Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal

By John Freund |
August 13, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you elaborate on the due diligence process Seven Stars undertakes when assessing legal claims, particularly concerning the solvency of defendants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you describe the structure of the debentures or assignment of interests in fee income used to protect capital, and how the Security Trustee oversees this process?

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

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

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

Given the company’s experience in funding over 56,000 litigation cases, what key lessons has Seven Stars learned about risk management and successful case selection in the litigation finance market?

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

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

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

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

With the industry under sustained regulatory pressure, what should be the industry’s response to those who want to regulate it out of existence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
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.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP

By John Freund |

Jason Levine is an antitrust and commercial litigation partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP.  He previously served as the D.C. office head, and head of U.S. antitrust strategy, at Omni Bridgeway, a global commercial litigation finance company.

Jason’s legal background spans over 25 years in private practice as a first-chair trial lawyer and antitrust litigator in several multinational law firms.  He has tried over a dozen cases and served as lead counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in numerous billion-dollar disputes, including defending against two of the nation’s largest antitrust MDLs.  Jason graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Randall Rader on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Below is our LFJ conversation with Jason Levine:

Where does litigation finance add the most value in antitrust cases, particularly given their scale, duration, and cost profile? 

As in any complex dispute, litigation finance adds significant value in antitrust cases by shifting the risk of fees and legal costs away from the plaintiff or the law firm and to a funder.  Antitrust cases are particularly well-suited to litigation finance because they can be exceptionally costly, require specialized counsel and often multiple expert witnesses, tend to have a long duration, and can involve massive amounts of discovery.

The aspects of the case where a financing arrangement adds the most value will vary depending on the funding mechanism.  If a law firm is handling a matter on a contingent fee basis, then the greatest value from financing typically comes from covering the legal costs the firm would otherwise advance on its own.  Outside a contingent fee scenario, financing is most important in paying counsel’s legal fees, although the funder may also cover legal costs.  The universal point is that, for companies pursuing antitrust litigation, financing can be very attractive because it is non-recourse, permits the company to reserve its legal budget for defensive and compliance matters that are not amenable to financing, and helps convert the legal function from a proverbial “cost center” into a revenue generator.

Funding also increases the client’s options for which counsel to retain, which is particularly important in antitrust cases given their nature.  With outside financing covering legal fees and costs, the client can focus more on the expertise and “fit” of counsel than on their billing rates.  Relatedly, litigation finance can enable a small company to hire a “Big Law” firm that doesn’t offer contingent fee arrangements, rather than potentially being limited to a firm that does.  The same point applies to expert witnesses, making the top echelon available whereas they might otherwise have been prohibitively expensive.

In short, with a meritorious case and litigation financing behind it, a small corporate plaintiff can match a much larger defendant’s litigation resources.  This benefit of leveling the playing field is very clear in antitrust cases, given their scope and cost to litigate, which helps explain why they are funded at a higher rate than most other categories of commercial litigation.

Are there specific types of antitrust claims or procedural postures where you think funding is especially well suited?

Funding is very well suited to antitrust claims where a company has opted out of a class action and is pursuing its claim independently.  This is particularly true if the opt-out occurs after the putative class action has survived motions to dismiss, if not class certification.  At either point, a funder will consider the opt-out case at least partly de-risked.

This benefits the funder because the case is less risky and will have a shorter remaining duration.  It benefits the funding counterparty because the funder’s required return should be lower, given the de-risking, leaving more of the proceeds for the client and the law firm to share.  Substantively, funding is well suited to various kinds of antitrust cases, so long as quantifiable money damages are at stake rather than solely injunctive relief.

What regulatory or legislative developments in litigation finance should antitrust litigators be paying closest attention to right now?

There is significant activity at both the federal and state level that warrants attention, although not specific to antitrust cases.  At the federal level, bills have been proposed that would seek to compel detailed disclosures of the existence and details of litigation financing arrangements, including to the adverse parties.  Another bill would seek to largely shut down the involvement of foreign entities in litigation finance, both by prohibiting the practice by certain state-affiliated actors and also by requiring extremely detailed disclosures by others.

Although it’s fair to say that none of these proposals are a very high legislative priority, they definitely warrant attention, given how far the proposed federal tax on litigation finance proceeds progressed in 2025.  That tax has not been formally re-introduced yet, but that is another possibility that would merit watching.

As the midterm elections in 2026 draw closer, the prospects for movement on any of these proposals will likely decrease, with the exception of a possible “midnight rider” slipped into a year-end Appropriations bill.  That’s something else to watch out for.  In addition, the Advisory Committee on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is considering potential Rule amendments involving disclosure of litigation funding uniformly in federal cases, and this is worth monitoring as well.  Given all these developments, defendants have an increased incentive to seek information about litigation funding arrangements through discovery requests.

At the state level, at least a dozen states are perennially considering different disclosure regimes and regulations that would complicate the use of litigation finance.  Some of this is performative, having failed multiple years in a row in some states.  I would keep a particularly close watch for state-specific versions of the litigation finance tax that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate last year, especially in California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

How do you expect evolving disclosure or taxation proposals to affect big firm strategy in funded matters?

Certainly, large law firms that are considering funding arrangements, or that have them already, will be monitoring the regulatory landscape for important developments.  I would anticipate that the imposition of new regulations in general will cause firms to focus closely on compliance, both on their part as either funded counterparties or as counsel to them, and also on the part of funders.  This might lead to a tendency to favor larger, more established funders that have robust internal compliance capabilities.

Law firms and their funded corporate clients will also likely scrutinize funding agreements even more carefully.  Similarly, if any new industry-specific taxes are enacted, law firms will likely focus on funders’ ability to adapt their return structures to minimize the passed-through impact.  Pricing in line with the market is always important, but potential tax changes could highlight this even more.  Greater regulation could also lead to further consolidation in the litigation finance industry, leaving fewer – but likely larger – companies in the space, making it all the more important for law firms to seek out whatever edge a particular funder can provide in a deal.

I would not expect any new disclosure or taxation regimes to change the way law firms actually litigate their cases, with the exception of disclosure requirements giving rise to more discovery efforts aimed at funding arrangements.  It is possible that a new, aggressive disclosure regime could give certain companies pause about pursuing funding, but I also consider this unlikely to change law firm litigation strategy.

Based on your own transition, what advice would you give Big Law partners or senior associates considering a move into litigation finance or a finance adjacent role?

I would advise them to be patient and to focus on relationships.  Litigation finance companies do not have a classic recruiting pattern like law firms do.  Headcounts tend to remain steady, with opportunistic hiring for purposes of expansion or replacement of departing personnel.  I know several people whose transitions from a law firm into litigation finance took over a year because there simply weren’t openings available.  In that situation, it’s important make contacts at one or more companies and check in with them periodically, because expressing interest in a position and staying top of mind can make all the difference.  A warm internal introduction is much more valuable than cold outreach.

I would also recommend gaining direct exposure to litigation finance before seeking out a position.  Funders will favor partners and associates who have previously handled funded litigation or at least negotiated deal terms with a funder.  This not only credentializes the job-seeker’s interest in a role, it also demonstrates some familiarity with the industry and how it operates.  Relatedly, job-seekers should learn as much as they can about the funder as possible before approaching it.  What kinds of cases does it fund?  Does it have geographical limits, or funding amounts that it favors?  This information is often on the company’s website, and knowing it shows diligence and also helps ensure fit.  For the few publicly traded funders, I strongly recommend reviewing investor materials and annual reports before interviewing.

In addition, particularly for partners, I would emphasize the importance of objectively assessing one’s network and prospects for helping to generate deal flow.  Similar to a law firm, at most funders, origination is a key aspect of a more senior role.  What is your base of potential funding clients?  Do you have strong contacts with litigation business generators at multiple law firms, or with well-placed in-house counsel at companies with suitable litigation?  Are your contacts limited to particular kinds of litigation, and if so, are those ones that tend to receive funding?

These are important questions to answer as granularly as possible before approaching a funder for a job.  For more junior lawyers, consider where you would fit in the funder’s structure, and how you can add value, particularly in the nuts and bolts of underwriting cases.  Here, again, subject matter is important.  Expertise in areas of law that don’t yield funded cases is unlikely to support the business care for a new hire.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Thomas Bell, Founder of Fenaro

By John Freund |

Thomas is the Founder of Fenaro, a modern fund management platform for litigation finance. He holds a law degree from Durham University and has spent his career designing and delivering large-scale, complex financial services platforms. Prior to founding Coremaker's Fenaro product, he spent much of his career at Accenture, PwC, and other management consulting firms, working with global banks, asset managers, and institutional investors.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Thomas Bell:

The litigation finance industry has grown to over $16 billion, yet your blog notes that many firms still run on spreadsheets. What specific operational pain points do fund managers face with legacy systems, and how does Fenaro address them? 

Despite the industry’s rapid growth, most litigation funders continue to rely on in-house spreadsheets or fragmented systems that are not designed to handle litigation finance. From our conversations with funders across the market, three operational pain points consistently arise.

The first is calculation risk. Funders regularly tell us about issues arising from manual models and fragile data infrastructure, ranging from investor reports needing to be reissued due to errors (surprisingly common), to material budget discrepancies only being identified late in a case lifecycle (less common, but in some cases career-ending). Purpose-built fund management systems substantially reduce this risk by centralising data and automating complex calculations.

The second is friction with law firms after a deal has closed. One funder summarised their biggest challenge as “getting lawyers to think in IRR terms.” In practice, this reflects the lack of efficient processes for tracking budgets, agreeing drawdowns, reviewing invoices, and sharing case updates. Fenaro addresses this through the borrower portal, which provides law firms with a structured and transparent way to work with funders throughout the life of an investment, resulting in a much more positive relationship.

The third is operational complexity limiting scale. Many funders speak candidly about ambitious growth plans being constrained by manual reporting, bespoke processes, and operational bottlenecks. Without greater standardisation and automation, it is difficult to scale portfolios or support increased institutional participation. Fenaro is built from the ground up to reduce the overhead of operational processes, while giving funders all the key information required to focus on growing and managing the fund.

Mass tort portfolios can involve thousands of individual claims with constantly shifting data. How does your platform help funders track, value, and report on these complex portfolios without drowning in manual updates? 

In mass tort strategies, some funders are managing regular updates across tens or even hundreds of thousands of individual claims and many different law firms. Several have told us that keeping this information accurate and up to date is a data nightmare that quickly becomes unmanageable, and worry they’re spending too much time on administrative data-wrangling efforts, and not enough time on actually mining the content for value.

Fenaro is designed to process high volumes of case data from multiple law firms in a consistent format. Updates can be submitted through borrower portals or uploaded directly, allowing funders to see the status, valuation, and history of every claim at a glance. As part of this process, the platform runs validation checks and identifies potential duplicate claimants, a serious and well-known issue in mass tort funding. The same validated data is then used to produce investor and internal reports without the need for manual reconciliation.

You've written about the challenges funders face when lending to law firms—particularly around monitoring how capital is deployed. What visibility does Fenaro provide, and how does that change the funder-firm relationship? 

We frequently hear that fund visibility tends to drop sharply after capital is deployed. Monitoring budgets, drawdowns, and expenditure often relies on periodic reporting and manual review.

Fenaro provides funders with continuous visibility at both the portfolio and case level. At the same time, Fenaro gives law firms access to a free borrower portal. Contrary to the perception that firms resist new technology, many lawyers have told us directly that they are willing to adopt tools that reduce administrative burden and improve clarity. The borrower portal allows firms to track funding, compare spend against budgets, submit updates, and request additional capital, reducing friction on both sides and improving the overall relationship.

You've recently launched complex waterfall and scenario modelling functionality. Can you walk us through a use case—how would a fund manager use this feature when evaluating a potential investment or communicating with LPs about projected returns? 

Funders often tell us that building and maintaining waterfall models in spreadsheets is one of the most time-consuming and error-prone parts of the investment process. Fenaro allows complex waterfalls to be configured in seconds, with multi-step logic based on capital return, interest, IRR, MOIC and other calculation types.

A flow view presents the waterfall logic in plain English, and scenario-modelling functionality allows users to test scenarios and explain outcomes to investment committees and LPs. Once a deal is live, waterfalls update automatically as cashflows occur, removing the need for repeated spreadsheet rework and reducing calculation risk.

Looking ahead, where do you see the biggest opportunities for technology to transform how litigation finance firms operate? Are there capabilities that funders are asking for that don't exist yet?

Many funders we speak to see the biggest opportunities in greater standardisation, which would help unlock institutional capital and support a more liquid secondary market. There is still significant friction in how funders, law firms, investors, insurers, and brokers interact, and we’re tackling this one step at a time, focusing on the most pressing pain points first.

We are also frequently asked about AI and machine learning. Our view is that near-term value lies in decision support rather than decision replacement—particularly in reducing the time spent evaluating the majority of cases that are ultimately declined, while equipping underwriters with better information to make faster, more confident decisions. It will likely be some time before the technology is sufficient to take underwriting decisions on behalf of the funder, given the complexity and variation of the underlying legal cases, but things are moving quickly in the AI space so we continue to test and review various models as they evolve.