Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Stephen Kyriacou, Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk at WTW

By John Freund |
April 29, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Stephen Kyriacou, Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk at WTW

Stephen is a seasoned litigation and contingent risk insurance broker and former practicing complex commercial litigator who joined WTW in February 2025 as Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk Insurance.  In his role, Stephen evaluates litigation-related risks and structures bespoke litigation and contingent risk insurance policies for litigation finance, hedge fund, law firm, private equity, and corporate clients.  Prior to joining WTW, Stephen was a Managing Director and Senior Lawyer in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group.  Stephen joined Aon in 2019, and was the first insurance industry professional dedicated solely to the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, leading the Litigation Risk Group’s origination and business development work, in-house legal diligence, efforts to advocate for coverage with underwriters, and negotiation and structuring of insurance policies.  During his time at Aon, Stephen was a three-time Risk and Insurance Magazine “Power Broker” (2022, 2023, 2024); spearheaded the development of judgment preservation insurance and insurance-backed judgment monetization as well as the synergy of litigation and contingent risk insurance with litigation finance; and was responsible for placing billions of dollars in total coverage limits – including the largest ever litigation and contingent risk insurance policy, and several policies that each provided over $500 million in coverage limits – and delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in premium to insurers.  Stephen additionally provided consulting and broking services on litigation-driven, insurance capital-based investment opportunities and sales of litigation claims, insurance claims, and subrogation rights as part of the Aon Special Opportunities Group. Prior to joining the insurance industry, Stephen was a complex commercial litigator in the New York City office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner from 2011 to 2019.  While at BSF, Stephen amassed significant trial, appellate, and arbitration experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in the U.S. and abroad across a wide array of practice areas, including securities, antitrust, constitutional, insurance, first amendment, employment, government contracting, and criminal law, as well as in multidistrict and class action litigation.  Stephen’s clients included banks and other major financial institutions, private equity firms, technology companies, foreign sovereigns, professional sports teams, television networks, insurance companies, corporate executives, and other high-net-worth individuals.   Stephen earned his J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 2010, and is a member of the New York State Bar.  He also clerked for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Stephen Kyriacou:

We’ve seen increased interest in portfolio-based insurance solutions, particularly as the judgment preservation market has tightened.  What’s driving this shift, and how are clients adjusting their risk strategies in response?

When I first joined the insurance industry back in 2019, after about a decade as a trial and appellate lawyer at Boies Schiller, we were primarily insuring single-case defense-side risks with what we now call adverse judgment insurance or “AJI” policies.  Shortly after I started, the focus shifted to the plaintiff side, though most insurers still preferred insuring single cases with what came to be called judgment preservation insurance or “JPI” policies.  These policies protected plaintiffs who had already won at trial or on summary judgment against appellate risk, effectively guaranteeing a minimum recovery from their trial court judgments no matter what happened on appeal.

JPI was the driving force behind the explosive growth in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market for several years, in large part because these policies allowed plaintiffs to monetize judgments more cost-effectively than they could without insurance.  And as the market grew, so did the size of the judgments that were being insured and the amount of coverage limits that insurers were putting up, both individually and collectively, on these policies.  It got to the point where policies providing over $100 million in coverage for multi-hundred-million-dollar judgments became commonplace, and several policies were written that provided more than $500 million in coverage on billion-dollar-plus judgments.  Individual insurers were also sometimes betting tens of millions of dollars on the outcome of a single case as part of some of these JPI larger policies.

Unfortunately, while more modestly sized JPI policies on smaller judgments have generally performed as expected, with insurers not having to pay many claims, some of these larger, more high-profile JPI policies have run into significant challenges on appeal, on remand, and in places like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  And the nature of this insurance is such that one big loss on a multi-hundred-million-dollar policy can more than wipe out the premium gains for insurers on several smaller policies.

The JPI losses that insurers have already incurred, and those they look likely to incur in the near term, have understandably caused many of them to reassess their approach to litigation and contingent risk insurance more broadly.  For some insurers, that has meant pulling back from the space or taking a “back to basics” approach and returning to a focus on defense-side risk.  But for many insurers, it has meant mirroring the pivot that much of the litigation finance industry made several years ago away from single cases – where financial outcomes can hinge entirely on one jury, one trial court judge, or one panel of appellate court judges – and toward a portfolio-focused approach that better spreads risk across multiple diverse cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets.  In fact, the insurers who have come into the market following the JPI boom, and who therefore have no exposure to any of the large JPI policies of recent years, are generally focused, at least for the time being, exclusively on providing this sort of portfolio-based coverage.

Our clients at WTW are embracing this new paradigm.  Where a client may previously have sought to insure a single large patent infringement judgment with a similarly large JPI policy, they might now seek a portfolio-based policy that guarantees a minimum recovery from the combination of that judgment, several other earlier-stage cases that are pending in different trial courts, and numerous other patents they may seek to enforce through litigation in the future.  We’re also working with litigation funders who may previously have sought to insure individual investments on a piecemeal basis once they reached the judgment stage to instead insure portfolios of diversified investments throughout all stages of the litigation lifecycle, including in some cases entire funds or designated sleeves of funds.  Patent and mass tort case aggregators are also increasingly looking to avail themselves of portfolio-based insurance solutions that can be tailored to the unique risk profiles of their businesses and used as a financial tool to spur growth and increase profitability.

Law firms are getting in on the action, as well.  We are seeing tremendous interest in “work-in-progress” or “WIP” wrappers that insure, on a cross-collateralized basis, a law firm’s anticipated contingency fee recovery across a portfolio of cases.  Many of the recent WIP insurance placements that we’ve worked on recently have involved patent infringement cases and IP litigation boutiques, but we are also seeing interest from mass tort, personal injury, and product liability law firms, as well as among AmLaw 200 firms that focus on many different categories of high-value, capital- and labor-intensive plaintiff-side commercial litigation.

Can you walk us through what a portfolio-based insurance wrapper actually looks like – both for a litigation funder and for a law firm? How do the structures differ, and what risks are typically covered?

The basic structure of a portfolio-based insurance wrapper is very straightforward.  Essentially, an insured purchases a policy with a specific amount of coverage limits that guarantees the insured will recover an amount equivalent to those coverage limits from the cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets that comprise the portfolio that’s being insured.  If, at the end of the policy term – or if the policy doesn’t have a specific term, once the last of the covered cases or investments has ended – the insured’s recovery is less than the limits on the policy, the insurers will pay out a “loss” on the policy that effectively trues the insured up to policy limits.

Recovery against the policy limits is measured differently depending on who the insured is:  for litigants insuring pools of plaintiff-side litigation, insurers look to any amounts the litigant earns through damage awards and settlements on those cases; for litigation funders, hedge funds, or others insuring investments in litigation-related assets, insurers look to their returns on those investments; for lenders insuring loans to law firms or other participants in the plaintiff-side litigation ecosystem, insurers look to the amount of principal plus interest repaid on those loans; and for law firms insuring their work-in-process or “WIP”  on a group of cases, insurers look to the contingency fees that the law firm collects on those cases.

For a litigation funder, it’s as simple as identifying a set of investments, loans, or other assets to go into the portfolio, identifying the amount the funder has invested in whatever it is that collateralizes the portfolio, and then insuring a minimum recovery that is some significant percentage of the funder’s overall investment.  And as I mentioned earlier, these policies can insure an entire fund, a designated portion of a fund, a specific LP within a fund, or even a more bespoke portfolio comprised of select investments from within a given fund or from a cross-section of different funds.

As with portfolio policies for litigation funders, WIP policies can be placed on a programmatic basis across a firm’s entire contingency fee case book or on a more selective basis across certain specifically identified cases.  Here’s an example of how a WIP policy might work:  Imagine that a law firm was litigating ten cases on contingency, with an anticipated recovery of more than $100 million in contingency fees and expected WIP of $50 million across the portfolio of cases.  The firm could potentially purchase a WIP policy with a $40 million limit, equal to 80% of its expected WIP, which would provide coverage if, over what is typically a five- to seven-year policy term, the ten cases in the portfolio collectively earn the firm less than $40 million in total contingency fees.  If, at the end of the policy term, the firm had only recovered $20 million in total contingency fees, the policy would cover the $20 million shortfall against the $40 million in policy limits.

WIP policies are often used as a mechanism to attract litigation funding at a much lower cost of capital than otherwise would be available without insurance, including from sources of capital that don’t typically invest in litigation-related assets because of the high risk involved.  There are dozens of different capital sources beyond traditional litigation funders – including hedge funds, family offices, private equity firms, private credit lenders, and other alternative sources of capital – who are keenly interested in lending against WIP policies, as well as against other portfolio-based and single-case insurance policies.

WIP insurance can also be a very useful tool for lawyers within firms where the billable hour is king to get approval from executive or contingency fee committees, or from the broader partnership, to bring high-value contingency fee cases.  These policies provide the firm with a guaranteed minimum recovery from contingency fee litigation by the end of the policy’s term such that, if the cases don’t ultimately work out as planned, the financial result to the firm will be the same as if the lawyers on those cases had spent several years simply billing their time on non-contingency fee matters for clients who received a small discount on those lawyers’ hourly rates.

I should also note that, for any portfolio-based policy, as with some of the more traditional single-case policies like judgment preservation and adverse judgment insurance, premiums are generally in the form of one-time upfront payments.  But for portfolio policies more than single-case policies, there are also mechanisms like deferred and contingent or “D&C” premiums that insurers are increasingly willing to employ to bring down the upfront premium cost in exchange for a modest piece of the recovery waterfall if the cases or investments that comprise the insured portfolio are highly successful.

How are insurers underwriting these portfolio-based structures differently than single-case policies?  Are there specific underwriting thresholds, case mix requirements, or expected returns that make a portfolio “insurable”?

Most insurers define a “portfolio policy” as one that is insuring at least three to five cases, and the more the merrier.  These cases should be uncorrelated, such that they should not all rise and fall together, and the more diversity that can be introduced into the portfolio – with regard to identity of plaintiffs, identity of defendants, specific causes of action, subject matter of the litigation, etc. – the better, as well.

That being said, it is common for an insured portfolio to be comprised of cases from a single plaintiff or representing only a single subject matter area from a litigation funder, law firm, or group of lawyers within a law firm who specialize in that subject matter area – think patent infringement, antitrust, or mass tort litigation.  And of course, insurers are highly vigilant about adverse selection, and will not insure portfolios that they suspect to be comprised of a prospective insured’s cherrypicked worst or riskiest cases or investments.  The easiest way to mitigate this suspicion as a prospective insured is to insure a “complete set” – whether the entirety of a given fund from a litigation funder, a law firm’s entire contingency fee case book, a patentholder’s entire patent portfolio, or a litigant’s entire portfolio of plaintiff-side cases.

Underwriting one of these portfolios is a very different exercise than underwriting a JPI or AJI policy.  Rather than a single case with an extensive, well-developed record (including, as was often the case with JPI placements, the exact appellate record that would be put before an appellate court when they are asked to decide the case), insurers are often faced with a high number of cases and less detailed and voluminous information about each individual case.  Often, cases that are already underway will have a limited history of case filings and unfiled cases will have only a preliminary case description and damages evaluation.  Accordingly, while the number of cases increases substantially, having less information per case can result in the amount of underwriting time, and associated underwriting fees, being relatively similar to a JPI or AJI policy.

In terms of the actual underwriting process, it’s important to keep in mind that insurers do not need to put all their eggs in a single basket on portfolio polices like they do for a JPI or AJI policy.  Instead, they determine the likelihood of success for each case in the portfolio and then assign an expected return to that case.  Then, using a weighted average of all the cases, the insurer determines exactly how likely it is that the portfolio will collectively return an amount that exceeds the limits being purchased.  Insurers are also looking at other things, as well, like a law firm or litigation funder’s track record on similar cases or investments, the underwriting guidelines being used to select cases or investments, the bona fides of the key individuals involved, case budgets, and the judgment collection and enforcement risk presented by the relevant defendants.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the structure of portfolio-based insurance policies makes it much less likely that a policy could suffer a full limit loss given the number of cases or investments that would need to go poorly in order for that to happen.  This is another key differentiator from JPI, where a single adverse appellate court decision or bad remand outcome can sometimes cause a full limit loss.

Lastly, as I noted earlier, insurers will often look to include a deferred and contingent or “D&C” premium in portfolio-based policies, which allow the insurer to participate in the upside of a portfolio of cases or litigation-related investments if the portfolio turns out to be highly successful.  Since a D&C premium only kicks in after the insured has recovered an amount in excess of coverage limits, underwriters of portfolio-based policies with a D&C component will also evaluate the probability that a portfolio brings in proceeds well in excess of limits, thus entitling them to that additional backend premium.

For litigation funders raising capital or structuring new vehicles, how critical is it to have an insurance solution baked in from day one? Are LPs demanding it, or is it still seen as an optional enhancement?

It ultimately depends on the type of investment capital that a funder is looking to attract.  Traditional litigation finance LPs, who seek to make high-risk, high-reward investments, often view insurance as antithetical to why they are investing in litigation finance in the first place, because the premium costs – whether upfront or D&C – cut into their returns.  These investors, and those funders who follow the same ethos, are generally not interested in wrapping their funds with any form of principal protection insurance coverage because they don’t want to forfeit any of their upside in order to do so.

On the other hand, a litigation funder who wraps a new fund with principal protection insurance can attract an entirely new class of investors that typically does not invest in litigation finance – investors who don’t need to understand litigation funding, or even litigation itself, in order to invest.  These LPs may invest in an insurance-wrapped fund precisely because their downside is de minimus or, depending on the limits of the relevant policy, essentially zero, but with a high potential upside – albeit, not as high as the upside would be without insurance.  This makes insurance-wrapped funds an ideal target for certain investment banking, pension fund, private equity, private credit, university endowment, sovereign wealth, family office, and other investors who will happily accept lower returns in exchange for lower – or, again, depending on the specific policy structure, potentially zero – risk.

So based on that, I see insurance coverage on a fund-wide basis as an optional enhancement that is very funder- and LP-dependent.  But it’s important to remember that we have a significant amount of flexibility in how we can structure these policies to best achieve our clients’ financial and risk management goals.  To give one example, there was a deal I worked on that involved a loan that a funder made to a law firm where the funds for the loan came from multiple different LPs, some of which needed principal protection coverage and some of which did not.  We were able to structure an insurance policy that only insured the portion of the loan attributable to the LPs who needed insurance coverage and effectively treated the portion of loan funds that came from the other LPs as co-insurance on the policy.  The significant co-insurance piece brought the cost of coverage down from where it would have been had we insured the entirety of the loan or a high percentage of the loan funds coming from all LPs.  So even in situations where there are distinct or even polar opposite LP needs on a single investment, loan, or other transaction, we can often create an insurance-based solution that works to deliver an optimal balance of risk and reward for everyone, enabling deals to get done that just would not have happened without insurance.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Elena Rey, Partner, Brown Rudnick

By John Freund |
Elena Rey heads the firm’s Litigation Funding group and is a co-head of the European Special Situations team. Elena represents funders, private equity funds, family offices, law firms and claimants on complex cross border litigation funding, investment & special situations transactions, and is recognised by The Legal 500 as a leader in the litigation funding space. Elena is a founder of the Firm’s annual European Litigation Funding conference held in London, as well as the Litigation Funding industry working group, which was created with the aim of preparing model documentation for the litigation funding market. Elena is also a co-author of the Loan Market Association book on real estate finance. Elena is admitted to practice in England & Wales. She holds a master's degree from Harvard Law School and is fluent in French and Russian. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Elena Rey: What was the driving vision behind launching the European Litigation Funding Conference, and how does this year’s agenda reflect the most pressing issues for funders and practitioners in 2025?  At the time there was no forum in Europe for funders and those connected to the litigation funding industry to come together and share ideas. Given our relationships and experienceon both sides of the Atlantic, it felt like a natural step for Brown Rudnick to launch a European conference dedicated to this nascent but growing industry. Our conference is an opportunity to bring together leading players across the litigation funding industry from around the world to discuss trends and developments in different jurisdictions, focus on deals in this space and their origination as well as share knowledge and develop networks. As an advisor to investors, funders and claimants on all matters litigation funding related, we have reflected the issues, opportunities, trends and strategies that we see day to day in the panels. From your perspective, what are the most significant developments in litigation funding across the UK and continental Europe over the past year, and how are those shaping the conversations you expect at the conference?  In the UK,  funders have had to contend with PACCAR and the risk of that decision to historic funding agreements. However, it is anticipated that the CJC recommendations will pave the way for a fix to be enacted that will provide reassurance and certainty for users of funding as well as funders themselves,  which has been lacking and an unnecessary distraction for an industry that is still nascent. Continental Europe is discovering the benefits of funding, slowly but surely, and there is a lot of focus on countries such as Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and the Nordics. There are several promising developments in jurisdictions including in Spain which is looking to introduce opt out collective redress regime for consumers that won’t be possible without funding.  We are also continuing to see strong demand for funding in the Netherlands where the regime is more established. Regulatory reform continues to be a key topic in the sector—how will the conference address differing approaches in the UK, EU, and U.S., and what takeaways do you hope attendees will gain from that dialogue? We have thought leaders from the UK, EU and US who will be sharing their insights on the regulatory developments and potential headwinds facing funders, investors, law firms and claimants who are also impacted. The industry is evolving, and our conference has been successful because attendees gain fresh insights and perspectives from their peers and users of funding as well as investors. The panel discussions cover a broad range of topics. Which are you most excited about, and why?  This is an impossible question to answer for me and it’s our fantastic panelists that make the sessions compelling and very relevant every year. Panels on Group Actions, Law Firm Funding, and European Developments address the key structures and legal issues that are central to the industry and to advancing funded cases. The Private Credit Panel is also consistently one of the most engaging, given the strong interest we are seeing from private equity and distressed debt funds, family offices, and other sources of capital. It is particularly valuable to hear how multi-strategy investment funds view the litigation funding space and how they weigh its risk and return profile against other alternative asset classes Each year we try to include a more light-hearted panel. Last year it focused on the funding of cryptocurrency cases. This year we’ve added a panel called “Trouble” — looking at what happens when a hostile action is taken by one of the parties to a funding arrangement, when a dispute arises, or when some other unusual challenge puts both the funder’s experience and the robustness of the funding documentation to the test. Several recent high-profile deals that went through restructurings have brought these issues into the spotlight, so I expect this will be a particularly engaging panel For many attendees, conferences are as much about relationships as content. What unique opportunities will this event offer for funders, lawyers, and investors to connect and potentially initiate deals? It’s rare for a conference to bring together industry leaders from around the worldconsistently,  and that is the secret of this conference’s success and what is has a strong reputation for. Funders, investors and users of funding know this and that is why they attend, so yes, I expect a lot of deals will be originated at the conference. And because we are not a commercial conference organisation, we are completely focused on the quality of our content and all of our panels are carefully curated to tackle important subjects and panelists are invited because they have something important and relevant to say on that topic. We expect that like in previous years, it will be a standing room only event. -- Click here for more information on the European Litigation Funding Conference 2025.  The event will take place on Thursday, October 9th, and panel discussions will include: 1. State of the Market and Managing Regulatory Uncertainty 2. Private Credit Investment Interest in Litigation Funding 3. Portfolio Diversification and Law Firm Funding Strategies, Risks and Returns 4. Co-funding and Secondary Syndication Strategies 5. Group Actions Landscape - Recent and Upcoming Decisions that Impact Funding 6. Developments in the European Litigation Funding Market 7. Trouble - What Happens When Things Go Wrong & Value Loss Mitigation
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Robin Ganguly, Partner, CANDEY

By John Freund |

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

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

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

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Robin Ganguly:

CANDEY is involved in a wide array of high-value disputes. Can you share some insights into the types of cases that are most challenging or rewarding to work on?

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

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

With offices in multiple international locations, how does CANDEY navigate the complexities of cross-border disputes and international law?

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

Given CANDEY's focus on lawyers' rights and access to justice, what initiatives are you most proud of, and how do they align with the firm's values?

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

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

How has CANDEY adapted to the increasing prevalence of cryptocurrency disputes and financial crime, and what strategies do you employ to stay ahead in these evolving areas?

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

What are your thoughts on the current landscape of legal funding, and how do you see it impacting the types of disputes CANDEY handles?

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

LFJ Conversation

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

By John Freund |

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.