Trending Now
  • Smarter Intake for Litigation Finance Firms
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice

February 25, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har: 1. The UAE has been expanding its legal landscape in recent years. How has the growth of the legal industry in the UAE impacted the demand for litigation funding?

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.
Escalating Legal Costs:
    • 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.
Regulatory Support & Market Maturity:
    • 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.
Greater Awareness & Adoption:

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:  

Preference for Arbitration & Mediation:
    • 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.
Sharia Compliance & Islamic Finance:
    • 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.
Confidentiality & Reputation Sensitivity:
    • 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.
Regulatory Variations Between Onshore & Offshore Jurisdictions:
    • 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.
Government & Public Sector Sensitivities:
    • 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.

3. What are the chief concerns that litigation funders have when it comes to investment in the UAE, and how would you allay those concerns?

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: 

Regulatory Uncertainty:
      • 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.
Enforcement Challenges:
      • 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.
Case Viability and Recovery Potential:
      • 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.
Judicial Discretion and Precedents:

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:

Leverage Offshore Jurisdictions:
    • Encouraging claimants to litigate within DIFC or ADGM courts can provide a more predictable legal framework with explicit third-party funding regulations.
Comprehensive Due Diligence:
    • Litigation funders should conduct thorough case assessments, including analyzing asset recovery potential before committing to funding.
Enforcement Planning:
    • 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.
Risk-Sharing Mechanisms:
    • 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.

4. How do you manage duration and collectability risk? Are these more acute in the UAE than in other jurisdictions, and if so, how impactful are these to your underwriting criteria?

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:

Duration Risk:
      • 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.
Collectability Risk:
      • 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:

      • 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:

      • 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:
      • 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:
      • 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.

5. How do you envision the future of litigation funding in the Middle East over the next 5-10 years, and what key trends or developments do you believe will shape this future?

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

Regulatory Evolution:
      • 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.
Increased Market Adoption:
      • 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.
Technology & AI in Case Evaluation:
      • 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.
Expansion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
      • 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.

Entry of Global Players & Institutional Investors:
      • 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.



About the author

Obaid Mes’har

Obaid Mes’har

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.