Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

By John Freund |
July 1, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet

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

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with John Lopes, Head of Specialty Legal Banking, First Horizon

By John Freund |

John Lopes is a market-leading bank executive and recognized authority in financial solutions for the plaintiff-side legal industry. As Senior Managing Director and Head of Specialized Legal Banking at First Horizon Bank, he leads a national platform focused on delivering capital, deposit, and technology solutions to contingency-based law firms, mass tort practices, claims administrators, and Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).

John began his career over 20 years ago advising AM Law firms, building a strong foundation in traditional legal banking and developing deep expertise in the operational and financial dynamics of large defense-side practices. He later held leadership roles at institutions including Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Western Alliance Bank, where he managed significant portfolios, built high-performing teams, and executed strategic growth initiatives across the legal vertical.

Over a decade ago, John identified a critical gap in the market and shifted his focus to the plaintiff side of the bar—where firms face unique challenges related to contingent revenue, cash flow volatility, and complex settlement structures. Since then, he has become a trusted advisor to many of the nation's leading plaintiff law firms and ecosystem partners, structuring sophisticated credit facilities, supporting billions of dollars in settlement flows, and delivering innovative banking solutions across the full lifecycle of litigation.

John is known for his ability to bridge capital, technology, and legal strategy—partnering with law firms, claims administrators, and litigation finance providers to drive growth, enhance liquidity, and create operational efficiency at scale. Through his leadership, he continues to position First Horizon as a premier banking partner to the plaintiff bar, bringing institutional-grade capabilities to a rapidly evolving segment of the legal industry.

He holds a background in financial markets from Yale University and has continued to build on that foundation through executive education with the Yale School of Management.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Lopes:

What gaps in the settlement and mass tort landscape led you to build a dedicated Settlement Services platform?

Historically, most banks approached settlement accounts as transactional escrow relationships rather than as a specialized vertical requiring tailored infrastructure. As mass tort and class action settlements have grown in size and complexity, that model became insufficient.

We saw several structural gaps:

  • Lack of dedicated infrastructure for high-volume sub-accounting and audit transparency
  • Limited understanding of QSF governance, fiduciary responsibilities, and multi-party oversight
  • Manual disbursement processes that created inefficiencies and risk
  • Inflexible credit solutions for contingency firms managing large case inventories

We built our Specialty Legal Banking group to address those gaps holistically — combining dedicated settlement banking, digital sub-accounting, modern disbursement capabilities, and tailored financing solutions under one coordinated platform.

Rather than treating settlements as ancillary deposits, we treat them as a highly specialized ecosystem requiring neutrality, transparency, and purpose-built technology.

Courts increasingly demand transparency and auditability. How do you see expectations evolving around reporting and fiduciary accountability?

Expectations are rising meaningfully. Judges and special masters now expect:

  • Real-time visibility into balances
  • Clear segregation of funds at the claimant or fee level
  • Transparent interest allocation methodologies
  • Clean audit trails across every transaction

In complex QSFs, accountability is no longer theoretical — it must be demonstrable.

We've responded by building a platform that allows structured sub-accounting at scale, defined user permissions (analyst vs. approver roles), exportable audit logs, and reporting that aligns with court oversight requirements.

The future standard will be near real-time transparency, not quarterly reconciliation. Specialized banks must offer specialized infrastructure to the settlement process — not just holding funds.

What are the most significant fraud or AML risks facing settlement administrators today, and how can institutions mitigate them without slowing distributions?

The scale and speed of modern distributions introduce new risk vectors:

  • Synthetic identity and claimant impersonation
  • Payment redirection and ACH fraud
  • Social engineering attacks targeting administrators
  • Sanctions and cross-border payment compliance risk

The key is not adding friction — but adding intelligent controls. Financial institutions must offer:

  • Multi-layer payment verification protocols
  • OFAC and sanctions screening at both onboarding and disbursement
  • Segregated user permissions and dual-approval workflows
  • Positive pay and transaction monitoring services

Technology should accelerate payments while reducing exposure. The answer is not slowing distributions — it's modernizing controls around them.

Claimants now expect faster access to funds and more flexibility in how they receive payments. How is innovation reshaping the claimant experience?

The claimant experience is evolving dramatically.

Traditional paper checks are increasingly insufficient. Claimants now expect options — ACH, prepaid cards, digital wallets, and other electronic modalities — delivered quickly and securely.

Real-time rails and digital disbursement platforms are reshaping expectations around:

  • Speed
  • Choice
  • Transparency of payment status

At the same time, the institution must provide tools so that flexibility coexists with compliance and oversight.

The institutions that succeed will be those that can offer multiple payment modalities within a controlled, audit-ready environment. That's where innovation truly adds value — not just convenience, but structured efficiency.

As litigation finance and aggregate settlements continue to grow, what role should specialized settlement banks play in reinforcing neutrality and trust?

As capital flows increase in mass tort and aggregate litigation, neutrality becomes even more critical. A specialized settlement bank must function as a stabilizing counterparty amid multi-party financial arrangements. In large aggregate settlements — especially where litigation finance is involved — clarity around control, reporting, and fee segregation becomes paramount.

Our role is not to influence outcomes, but to provide a compliant, transparent, and scalable platform that reinforces trust across all stakeholders: plaintiffs' firms, defense counsel, administrators, courts, and capital providers.

Ultimately, trust in the settlement process depends on financial infrastructure that is purpose-built for complexity — and governed by strong compliance standards.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with John Lopes, Head of Specialty Legal Banking, First Horizon

John Lopes is a market-leading bank executive and recognized authority in financial solutions for the plaintiff-side legal industry. As Senior Managing Director and Head of Specialized Legal Banking at First Horizon Bank, he leads a national platform focused on delivering capital, deposit, and technology solutions to contingency-based law firms, mass tort practices, claims administrators, and Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).

John began his career over 20 years ago advising AM Law firms, building a strong foundation in traditional legal banking and developing deep expertise in the operational and financial dynamics of large defense-side practices. He later held leadership roles at institutions including Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Western Alliance Bank, where he managed significant portfolios, built high-performing teams, and executed strategic growth initiatives across the legal vertical.

Over a decade ago, John identified a critical gap in the market and shifted his focus to the plaintiff side of the bar—where firms face unique challenges related to contingent revenue, cash flow volatility, and complex settlement structures. Since then, he has become a trusted advisor to many of the nation's leading plaintiff law firms and ecosystem partners, structuring sophisticated credit facilities, supporting billions of dollars in settlement flows, and delivering innovative banking solutions across the full lifecycle of litigation.

John is known for his ability to bridge capital, technology, and legal strategy—partnering with law firms, claims administrators, and litigation finance providers to drive growth, enhance liquidity, and create operational efficiency at scale. Through his leadership, he continues to position First Horizon as a premier banking partner to the plaintiff bar, bringing institutional-grade capabilities to a rapidly evolving segment of the legal industry.

He holds a background in financial markets from Yale University and has continued to build on that foundation through executive education with the Yale School of Management.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Lopes:

What gaps in the settlement and mass tort landscape led you to build a dedicated Settlement Services platform?

Historically, most banks approached settlement accounts as transactional escrow relationships rather than as a specialized vertical requiring tailored infrastructure. As mass tort and class action settlements have grown in size and complexity, that model became insufficient.

We saw several structural gaps:

  • Lack of dedicated infrastructure for high-volume sub-accounting and audit transparency
  • Limited understanding of QSF governance, fiduciary responsibilities, and multi-party oversight
  • Manual disbursement processes that created inefficiencies and risk
  • Inflexible credit solutions for contingency firms managing large case inventories

We built our Specialty Legal Banking group to address those gaps holistically — combining dedicated settlement banking, digital sub-accounting, modern disbursement capabilities, and tailored financing solutions under one coordinated platform.

Rather than treating settlements as ancillary deposits, we treat them as a highly specialized ecosystem requiring neutrality, transparency, and purpose-built technology.

Courts increasingly demand transparency and auditability. How do you see expectations evolving around reporting and fiduciary accountability?

Expectations are rising meaningfully. Judges and special masters now expect:

  • Real-time visibility into balances
  • Clear segregation of funds at the claimant or fee level
  • Transparent interest allocation methodologies
  • Clean audit trails across every transaction

In complex QSFs, accountability is no longer theoretical — it must be demonstrable.

We've responded by building a platform that allows structured sub-accounting at scale, defined user permissions (analyst vs. approver roles), exportable audit logs, and reporting that aligns with court oversight requirements.

The future standard will be near real-time transparency, not quarterly reconciliation. Specialized banks must offer specialized infrastructure to the settlement process — not just holding funds.

What are the most significant fraud or AML risks facing settlement administrators today, and how can institutions mitigate them without slowing distributions?

The scale and speed of modern distributions introduce new risk vectors:

  • Synthetic identity and claimant impersonation
  • Payment redirection and ACH fraud
  • Social engineering attacks targeting administrators
  • Sanctions and cross-border payment compliance risk

The key is not adding friction — but adding intelligent controls. Financial institutions must offer:

  • Multi-layer payment verification protocols
  • OFAC and sanctions screening at both onboarding and disbursement
  • Segregated user permissions and dual-approval workflows
  • Positive pay and transaction monitoring services

Technology should accelerate payments while reducing exposure. The answer is not slowing distributions — it's modernizing controls around them.

Claimants now expect faster access to funds and more flexibility in how they receive payments. How is innovation reshaping the claimant experience?

The claimant experience is evolving dramatically.

Traditional paper checks are increasingly insufficient. Claimants now expect options — ACH, prepaid cards, digital wallets, and other electronic modalities — delivered quickly and securely.

Real-time rails and digital disbursement platforms are reshaping expectations around:

  • Speed
  • Choice
  • Transparency of payment status

At the same time, the institution must provide tools so that flexibility coexists with compliance and oversight.

The institutions that succeed will be those that can offer multiple payment modalities within a controlled, audit-ready environment. That's where innovation truly adds value — not just convenience, but structured efficiency.

As litigation finance and aggregate settlements continue to grow, what role should specialized settlement banks play in reinforcing neutrality and trust?

As capital flows increase in mass tort and aggregate litigation, neutrality becomes even more critical. A specialized settlement bank must function as a stabilizing counterparty amid multi-party financial arrangements. In large aggregate settlements — especially where litigation finance is involved — clarity around control, reporting, and fee segregation becomes paramount.

Our role is not to influence outcomes, but to provide a compliant, transparent, and scalable platform that reinforces trust across all stakeholders: plaintiffs' firms, defense counsel, administrators, courts, and capital providers.

Ultimately, trust in the settlement process depends on financial infrastructure that is purpose-built for complexity — and governed by strong compliance standards.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Ian Coleman, Insurance & Funding Broker, Commercial and General

By John Freund |

Ian is a qualified solicitor (non-practicing) in England & Wales. Having been involved in the Legal Expenses Insurance industry since November 1992, he has dealt with Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE) Legal Expenses Insurance in its various forms.

His work has included underwriting for ATE cover, a number of the early competition claims seeking damages for abusive anti-competitive conduct being brought then both in the High Court and Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) in England.

He also underwrote for ATE cover a number of group actions many of which were run under Group Litigation Orders (GLO) and other case management devices, spanning a wide variety of case types. Ian has underwritten numerous commercial litigation cases, civil fraud claims and insolvency matters.

Since 2020 Ian has acted as a broker, intermediating various insurance products relating to litigation and arbitration risks as well as intermediating litigation funding requirements where required.

Below is our LFJ conversation with Ian Coleman:

What does the landscape for litigation funding look like now in the UK?

There are many strong opportunities available in the UK with excellent law firms. The use of litigation funding has become normalised in conjunction with ATE Insurance to cover the adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is no longer seen as a tool just for the impecunious.

Opportunities range from commercial arbitration and investor state disputes to commercial litigation, civil fraud claims and of course the various forms of competition compensation claims conducted in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT).

The availability of litigation funding frequently drives the law firm enquiry.

The Supreme Court decision in PACCAR remains current authority albeit that the Government has said that it will legislate to reverse the position and has received recommendation that be both retrospective and prospective. The caveat being when parliamentary time allows. However, a multiple on capital deployed (or in some cases committed) is permitted offering healthy returns for investors.

It has been suggested that ‘light touch regulation’ will be included in any such legislation or in follow-on legislation. The Lord Chancellor requested advice from the Civil Justice Council (CJC) with regards to the question of regulation. The CJC published its Final Report in June 2025. The CJC has recommended that regulation should not apply to arbitration proceedings as it should remain a matter for arbitral centres to determine whether and, if so, how any such regulation should be implemented. In Court and CAT proceedings regulation of litigation funders should be weighted according to whether the funding is provided to consumers or commercial parties.

The CJC suggests a minimum, baseline, set of regulatory requirements should therefore apply to litigation funding generally. These should include provision for: case-specific capital adequacy requirements; codification of the requirement that litigation funders should not control funded litigation; conflict of interest provisions; the application of anti-money laundering requirements; and disclosure at the earliest opportunity of the fact of funding, the name of the funder, and the ultimate source of the funding. The terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.

It should be noted that the CJC specifically rejected the introduction of caps on litigation funders’ returns.

Law firm portfolio funding or case by case funding are options to consider albeit a balance of the law firm’s and their clients’ needs will be key in deciding which approach is requested. The CJC has recommended specific regulatory provisions for portfolio funding.

What is known as ‘The Arkin Cap’ continues to provide that the Court can make an appropriate decision concerning litigation funder liability for adverse costs on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, litigation funders will inevitably require that suitable ATE is in place.

It should be noted that no regulation has yet been introduced and it is debatable when there will be parliamentary time to attempt to do so. In any event regulation logically would be prospective only.

Can you speak to the issue of domiciling of funding SPVs to maximise insurance availability? 

Where litigation funding is sought it is extremely common in the UK for ATE Insurance to be required as part of the package and often Capital Protection Insurance is purchased by the litigation funder. Most of the insurance capacity for these products emanates from markets based in London.

Insurance may only be sold into a territory for which the insurer has a licence. The licencing requirements are dictated by the domicile of the Proposer (the party seeking insurance).

The Insurers invariably have a licence for the UK and Europe but not necessarily for other territories. In order to maximise the choice of insurance offerings the Proposer is ideally domiciled somewhere in the UK or Europe.

Where the Litigation Funder seeks Capital Protection Insurance (CPI) domiciling the SPV in say Guernsey may have a double benefit both in terms of insurance availability (to achieve the best terms) but also to maximise tax efficiencies. Most jurisdictions levy some form of insurance tax, but those that do not may be seen as attractive to the party paying the insurance premium. Any Litigation Funder seeking to set up an SPV in a tax and licencing friendly location should of course make their own enquiries in order to satisfy themselves that both requirements are met in that particular territory.

Where the Claimant is domiciled in a location that raises licencing challenges this may be overcome by the Litigation Funder providing an Adverse Costs Indemnity via its funding SPV and obtaining the ATE Insurance to cover off that risk.

This will however generally mean that security for costs must be provided but the ATE Policy can be fortified with what has become known as an Anti-Avoidance Endorsement (AAE). AAEs have been accepted in the UK Courts and in many arbitral forums.

Notwithstanding the place of domicile of the Proposer, the insurance policies will generally be written on the basis that the policy is governed by English Law and accordingly the duty of disclosure for the Proposer will be set out in the Insurance Act 2015 for non-consumers and Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 for consumers.

How do clients use insurance to mitigate risk and control funding spend? 

CPI can be obtained to protect some or all the capital deployed. This can be purchased either on a portfolio basis or case by case. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages and that discussion deserves its own separate analysis. Both do mitigate the risk of losing capital. The scope of claim circumstances is a matter of negotiation with Insurers.

Generally, the conducting law firm will require some funding of their fees. Their fees can be further insulated from risk by Work in Progress Insurance (WiP) which protects an element of base fees should the claim be unsuccessful. In some circumstances WiP may be used to curtail the funding requirement.

For bilateral investment treaty arbitrations Arbitral Award Default Insurance (AADI) may also be available.

ATE is used commonly where costs follow the event to protect the risk of the claimant and litigation funder becoming liable for adverse costs.

Is the Competition Appeals Tribunal still a good funding opportunity?

There has been much discussion about the CAT since the changes in 2015. Case longevity, case outcomes and distribution have been frequent topics of conversation. The question to be posed is whether ‘herd-thought’ means that good opportunities are being over-looked. That has most certainly been the experience of the writer.

The sector in the UK has a number of strong law firms, and the CAT requirements are being clarified with decisions that are now flowing through the forum.

Decisions from senior Courts have further assisted in setting out road maps for bringing and conducting such cases particularly with regards to Opt-Out and abuse of dominant position claims.

It should not be a surprise that as the new regime bedded in the earlier cases would take longer to conclude and the pathway would need to be set.

In Opt-Out cases the CAT does consider the funding and ATE packages at Certification stage together with the Class Representative’s understanding of how they work. Whilst certification can be refused on the basis of the above it does not equate in the event of certification to a blessing of the arrangements which can be revisited later.

Sensible pricing models from the outset are important. Certification will now have some regard to the merits of the claim, scope of the defined class and distribution. These can all be well managed to substantially mitigate the risk of the CAT subsequently intervening in stakeholder entitlements.

For cases that are not Opt-Out the above considerations do not apply.

What can you tell us about the importance of being clear on the source of funds? 

The hygiene factor around funds being used to support litigation and arbitration matters is increasingly significant. Litigation Funders should be aware of this and consider the level of checks that are required in other financial sectors. Matters such as KYC, AML, UBOs and sanctions / PEP enquiries are often mandatory. This approach would be reflective of the CJC recommendations.

The confirmation that such checks have been conducted and were satisfactory could well prove to be decisive where there are competing offers of litigation funding on the table.