditor Issues: In deals involving multiple funders or creditors, agreements should clearly define repayment priority, enforcement rights in default, and how proceeds are allocated. Settlement decisions must remain with the claimant and their counsel, but funders may seek consultation on resolutions that could materially affect anticipated returns. Well-drafted intercreditor provisions help align expectations and reduce the risk of disputes after funding.
• Proposed Tax Legislation: The “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act” (S.1821), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis, would impose a 40.8% tax on profits earned by third-party funders. A revised 31.8% version appeared in the Senate’s draft of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but was removed on June 30, 2025, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it noncompliant with budget reconciliation rules.

While the tax is no longer part of active legislation, S.1821 remains under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, it could apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with significant implications for deal pricing, structure, and tax treatment.

We’re advising clients to build flexibility into agreements, revisit tax allocation language, and monitor developments to preserve deal economics.

Are you seeing shifts in who’s seeking funding and how their expectations are evolving?

Absolutely. Litigation funding is no longer niche. Fortune 500 companies and smaller businesses alike are seeking funding, often because litigation costs weigh heavily on their income statements. Unlocking capital tied up in long-running cases enables companies to redirect resources toward growth, such as hiring, R&D, and strategic initiatives, or to retain preferred counsel.

Law firms have evolved as well. Firms that historically operated on a billable-hour model (think Am Law 200) are increasingly open to contingency fee arrangements, often pairing them with third-party funding to manage risk and liquidity. We’re also seeing firms across the spectrum, from personal injury powerhouses and mass tort firms to elite litigation boutiques, monetize contingency receivables to accelerate growth, improve liquidity, or shift risk. What was once a strategy for cash-constrained firms has become a strategic capital tool for practices with high-value, contingent assets.

Consumers of litigation funding are recognizing that underwriting litigation is not their core competency and that money spent on litigation could be better deployed.

Expectations today revolve around speed, transparency, and deal customization. Funders with boilerplate offerings or long diligence cycles are struggling to keep up.

Given all that evolution, how is the role of deal counsel changing in this ecosystem?

The role of deal counsel has become highly strategic. We’re not just papering deals; we’re shaping term sheets, negotiating funding mechanics, and managing multi-party dynamics to get complex transactions across the finish line.

Funders and funded parties (whether law firms, plaintiffs, or otherwise) rely on us to identify friction points early, design around them, and close with minimal disruption. That’s the role of modern deal counsel in litigation finance.

But some fundamentals remain unchanged…

Exactly. Litigation counsel must remain independent, and the fairness of the legal process must be preserved. Our role as deal counsel is to support that framework, not interfere with it.

The strongest litigation finance deals are built on clearly defined roles, aligned incentives, and mutual respect for legal boundaries. When those fundamentals are in place, both the transaction and the underlying litigation stand on solid ground.

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.

Joshua Coleman-Pecha is a senior international construction, infrastructure and technology dispute specialist working in the MENA region. He advises on construction and technology projects from inception to completion. Joshua is a qualified solicitor advocate, meaning he has rights of audience in the courts of England & Wales, and is a PRINCE 2 qualified project manager.

Joshua advises on all aspects of complex dispute avoidance and resolution. He has represented several clients in billion-dollar disputes before a variety of arbitral institutions including ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, DIAC, and SCCA. He has experience handling disputes under the governing laws of England & Wales, the UAE, Saudi, and Qatar.

Joshua’s recent significant work includes advising in relation to oil and gas processing facilities, drilling contracts (onshore and offshore), a water desalinisation plant, a battery energy storage park, the MENA region’s largest metro system, and a major railroad and metro project in the UAE and Saudi respectively. Joshua has experience of projects across the region having handled disputes in, for example, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey. His clients include international oil & gas companies, refining and petrochemical companies, EPC contractors, oil & gas service companies, EPC employers, and international technology providers. Finally, he acts in a hybrid role as general counsel to a billion dollar pharmaceutical company based in the UAE.

Joshua was recently recognized as a ‘Key Lawyer’ in Oil, Gas and Natural Resources by Legal 500 2024. He is also a member of various construction industry associations and a contributing member of the Legal Funding Journal.

I think there have been a few factors that have limited funders' interest in operating in the Saudi market, or, financing disputes that involve Saudi law and / or Saudi Courts.

First, the high-level point is that legal funding is not prohibited under Saudi law. However, until now, in Saudi and across the GCC, whilst the view has been that written laws do not prohibit legal funding, there has been a high degree of uncertainty as to how, in practice, the courts would treat parties backed by legal funders. Quite understandably, legal funders and litigants have been hesitant to be the 'test cases' on which this issue is examined. To some extent I think this hesitancy remains, though it is decreasing as GCC countries refine their laws and legal practice, and legal funders look to the growing markets across the GCC for new opportunities.

Second, for many years Sharia has been the dominant system of law in Saudi. Sharia law is a huge subject, and it is impossible to consider all the aspects of it here. However, in summary, it is a combination of several different texts and is subject to several schools of legal interpretation. As with other GCC countries, Saudi is a civil law system, and does not rely on binding precedent. It may be that legal funders have been hesitant to make investments in an environment that they don't feel they fully understand. However, in recent times, Saudi has taken significant strides towards codifying its laws. All GCC countries are on this path to a greater or lesser extent, which helps provide certainty. In addition, with better recording and proliferation of court judgments and legal knowledge across the entire market, my sense is that international investors are becoming more confident in these surroundings.

Third, all GCC countries have been signatories to the New York Convention for some time. However, recent years have seen an acceleration of arbitration across the GCC, as recognition of the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and willingness to enforce arbitral awards increases. In Saudi, part of the country's 'Vision 2023' is to have the leading arbitral institution in the Middle East, and be considered one of the leading arbitral institutions worldwide. Saudi has implemented a new Arbitration Law, and the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) has received significant investment, allowing it to hire globally recognised practitioners to join its senior ranks. Its rules are based on UNCITRAL rules and were updated in 2023 to reflect the most modern sets of arbitral rules globally.

Fourth, through discussion with various funders, my understanding of their view is that investing in Saudi is outside their commercial risk parameters. Factors such as uncertainty over duration of legal proceedings, lack of knowledge of Sharia, and questions over enforcement have made it difficult to determine likely ROI. Certainty over enforcement of arbitral awards in Saudi is increasing and the reasons for this are discussed below / later.

Finally, from the perspective of a funded party, and bearing in mind a lot of these parties are contractors in the construction industry, I think there is hesitancy to use legal funding as it can wipe out profit margins.

The market is huge. Focusing just on the projects sector alone, there are approximately USD 1.8trn of projects planned or underway in Saudi (USD 330bn of which are already underway), making it the largest market in the MENA region. Over the last five years, the Saudi projects sector has, on average, awarded USD 60bn of projects a year, which looks set to grow year-on-year to around USD 80bn by 2028.

It is impossible to accurately estimate the number or value of disputes emanating from these projects. Of course, arbitration is private, but also many issues or disputes will not come to light due to being settled through commercial negotiations. We do know that right now approximately 440 projects in Saudi are identified as being 'on hold' (which means there is almost certainly going to be some form of dispute arising) with a combined value of USD 231bn. As the number and value of projects approaching completion or achieving completion increases, I expect to see these figures grow.

For the reasons discussed above, legal funding has yet to proliferate in GCC countries. My experience is that, at best, many legal advisors (both in private practice and in-house) and potential litigants have limited knowledge about legal funding and are therefore sceptical of its merits. At worst, these parties may not know anything about legal funding at all, or, have a misunderstanding of what it is about and how it can help. I believe that education is needed before legal funding can be considered 'mainstream' in this region.

Where legal funding may be better known is amongst international entities (like international contractors) operating in Saudi or the wider GCC. However, even where there more understanding as regards the concept and a willingness to consider it as an option, barriers remain. For example, contractors are often put off legal funding when the cost is revealed.

Construction disputes are often fact heavy, require a significant amount of analysis before funders can begin to assess the merits, and, if they go to trial, will require lengthy investment periods. All this means that funder risk goes up, so the required returns go up, which can seriously damage contractor profits. There's little point in a contractor taking funding if it's going to wipe out the contractor's profit margin on the underlying project.

My personal view is that discussion between contractors and funders can yield a solution. On the one hand contractors may be persuaded to take funding based on a holistic view of its financial benefits. Portfolio funding may make taking funding economically palatable to contractors. However, also in my view, the greatest opportunity for striking investment deals lies in the fact that both employers and contractors tend to want to settle disputes at the earliest opportunity. If legal funders are willing to take this into account, it may shift the investment metrics sufficiently to make legal funding attractive to all parties.

The laws

Saudi has been signatory to the New York convention since 1994. However, its arbitration friendliness has increased massively in the last few years, including the creation of the previously mentioned SCCA in 2016. In addition, two key rules have been promulgated:

In 2012, Saudi passed KSA Royal Decree M/34 concerning the approval of the Law of Arbitration (KSA Arbitration Law) (together with its Implementing Rules) and in 2013, Royal Decree M/53 (Enforcement Law). The KSA Arbitration law is modelled on the UNCITRAL model law, which is regarded as international best practice.

The KSA Arbitration Law curtailed the Saudi courts' interventionist powers in relation to arbitrations seated in Saudi Arabia by recognizing for the first time the parties' autonomy to tailor their arbitration procedure in certain important respects, including by explicitly recognizing the adoption of institutional arbitration rules. The KSA Arbitration Law also addressed a key concern under the old law – the power of the Saudi courts to reopen and effectively re-litigate awards on their merits.

The Enforcement Law has led to the creation of specialized enforcement courts, whose jurisdiction supersedes that of the Board of Grievances (the court previously competent to hear requests for enforcement of arbitral awards). This in turn has started to have a salutary effect on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which until 2017 was an uncertain prospect. The Enforcement Law contains provisions that affect all aspects of enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards, both domestic and foreign. In practice, the Enforcement Law has resulted in the unprecedented enforcement of several foreign arbitral awards, which is welcome development. It is hoped that the Rules supplementing the KSA Arbitration Law will help to provide more certainty around how the courts will apply the KSA Arbitration Law, including with respect to enforcement of arbitral awards.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Domestic arbitral awards must comply with the KSA Arbitration Law. The Enforcement Courts have jurisdiction to enforce domestic arbitral awards under article 9(2) of the Enforcement Law. For a domestic arbitral award, it must be declared as enforceable by the appeal court with initial jurisdiction over the dispute. Therefore, an application is needed to the relevant appeal court for a declaration that the award is enforceable by the party seeking enforcement. The declaration is normally represented by a court stamp, after which the request for enforcement can be registered with the Enforcement Court.

Domestic arbitral awards that are enforceable include:

• monetary awards
• specific performance
• sale or delivery of tangible and intangible property

Article 55 of the KSA Arbitration Law outlines the procedural and substantive requirements of a valid arbitral award. Pursuant to this provision, the competent court must verify the following conditions to issue an order for enforcement:

• The arbitral award must not contradict other court decisions or laws on the same subject in Saudi Arabia.
• The loser has been duly notified of the arbitral award.
• The arbitral award must not violate Saudi public policy (Sharia). My understanding is that where the Saudi Courts have been confronted with an award where part of it contradicts Sharia, in some instances, they have been willing to strike out the unenforceable part and enforce the remainder.

Furthermore, the arbitral award must comply with the formality requirements of the KSA Arbitration Law and be compliant with Sharia principles. Article 49 of the KSA Arbitration Law states that an arbitral award is not subject to appeal. However, under article 50(1), a party may apply to annul an arbitral award issued on the following grounds:

• “if no arbitration agreement exists, or if such agreement is void, voidable, or terminated due to expiry of its term;
• if either party, at the time of concluding the arbitration agreement, lacks legal capacity, pursuant to the law governing his capacity;
• if either arbitration party fails to present his defence due to lack of proper notification of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or for any other reason beyond his control;
• if the arbitration award excludes the application of any rules which the parties to arbitration agree to apply to the subject matter of the dispute;
• if the composition of the arbitration tribunal or the appointment of the arbitrators is carried out in a manner violating this Law or the agreement of the parties;
• if the arbitration award rules on matters not included in the arbitration agreement; nevertheless, if parts of the award relating to matters subject to arbitration can be separated from those not subject there to, then nullification shall apply only to parts not subject to arbitration; and
• If the arbitration tribunal fails to observe conditions required for the award in a manner affecting its substance, or if the award is based on void arbitration proceedings that affect it.”

Furthermore, under article 50(2) of the KSA Arbitration Law, the court may, on its own jurisdiction, nullify the arbitral award if:

• it violates Sharia or Saudi public policy; or
• the subject matter of the dispute was not arbitrable, e.g., not capable of being resolved by arbitration, under Saudi law.

The application for nullification of the arbitral award must be made 60 days after the nullifying party was notified of the award.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

Foreign awards must comply with the Enforcement Law as well as the New York Convention for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. For a foreign arbitral award, a party does not need a declaration that it is enforceable from the relevant domestic appeal court. Instead, the party requesting enforcement can apply directly to the Enforcement Court, with no statute of limitations applicable.

For foreign arbitral awards to be enforceable they must meet the following criteria:

• The award must be a final award and must not contradict another judgment or court order issued on the same subject in Saudi Arabia, or contradict the public policy of Saudi Arabia.
• Reciprocity must be established between Saudi Arabia and the jurisdiction in which the award is issued. The burden on proving reciprocity is on the party requesting enforcement.
• The award must have been issued by a tribunal with jurisdiction under the relevant foreign law, and the subject matter of the aware, should not be under mandatory jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia;
• All parties must have conducted the proceedings with all procedural regularities in place, with due representation If the respondent to the proceedings was notified, but was not represented, and this can be evidenced, such an award is still enforceable.

The Enforcement Court has jurisdiction to enforce foreign arbitral awards in accordance with the requirements of the Enforcement Law:

• Saudi courts must not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
• The tribunal issuing the award must have had jurisdiction over the dispute.
• The arbitral proceedings were conducted in accordance with due process, e.g., the parties had fair opportunities to present their cases.
• The arbitral award is final and not subject to appeal under the law of the seat of arbitration.
• The arbitral award must not contradict other court decisions or laws on the same subject in Saudi Arabia.
• The arbitral award must not violate Saudi public policy.

The New York Convention is considered the foundation for enforcing arbitral awards in a state other than where the arbitral award was issued (i.e., foreign arbitral awards). All arbitral awards not issued under the KSA Arbitration Law are considered foreign arbitral awards. Contracting states to the New York Convention must recognise foreign arbitral awards as binding and enforce them under their rules of procedure, and without imposing “substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges” for foreign arbitral awards than the State would impose on domestic arbitral awards.

Process for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

To enforce an arbitration award the application for enforcement must include:

• “the original award or an attested copy thereof;
• a true copy of the arbitration agreement;
• an Arabic translation of the arbitration award attested by an accredited authority, if the award is not issued in Arabic; and
• a proof of the deposit of the award with the competent court, pursuant to article 44 of KSA Arbitration Law.”

Article 6 of the Enforcement Law addressing all judgments and awards, states that all judgments issued by an Enforcement Court are subject to appeal and the court of the KSA Arbitration Law appeal's judgment would then be final. However, for arbitral awards issued under the KSA Arbitration Law, article 55(3) of the KSA Arbitration Law does not allow appeal of an order to enforce an arbitral award. By contrast, an order refusing enforcement is appealable.

The enforcement procedure is as follows:

• An enforcement request is made through the Najiz application (the Ministry of Justice’s online portal) is made by the applicant.
• The request is reviewed procedurally by the Enforcement Court, and is then referred to an enforcement judge. This will require up to three days.
• If the enforcement judge is satisfied, an enforcement order will be issued (Article 34 decision), ordering one party to comply within five days of the notice.

The applicant must wait twenty days for the Enforcement Court to notify the relevant party of the Article 34 decision. If this is not done, the applicant may request for the notice to be served by publication in local press, by the Enforcement Court. Although the applicant will initially pay for the publication of the notice (three to five days are required for publication from payment), the costs are able to be reimbursed from the enforcement order.

If the Article 34 decision is not adhered to, within five days of notification, the enforcement judge may be requested to enforce sanctions against the non-complying party. Such measures, under Article 46 are issued up to ten days after the expiry of the Article 34 decision or from the date of applicant's request to issue an Article 46 decision, provided that the request is made at least five days after the Article 34 decision is notified. All decisions by an enforcement judge are final, unless they relate to certain procedures or costs.

Other Considerations on Enforcing Arbitration Awards

The public policy exception to enforcing foreign arbitral awards has traditionally been very broad. An award that contradicts Sharia law or public policy will not be enforced by the Enforcement Court. However, if the part that contradicts public policy can be separated from the rest of the award, only that part should not be enforced.

The Enforcement Law sets out that the enforcement judge cannot enforce a foreign arbitral award if it includes what is contradictory to public policy. The implementing regulations of the Enforcement Law defines "public policy" as the Islamic Sharia. Saudi Arabia Royal Decree No. 44682/1443 dated 28 August 2021 limits the definition of public policy to general rules of Islamic law based on the Quran and the Sunnah. Recently successful grounds were:

• Late payment charges were found to amount to usury.
• Compensation for holding back money was found to amount to usury.
• The award involved the sale of property which the purported seller did not own.

Public policy is not limited to procedural deficiencies. The Saudi court can, of its own volition, refuse to enforce an award that contradicts Sharia, including any of the evidence relied on by the tribunal that is not acceptable under Sharia (for example, if the tribunal relied on the testimony of a person with a mental impairment). The court could also refuse enforcement if the award itself contradicts Sharia (for example, an award of interest).

Other Enforcement Mechanisms

Saudi Arabia is also party to Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Co-operation and the GCC Agreement for the Enforcement of Judgments, Rogatory, and Judicial Publication.

Until recently, to participate in the Saudi market, international firms had to enter an alliance with a local partner firm. With the change of laws in this area, several international firms have now opened their own Saudi office, and HFW (the firm I work at) is one of those. This divergence perhaps causes some difficulty for clients seeking joined-up legal advice. Naturally, high quality Saudi firms focus on work in the local courts, where they have rights of audience. International firms are more likely to focus on international clients, working with contracts under foreign laws, with arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. In both cases, the proliferation of work requires additional legal practitioners, and this growth potentially comes at the cost of quality legal advice or, at least, relevant experience.

Of course, it is tempting for me to say that HFW should be every funder's first call for Saudi related advice! The reality, as everyone knows, is that every dispute is different and requires different skill sets, sector knowledge, legal qualification(s), and price point. I'm sure it doesn't really need to be said, as legal funders know their jobs better than I do, but I would always suggest seeking advice from firms and individuals who have wide experience in the jurisdiction, have advised on disputes in the relevant sector in that jurisdiction previously, and understand what legal funders need and want to be able to make their investment decision.

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.

[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as "any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer"; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

I am often referred to as “The Mass Tort Whisperer®” which really means we are usually very early in hearing about early new torts, late-stage torts that may be settling soon, etc.

There are a limited number of injured victims in each tort, and we always need to be careful not to put more capital than we project we can spend, or costs of a case will drive higher pretty fast.

1. Historical Data: Past performance and outcomes of similar cases provide a baseline for expectations.
2. Targeting Data: We subscribe to very sophisticated targeting and demographic syndicated services such as Kantar and Neilson.  Once we have targeting details on who the injured victims are, these targeting services help is see which advertising mediums and channels index the highest to reach them.
3. Active Campaigns: We are typically running active campaigns for most of the more popular mass torts so building up recent cost details is something we are looking at every day to optimize the performance response data which keeps costs of origination lower by being very quick to move capital where response and quality of cases are best and stop the capital spend in areas that are not showing a response that makes sense to continue.  This is Moneyball for Marketing, and I speak about this often at conferences.
4. Market Conditions: Current trends in the legal market and any external factors that might affect the case.
5. Attrition or Fallout: This is key with modeling out costs of originating a real quality case.  We watch very close as the tort matures from early to mid to late stage how the fallout or attrition of the new signed case is trending.  Once a claimant is signed with a law firm, some of these will not turn into a case as all of things are verified.  Medical records for example will always have a percentage of cases where there are no medical records or the records show a different injury, etc.  These need to be projected into the modeling at the very beginning and they vary from tort to tort.
6. Intel from Leadership Firms: Our relationship with firms in leadership allow us to receive regular updates on the estimated timeline and estimated settlement values.

We are happy to collaborate with your existing law firm relationships, but we really try to stick to the requirements we think make for a great handling firm and we would want to see if the law firm you may want to use meets the standard.

• Are they in leadership in the MDL for the tort being discussed.
• Are they a real trial firm with a rich history of litigating cases and a threat to the defendants?
• Do they have the infrastructure to take on more cases from this program
• Will they agree to an equity split on the partnership that we think makes sense
• Are they good people to work with in general

Unlike commercial patent owners, universities are not unitary organizations with a hierarchically-defined command and control structure. Universities can comprise several constituencies and legal entities, not all of whom have completely aligned intellectual property interests. Successfully representing a university requires being actively aware of each facet of its make-up and serving as a facilitator between them. For example, a university’s president may not view patent litigation positively, whereas its research sponsor considers patent enforcement to be an essential right that must be exercised under its exclusive license. Successful counsel and funders of university patent owners patiently seek out all interested parties within the university umbrella to ensure a litigation strategy and funding arrangement satisfies as many interests as practicable.

How do you address the potential conflicts of interest that might arise when public institutions enter into litigation funding agreements? Are concerns here legitimate, or are they overblown?

Politics may require consideration when public universities are involved. For example, is approval from the state attorney general required? Can the litigation funder represent that no foreign investors are involved? Should the university be a party to a litigation funding agreement? If so, which part of the university should engage with a litigation funder? If not, how can the university’s public interests be protected in a law firm-facing litigation funding arrangement? These considerations are extraordinarily important and cannot be glossed over.

Protecting institutional reputation is always the primary concern. A university may have spent decades or even centuries building its academic reputation. But reputations are fragile. A university will not risk ruining its reputation by its trial lawyer’s misconduct or funder’s lack of transparency. Everyone working with a university, including its counsel and funders, are de facto arms of the university and must be willing to uphold its high standards of ethics.

I predict that more funders will become interested in acquiring university-originated patents rather than just funding litigation. This affords a university much-needed up-front monetization while simultaneously providing the funder more control over strategic decision-making. I also predict that a commercially-run version of the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP) could be very successful in the funded patent litigation marketplace.

As an attorney and VP at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about how to save their firms time and money. Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences across the country regarding post-settlement innovation.

Milestone is a high-touch settlement solutions firm on mission to bring efficiency, transparency, and education to law firms and their clients after settlement. An innovator in mass tort and multi-party litigation, Milestone has developed Pathway®, the leading tech solution in the post-settlement space. Milestone was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Sam Dolce:

Milestone has launched an innovative mass tort settlement administration platform. What are the main value-adds here? Why should users consider this product?

Milestone’s Pathway® platform shortens case duration in mass tort litigation by digitizing the post-settlement process.

In addition to providing a more streamlined, accommodating, and informed post-settlement process for claimants, Pathway also serves law firms’ bottom lines. The platform saves law firms time and money, relieving them of the administrative burden of managing post-settlement. Pathway is also the first solution to provide real-time visibility into the settlement process for both claimants and attorneys, fostering transparency and trust and ensuring all parties know where money is at any given time.

By engaging and implementing Pathway, law firms are able to allocate resources more effectively and focus on core competencies. The automation of time-consuming tasks frees attorneys and support staff up to handle more complex legal matters and provide higher-quality client service.

How would litigation funders benefit specifically from Milestone's new platform?

Pathway’s competencies serve the interests of litigation funders in impactful ways.

By speeding up the post-settlement process, Pathway can help litigation funders realize faster returns on their investments. Reduced operational costs through automation and efficiency also lead to higher profit margins. A streamlined post-settlement process can reduce the risk of errors, disputes, and delays.

Pathway’s backend, real-time dashboard is also a game changer for litigation funders, giving them the ability to check in on cash flow or case performance at any given time.

Additionally, law firms that use Pathway can position themselves as more efficient and technologically advanced, attracting top talent and more clients.

What are some of the current trends in settlement administration in the mass tort space, and how is Milestone addressing those?

As corporate negligence shows no signs of slowing down any time soon, we are seeing the number and scale of mass tort cases trending steadily upward across the board. Milestone’s Pathway virtually eliminates any strain that this increased workload could place on law firms by processing tens of thousands of claims in record time and getting full dockets paid in a matter of weeks or months.

Another trend is that with these expanding dockets, attorneys have less and less time to provide individualized attention and guidance to each claimant. With this, it is becoming more common for claimants to lose out on the opportunity to financially plan with their settlement monies, as many don’t become aware of this possibility until it is too late. Pathway ensures that education around settlement planning is baked into the administration process, meaning that claimants get an elevated, customized post-settlement experience, ultimately increasing overall client satisfaction for the law firm.

What have users been saying about the product?  Can you share any feedback?

Numerous law firms have praised Pathway for its efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use. Testimonials from both law firms and claimants highlight the positive impact of the platform on the post-settlement experience.

“All directions and steps were easy to follow regarding a payment, and the support team can be easily reached when having issues or need to get into contact with somebody.” - Claimant who went through Pathway

“What an incredible company! These folks CARE about their clients...I'm not an attorney, but if I were I would certainly be going through Milestone for any mass tort settlement planning!! On the side of customer service—WOW!! I am thoroughly impressed with the stark professionalism and friendliness I experienced throughout the process!” - Claimant who went through Pathway

“The work that Milestone does is absolutely vital to the success of multi-district litigation. Getting to a number in litigation is very hard, but that’s only part of the battle. How you then get that distributed to clients is the other. How do you communicate with 200,000 people and make sure they have access to the money and understand what’s going on with their cases?” - Attorney client

“Faster than AI, they're totally raising the bar.” - Claimant who went through Pathway

Litigation funding and mass torts are growing more interconnected. How do you see these two sectors evolving over the coming years?

Litigation funding and mass torts are both prominent forces in shaping the legal landscape today and into the future, so it makes sense that they’ll grow more interconnected as the years go on.

As more mass torts arise, more substantial financial backing will be needed for firms to be able to take on cases of such large scale. Litigation funders will also likely play a more active role in early case evaluation, helping law firms identify which mass torts to take on. The influx of litigation funding will likely also lead to more innovative fee arrangements between mass tort law firms and their clients. And with litigation funders providing financial backing, we’re likely to see more mass tort firms pursuing litigation rather than being swayed to settle early.

There are countless challenges that come along with this intertwined trajectory, but along with those come many opportunities. Milestone is dedicated to ensuring that ethical considerations and the good of the plaintiff remain at the heart of mass tort operations while simultaneously increasing revenue for litigation funders and law firms.

Australia has an adversarial legal system in which the Courts apply active case management discipline throughout the life cycle of each proceeding. This generally provides that civil and commercial cases have a timely and predictable trajectory to mediation and hearing. In addition, most jurisdictions operate in accordance with the ‘loser pays’ principle, meaning that the litigant who loses the case must pay the opponent’s legal costs; this provides a strong incentive for both sides to settle prior to hearing. Finally, the legality of third-party funding is well-established in Australia, and we have a mature class action jurisdiction with a strong thread of precedent legitimating funders’ entitlement to directly share in claim proceeds, subject to the Court’s satisfaction with the fairness of such arrangements on a case-by-case basis.

Some of the major trends in the industry involve an increased regulatory push, the inclusion of insurance products, funders getting more involved in arbitration and mass torts, etc. Which major global trends would you say are most salient in the Australian market, and which are less applicable? 

Regulation of litigation funding in Australia peaked in 2020-21, under the previous federal parliament. Reforms included extending the consumer protections available to investors in managed investment schemes (MIS) to participants in class actions, and a proposed minimum return to class members. Both reforms were in search of an actual systemic problem and proved redundant in practice, and were ultimately revoked by the successive parliament upon taking office in early 2022.

CASL’s due diligence process for potential investments doesn’t focus solely on the legal arguments of a claim, it also involves an assessment of whether the litigant and their legal team will be sufficiently aligned with CASL’s commercial objective to achieve a feasible resolution as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

With that in mind, claims that have sound legal merits may still represent an uncommercial proposition to CASL for three main reasons. Firstly, the amount of funding required for the legal costs estimated to run the matter may be disproportionate to the likely size of the claim; often this will be a factor in cases that involve many defendants. Secondly, there may be particular characteristics of a case that entail a substantial potential for delay in achieving resolution; this could include novel legal issues which increase appeal risk, or litigants prone to intractable rather than commercial conduct. Finally, we may be unable to reach an acceptable level of confidence in the defendant’s capacity to meet a settlement or judgment sum.

Generally speaking, CASL’s approach is to assess each claim on its own merits, as we don’t perceive certain types of claims as inherently riskier than others, and don’t target a particular composition of the portfolio by claim type.

Whilst class actions typically have a longer life cycle than other types of case, that of itself does not increase their relative risk profile; in any class action, as indeed any type of case, the level of risk will primarily arise from the underlying legal and factual questions the Court is being asked to determine. For that reason, we gauge concentration risk in the portfolio by reference to the existence of any overlap in the legal questions being litigated across existing investments, rather than by type of case.

The litigation finance industry is a reflection of the evolution of the civil justice system rather than a driver itself. The civil justice system is adapting and responding to a growth in disputes arising in areas such as privacy and data breaches, consumer claims including product liability, and climate including greenwashing. These types of claims are prominent or growing in other jurisdictions throughout the world, and Australia will benefit from these experiences or will lead the development of such claims given the strength of the legal system and its capacity to adapt.

As a result of the global relevance of certain claims, the law firms and funders are forging closer relationships across borders to ensure the efficient prosecution of claims.

Inevitably the law plays ‘catch-up’, but it is vitally important that law firms and funders continue to push legislators to design effective laws to require accountability, responsibility and high levels of governance within the social fabric to benefit society as a whole.

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot brings extensive expertise in compliance, risk management, and regulatory affairs. As the Managing Member of The Law Offices of Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, P.C., she ensures SEC-regulated entities adhere to compliance standards. With ties to FINRA and previous positions at the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, she has been listed among The Hedge Fund Journal's Top 50 Women in Hedge Funds.

Hedonova, established in 2020, specializes in alternative investments, encompassing a diverse range of assets such as startups, real estate, fine art, carbon credits, and more. Hedonova offers a single fund structure that allows shareholders to invest without the burden of managing the day-to-day distribution of their investments. Hedonova's mission is to make alternative investments accessible to all.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot:

1. Hedonova has a unique business model. Can you explain how the fund works?

Certainly, the Hedonova fund operates on a single fund structure, which means that instead of offering multiple funds with different risk profiles, we consolidate various alternative investments into one accessible option for investors. This simplifies decision-making for our clients, as they don't have to navigate multiple investment choices. Within this single fund, we strategically diversify across different asset classes, such as startups, real estate, art, litigation finance, and more. By spreading investments across diverse assets, we aim to manage risk effectively and potentially enhance returns for our investors.

2. How do you make it possible for investors worldwide to access alternative investments?

We prioritize global access to alternative investments through several means. Firstly, we leverage user-friendly online platforms, making it easy for investors worldwide to explore and invest in our fund. Hedonova has established and operates four feeder funds within its international framework across various jurisdictions, each meticulously structured under the relevant local laws. Additionally, we establish strategic partnerships with financial institutions across different regions, enabling us to reach a wider audience. Through these partnerships, we ensure that investors from various parts of the world can seamlessly participate in our fund, tapping into the opportunities offered by alternative investments. 

3. How are you adapting your business to the new regulatory requirements of the SEC’s Private Adviser Rule?

Adapting to the new regulatory requirements of the SEC’s Private Adviser Rule is a key focus for us. We're enhancing our compliance measures and transparency practices to align with the regulatory framework. This involves thorough reviews of our operations and investment processes to ensure compliance. Additionally, we're strengthening our communication channels with investors, providing them with clear and transparent information about our fund and its compliance with regulatory requirements. We aim to maintain trust and confidence in our operations by prioritizing investor protection and regulatory compliance.

4. Are there unique challenges in the Litigation Funding space for Hedonova?

Yes, the Litigation Funding space presents its own set of unique challenges. One significant challenge is assessing the financial viability of litigation cases. We carefully evaluate factors such as potential costs associated with litigation, the likelihood of successful resolution, and the estimated timeline for outcomes. Maintaining transparent communication with all parties involved, including law firms and plaintiffs, is crucial. We navigate these challenges by implementing rigorous evaluation processes and fostering open dialogue with our partners, ensuring alignment of interests and effective management of risks.

5. What are the advantages for investors in litigation finance?

Investors stand to gain several advantages from investing in litigation finance. Firstly, it offers the potential for high returns, as successful litigation cases can result in significant settlements or awards. Additionally, litigation finance typically involves shorter investment horizons than traditional investments, allowing investors to realize returns within a shorter timeframe. Moreover, litigation finance often exhibits a low correlation with traditional markets, providing diversification benefits to investors. By incorporating litigation finance into their portfolios, investors can access alternative sources of income and enhance overall portfolio resilience.

6. What are the types of litigation finance cases that Hedonova has invested in?

Hedonova has invested in various types of litigation cases across different sectors. These include commercial lawsuits, intellectual property disputes, class action lawsuits, and more. Each case undergoes a thorough evaluation process, where we assess its financial viability, the strength of legal arguments, and the expertise of the legal team involved. By diversifying across different litigation cases, we aim to spread risk and maximize potential returns for our investors.

7. How can investors use litigation finance to diversify their portfolios?

Investors can utilize litigation finance to diversify their portfolios by capitalizing on its non-correlation with traditional assets, as returns from legal cases are often unaffected by economic fluctuations. Diversification within the litigation finance asset class itself spreads risk across various cases with different risk profiles, mitigating the impact of any single case's outcome. With the potential for high returns and exposure to alternative assets beyond stocks and bonds, litigation finance offers a unique avenue for portfolio diversification. Additionally, investors gain access to specialized legal expertise and thorough due diligence processes conducted by litigation finance firms, enhancing their investment decisions. As the litigation finance industry matures, it presents opportunities for long-term growth, making it an attractive option for investors seeking to broaden their investment horizons.