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.

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.

Jonathan Stroud is General Counsel at Unified Patents, where he
manages a growing team of talented, diverse attorneys and oversees a
docket of administrative challenges, appeals, licensing, pooling, and
district court work in addition to trademark, copyright,
administrative, amicus, policy, marketing, and corporate matters.

Prior to Unified, he was a patent litigator, and prior to that, he was
a patent examiner at the USPTO. He earned his J.D. with honors from
the American University Washington College of Law; his B.S. in
Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University; and his M.A. in Print
Journalism from the University of Southern California. He enjoys
teaching, writing, and speaking on patent and administrative law and
litigation finance.

Unified is a 350+ international membership organization that seeks to
improve patent quality and deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent
assertions in defined technology sectors (Zones) through its
activities. Its actions are focused broadly in Zones with substantial
assertions by Standards Essential Patents (SEP) holders and/or
Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). These actions may include analytics,
prior art, invalidity contests, patentability analysis, administrative
patent review (IPR/reexam), amicus briefs, economic surveys, and
essentiality studies. Unified works independently of its members to
achieve its deterrence goals. Small members join for free while larger
ones pay modest annual fees.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jonathan Stroud:

1)   Unified Patents describes itself as an "anti-troll." You claim to
be the only entity that deters abusive NPEs and never pays. Can you
elaborate?

In the patent risk management space, Unified is the only entity that
works to deter and disincentivize NPE assertions.  Because of the
expense and economics of patent litigation, parties often settle for
money damages less than the cost of defending themselves, paying the
entity, often for non-meritorious assertions. This allows them to
remain profitable, thus fueling and incentivizing future assertions,
regardless of merit. Unified is the only solution designed to counter
that dynamic.  That is why Unified never pays NPEs. This ensures that
Unified never incentivizes further NPE activity. By focusing on
deterrence, Unified never acts as a middleman, facilitating licensing
deals between NPEs and implementors.

2) How does Unified Patents work with litigation funders, specifically?

As many NPE suits are funded or controlled by third parties, we are
often called to consult on and seek to understand litigation funding
and the economics of assertion.  Among other things, we provide filing
data, funding information, reports, and other work related to funding
and also run a consulting business related to negotiations and aspects
of dealmaking affected by litigation funding.  For example, we have
helped identify that at least 30% of all U.S. patent litigation filed
in recent years has been funded (up through 2020), through one
mechanism or another.  We will continue to work to understand the
marketplace and transactions, and endeavor to provide the best insight
into the marketplace that our data affords.

3)  With Judge Connolly's recent ruling, disclosure has become a hot
topic in the US. How do you see this ruling impacting IP litigation
going forward?

Well before Chief Judge Connolly's actions, litigation funding
disclosure has been a topic of discussion at the judicial conference,
among other judges, and amongst those implementing and revising the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not to mention Congress and the SEC.
The Judicial Conference has been called to revise the disclosure rules
for over a decade.  Similar disclosure orders or rules applied in New
Jersey, California, Michigan, and another dozen district courts
nationwide, in addition to numerous rulings on admissibility and
relevance in Federal and state courts stretching back decades.  Chief
Judge Connolly's order has attracted outsized interest in the patent
community in particular.  It quickly exposed some of the 500 or so
cases filed annually by IP Edge as funded, as well as the high number
of patent plaintiffs in Delaware.   Calls for disclosure did not begin
with Judge Connolly; has been a continuing ongoing debate stretching
back decades. Insurance disclosures go back to the early 70s, and
other types of loans or financial instruments are already subject to
certain disclosure rules, in court, governmentally, or by regulators.
Moving forward, the increasing prevalence of litigation funding and
the rising awareness among the judiciary and bar will mean fitful
district-specific under- and over-disclosure until a national rule is
put in place through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It's
inevitable.  It's just a matter of time.

4) Insurers seem to be shying away from judgment preservation
insurance at the moment--is this a trend you see continuing, and how
might this impact IP litigation?

Insurance markets are often dominated by sales-side pressures and so
are susceptible to irrational exuberance and overpromotion of certain
policies.  Couple that with competition amongst brokers to offer
attractive terms for a "new" product, and you have pressures that have
driven down offered rates, a trend that seems to be reversing itself
now. To be sure, judgment preservation has existed in some form for
many years through other funding and insurance sources, and you've
always been able to buy and sell claims and judgments on appeal.

The increased emphasis on judgment preservation insurance seems driven
by a handful of brokers successfully selling rather large policies,
coupled with a glut of interest; my understanding is that some of the
recent (and predictable) remand on appeal have dampened
the enthusiasm of that market a tad, but that really just means rates
returning to reasonable levels (or at least growing resistant to
sales-side pressure).  The small JPI market should stabilize,
affording successful plaintiffs the option, and in turn extending
appellate timelines and recovery timelines, especially in
higher-profile damages award cases.  It will generally prevent
settlements below the insured threshold. It should also provide some
incentive to sue and to chase large damages awards in the first place,
if it becomes clear that JPI will be available after a judgment,
allowing for less well-capitalized plaintiffs to recover earlier and
avoid binary all-or-nothing outcomes.

Additionally, the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts will
eventually grapple with the "disclosure gap." That is, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure insurance policies since the 1970s must be
disclosed at the trial level, but not yet at the appellate level; but
the same concerns that animated the 1970 amendments to the FRCP now
apply on appeal, with the rise of JPI.  Circuits will have to
grapple with adopting disclosure rules for insurance policies
contingent upon appeal.

5)   What trends are you seeing in the IP space that is relevant to
litigation funders, and how does Unified Patents' service fit into
those trends?

Early funding stories were dominated by larger cases and portfolios,
but we are now seeing a trend of much smaller cases being funded, and,
in the case of both IP Edge and AiPi Solutions, with certain patent
aggregators getting creative and funding entire suites of very small
nuisance cases.  We see funding now at all levels, from the IP Edges
of the world to the Burfords, and there is a trend toward investing in
pharmaceutical ANDA litigation and ITC cases.  Both should continue,
which should extend cases, increase the duration and expense of
litigation, and should drive more licensing.  Unified will continue to
seek to deter baseless assertions and will continue to identify,
discuss, and detail the structures, funding arrangements, and suits
related to litigation funding, and continue to show how much funding
is now dominating U.S. patent litigation, to the extent it is knowable.

What drew you to the world of litigation funding?

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

How does this subset of litigation funding attract investors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoffrey White is General Counsel, Chief IP Counsel, and on the Board of Directors at SilcoTek, a high-tech materials science manufacturing company in the United States. At SilcoTek, Geoffrey balances his role as an attorney, an IP strategist, and a manufacturing executive. He also separately launched Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing to help commercialize and monetize more innovative ideas (see www.IP-mfg.com).

Geoffrey has a true passion for value-enhancement, applying his experience and education, including a Cambridge MBA, a George Washington IP-LLM, a Widener JD, and a Chemistry BS from the University of Pittsburgh. He is collaborating with Cambridge’s Institute for Manufacturing, Innovation and Intellectual Property Management on patent strategy research, volunteers for the Penn State Start-Up Leadership Network on several Boards of Advisors, and is always open to discussing the intersection of law (especially patent law) and corporate strategy.

Just a few years ago, we at SilcoTek were totally unaware of the growing litigation finance community. I attended an intellectual property conference in New York and heard Sarah Tsou of Omni Bridgeway describe how it works. She discussed the waterfall in many agreements, their initial terms sheet, the due diligence that follows, and how it is an investment with aligned interests. After that, I started reaching out to several funders, including Sarah.

I settled on three funders to consider more closely. They were generally selected due to responsiveness and clarity. Being new to the litigation finance world, I was not looking for any specific terms in the agreement. I wanted to provide our Board with options. Overall, the proposals between funders were similar. One funder proposed a substantial monetization payment, which I personally liked. However, our Board liked the clarity of interactions with individuals from Omni Bridgeway, which is who ultimately funded us. They also liked the patent litigation experience of the team at Omni Bridgeway.

Personally, I think that the litigation finance industry is of huge value to SMEs and anyone else who has enforceable rights. Hopefully the Small Business Administration (SBA) embraces it!

The industry should help strengthen the value of rights owned by SMEs. For example, contractual rights are more meaningful and valuable if enforcement is not linked to whether a company has cash to support litigation. I think the biggest help, however, relates to patent enforcement, which becomes attainable for more patent owners.

SilcoTek’s primary reason for obtaining litigation financing was that we felt it would prevent waste. Being an SME and enforcing patent rights against a multi-billion dollar company creates an imbalance and a risk that the other side could try to bleed you dry, even if you are in a position to fund litigation. We felt that public awareness of us receiving litigation financing would reduce that risk created by the imbalance.

SilcoTek is interested in obtaining a reasonable outcome, whether it be through settlement or going all the way through litigation. Personally, I was concerned that litigation financing was similar to the contingency-based injury-lawyer model, and that is not something that was consistent with our core values. After I understood that it is an investment for a future return, I became more comfortable that it would align with our core values and support our desired outcome.

If there are funders that have the contingency-based injury-lawyer model, that would be a red flag to me; however, all of the funders I communicated with seemed much more sophisticated and seemed like investors.

Litigation finance can help encourage innovation through its impact on patent rights. It is well-established that patent systems foster innovation, especially the corresponding disclosure of ideas and the increase in access to investment for companies. Patent rights, however, are expensive to enforce.

Without access to litigation finance, some companies will not be able to assert their rights, thereby reducing the value of the patents and ultimately the companies. Without awareness of litigation finance opportunities, some companies will choose to use trade secret law to protect ideas instead of patents, which reduces innovation and technological progress overall (and has a negative economic impact based upon principles from the Solow-Swan economic model showing how GDP is driven by technological progress).

Long-term, providing litigation finance for patent enforcement should increase valuations. This is especially true with techniques based upon relief from royalty calculations, as royalties should be more likely with easier access to funding. Such effects should further drive innovation and technological progress by making such firms more appealing for investment in the future. Ultimately, litigation finance will drive global growth of GDP by driving technological progress.

I think litigation finance will have clearer delineation between stages similar to other investments. It seems that many or all stages are represented right now, albeit without it being easy for outsiders to identify them. More focus will be on early investment with the ability to capture option rights for future investment. Later-stage investment arrangements may also grow. Of course, such changes are going to require adjustments to the expectations of investors and the duration they can expect for returns, but the overall returns could be much higher and the risk could be much lower due to concepts like portfolio theory and real options.

Here is a patent-specific, technology-agnostic effort I began with Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing, separate from my role at SilcoTek:

• Seed Stage: to support patent drafting and innovation protection before any patent filings.
• Angel Stage: to enhance patent protection while generating early revenue from operations.
• Venture Stage: to enforce issued patents (this seems to be the focus of funders now).
• Mezzanine and Bridge Loans: to drive standards or to establish new standards.
• IPO: to fund sector-specific innovation deployment based upon robust patent portfolios.

Although the Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing effort is merely at the Seed Stage leading into the Angel Stage, existing interest from funders suggests to me that the litigation finance industry will evolve into more robust support of such efforts. Efforts beyond the Venture Stage may not be necessary in many situations, but broader and bigger opportunities could be anchored by such early-stage rights and the litigation finance industry.

I am sure other similar efforts outside of the patent sector will evolve over the coming years, but the opportunity for fascinating growth within litigation finance is clear to me.

1. Why the recent rebrand to Gain? What was the motivation for this change?

2. Gain is seeking to streamline the medical lien process for healthcare providers. What are the challenges at play here, and how does Gain address those issues?

1. Delayed payment: Healthcare providers often have to wait for an extended period of time to receive payment for their services, which can strain their cash flow.
2. Administrative complexity: Managing a portfolio of liens and receivables associated with legal cases can be administratively burdensome, diverting resources from patient care.
3. Collection efforts: Collecting on these liens and receivables can be time-consuming and challenging, leading to potential write-offs.
4. Risk management: Healthcare providers may also face the risk of not being compensated if the legal case does not result in a settlement or judgment in their favor.

3. How does Gain's AI technology help attorneys and healthcare providers? Can you give us an example of how Gain's AI can be used for enhanced efficiency or business intelligence?

• Imagine a personal injury case where various parties, including attorneys and healthcare providers, need to collaborate seamlessly to ensure the best outcome for the injured patient. Our AI-powered platform streamlines this process. For instance, it offers a patient record center, simplifying the updating and retrieval of information and documents. This feature alone saves valuable administrative time, ensuring that nothing gets missed in the case.
• Our AI-enhanced dashboard and reporting capabilities provide real-time insights into case status and financials. This means better monitoring, quicker decision-making and enhanced efficiency in managing personal injury cases. The messaging and notifications feature further streamlines communication among all stakeholders involved.

• Our AI technology equips attorneys and healthcare providers with predictive analytics capabilities, which provide invaluable business intelligence. AI-enhanced reports shed light on payor sources, case characteristics, jurisdictions, third-party liability carriers, financial outcomes and other vital decision-making factors.
• For instance, attorneys and healthcare providers can gain insights into case volumes, treatment costs, reimbursement rates, duration and more. They can drill down to obtain detailed information on cases, attorneys, healthcare providers or individual patients. Moreover, Gain's database of similar cases helps in understanding standard treatment costs, reductions and reimbursement rates. All of this information empowers those providing services to personal injury plaintiffs to make better decisions and optimize their approach to specific cases.

• Effective collaboration and communication are vital in personal injury cases. Gain's secure document storage and messaging system make it incredibly easy to share important documents and updates related to cases securely. This not only saves administrative time but also ensures that critical information is readily accessible.
• Real-time notifications and status updates keep medical and legal teams in sync as cases progress, enabling them to take timely actions and prioritize tasks efficiently.

4. How is Gain pursuing fairness and equity in the Consumer Legal Finance and Medical Lien spaces?

• Supporting personal injury plaintiffs – and those who support them: For personal injury plaintiffs who lack the financial means to pay for essential bills and necessary medical treatment, navigating the insurance system can be incredibly challenging. This is where Gain steps in to offer assistance. We specialize in managing Letters of Protection (LOP), collections and funding, providing the support needed to ensure plaintiffs receive the care they deserve. Our AI-enhanced platform simplifies the handling of LOP agreements, personal injury receivables and medical liens. It facilitates better communication between personal injury attorneys and healthcare providers, streamlining document sharing, case updates and financial transactions. Through the platform, we also compare reimbursement amounts to thousands of similar lawsuits, ensuring fair payment for services provided.
• Enhancing efficiency with AI: Our AI technology plays a crucial role in achieving fairness and healthcare equity. It empowers healthcare providers and attorneys with predictive analytics capabilities, providing valuable business intelligence. Attorneys and healthcare providers can access AI-enhanced reports that offer insights into payor sources, case characteristics, jurisdictions, third-party liability carriers, financial outcomes, duration and more. This data equips professionals with the information they need to make informed decisions, ultimately leading to better patient care and fairer financial outcomes.
• Fighting back with a wholistic team approach – Managed Services: Gain's Managed Services team is dedicated to managing personal injury receivables and medical liens. They work closely with healthcare providers to monitor progress, follow up on key items and ensure that cases are advancing toward settlement. This partnership helps push back on reductions, reduce write-offs and increase collection amounts. Leveraging our third-party status also helps minimize the risk of being targeted in legal proceedings.

5. Gain is leaning into AI and Legal Technology heavily. What has the response been from claimants, attorneys and healthcare providers? Do you plan to continue making investments in Legal Tech initiatives going forward?

1. Funders have become more selective about funding investment treaty claims.  The increased selectivity usually is unrelated to the merits of the cases—which often times are compelling—but concern over the length of time tribunals are taking to render awards, and subsequent time thereafter to enforce the award if the respondent state does not comply willingly with the award.  The profile of the sovereign defendant (are they likely to pay; do they have enforceable assets) has become critical to the funding assessment.
2. By contrast, funders are increasingly keen to fund commercial and construction arbitrations.  They are very eager to work with corporates that likely have a portfolio of arbitrations at any given time.
3. More players exist in the market now to buy a stake or all of an arbitration award than a decade ago.

• New mining claims from investors in the critical minerals industry. These are minerals that are essential to the energy transition (such as lithium, which is used in battery storage). Governments all over the world, such as in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, are enacting new measures to regulate and control these critical minerals.  Many of the mining companies or their investors (such as electric vehicle automakers) are new to the mining sector and/or are junior or small mining companies.  They likely will need third-party funding for their claims—and there will be claims in the next few decades given the commercial and geo-political fights over critical minerals in the supply chains.
• More arbitrations in the renewables sector (commercial, construction, and investment arbitrations) all over the world as governments continue to implement their obligations under the Paris Agreement and fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions to invest in renewable energy, low carbon, and hydrogen projects. As has been the case in Italy, Spain and other European countries, governments may change a key economic input (such as the price of feed-in tariffs) that led to foreign investment in the renewables sector, resulting in investment treaty disputes.  There will also be more commercial disputes as new technologies in the sector evolve and the limits of existing technologies in long-term projects (wear and tear) are tested.
• My firm Milbank frequently serves as counsel to lenders in financing projects. If the project company is tied up in disputes, lenders need comfort on recovering their loans, which requires ballparking damages and obtaining protections in the form of insurance products or indemnities. This has led to me facilitating more conversations between my finance/restructuring partners and litigation funders.
• Discussions with clients over whether to secure ATE insurance even if an arbitration is not seated in a jurisdiction such as England that adopts a default principle of “loser pays.” We are seeing more adverse costs awards against unsuccessful claimants in the investment arbitration space.  So, a client may want to consider whether to obtain ATE insurance in addition to third party funding, even though this might mean more overall borrowing.

LegalPay is the only company in India which provides different financing solutions to businesses for their legal services and/or litigations. Founded by Kundan Shahi in 2019, LegalPay now has a team of more than 100 staff managing more than USD 400 million of claims under management.

Kundan Shahi is an alumnus of IIM Bangalore's startup incubator, NSRCEL and had perviously founded a LegalTech company. He deeply believes in relieving the burden on Indian judiciary, and to further that cause he supports Bharat Disputes Resolution (BDR), India’s largest online dispute resolution platform.

What is the litigation funding landscape like in India? What are the unique challenges and opportunities for funders operating there? 

At present, litigation finance in India is at an embryonic stage, reflective of its burgeoning legal expense market. A combined total of around 40 billion dollars encompasses both individual and business legal expenditures, a figure poised for further escalation with the country's rapid economic expansion and the surge in cross-border transactions. The imminent ascension of India to become the world's third-largest economy is projected to further amplify the legal expense market's growth. Distinguishing India from other jurisdictions is the absence of a contingency fee model, necessitating the demand for alternative financing avenues. The concept of third-party funding (TPF) was initially alien to the legal landscape, often perceived as illicit by legal practitioners. The awareness around litigation finance has been minimal until recently.

What types of cases does LegalPay fund? What case aspects do you look for? What are some of the things you look to stay away from?

LegalPay has made substantial investments to cultivate awareness within the business sphere, elucidating the financial dimensions of litigation. This concerted effort has yielded a notable increase in litigation finance inquiries from businesses. In contrast to conventional jurisdictions where stakeholder interests are aligned (plaintiff, lawyer, funders), in India, only funders and plaintiffs share a common interest. We are a low trust society with price sensitivity. Consequently, possessing deep pockets alone does not guarantee access to lucrative opportunities. To navigate this landscape, an innovative blend of technology and distribution strategies is imperative for robust deal origination.

One of the major concerns for funders is case duration. India is not known for speedy case resolutions. How do you manage this risk factor?

The reputation of India's judicial system for protracted case resolutions is acknowledged, yet empirical data reveals incremental improvements. While perceptions linger, the expansive realm of disputes provides ample room for astute selection. Adaptation is key in this price-sensitive climate; prioritizing plaintiff interests ensures risk management remains a cornerstone. Businesses have started understanding the financial perspective of litigation which encourages them to opt for alternative disputes resolutions.

You recently launched Contract Defense, a free service protecting businesses from disputes arising from BNPL. What can you tell us about this? 

Our recent introduction of "Contract Defense" serves to bolster trust and provide businesses with a safety net against disputes arising from the contract bought using our framework. This innovative offering extends an interest-free credit line to manage legal expenses and covers initial legal costs stemming from contractual agreements facilitated through our BNPL platform. This engagement serves as a prelude to forging robust relationships, positioning us to offer litigation finance when needed. To use Contract Defense, all the customer needs to do is create a contract through any lawyer or law firm in India and pay for it using our BNPL payment method. If any legal disputes arising from the contract, the customer can simply transfer the legal expense to LegalPay, and we will cover the cost of all possible disputes.

What are your predictions for the future of litigation funding in India? How will this market evolve?

Forecasts for the litigation funding landscape in India remain resoundingly positive. As awareness burgeons, businesses are keen to transfer the financial risk of litigation to platforms such as ours. The aftermath of a Delhi High Court judgment has triggered heightened discussions and inquiries, attracting international funders and law firms seeking symbiotic collaborations. The expansive market paves the way for coexistence and flourishing among several prominent litigation funders, contingent upon their adept adaptation to the intricacies of the Indian landscape.

In conclusion, the canvas of litigation funding in India is unfolding with remarkable potential. The convergence of economic growth, legal dynamics, and the desire for risk transfer converge to paint a promising trajectory for this evolving sector.