Trending Now
LFJ Conversation
" />

An LFJ Conversation with Tanya Lansky, Managing Director of LionFish

February 5, 2024

An LFJ Conversation with Tanya Lansky, Managing Director of LionFish

Tanya Lansky is Managing Director of LionFish and has been working in the disputes finance and insurance industries for close to a decade. After reading law in London Tanya sought to abstain from treading the traditional legal pathways, and instead began her career at TheJudge Global, the then independent specialist broker of litigation insurance and funding. Tanya then joined boutique advisory firm Emissary Partners to leverage her relationships in the market and her economic understanding of disputes as an asset. LionFish is a London-based litigation funder offering financing solutions for litigation and arbitration risks. Founded in 2020 as a subsidiary of listed RBG Holdings Plc, the firm was acquired by funds managed by Foresight Group – the private equity firm with over £12bn AUM – in July 2023. With a core focus on efficient delivery, the firm’s transparent approach is a reflection of its corporate structure as principal investor which in turn also enables it to ensure alignment with its clients and their interests. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ms. Lansky: Litigation finance has grown exponentially over the past decade, yet the industry is still nascent, with room for innovation and growth. What role does LionFish play in the funding industry’s future growth? To-date, our market has often been compared to trends and growth of the legal industry. The reality is, we are a financial services industry which we believe should be our reference point as a market. This is why we encourage, share and apply standards that are commonplace in financial markets, which we believe will help drive further growth as well as a more robust framework with established credibility and transparency from which innovation can flourish. In this context, we frequently vocalise the drivers we believe would help further industry growth. Standardisation or documentation frameworks, as we recently wrote about in Bloomberg Law, is one such example. Another is encouraging market standard processes around the mechanics of how litigation funding agreements work, which naturally delivers greater transparency. Although the list can go on, a third is more coordination with the contingent and dispute risks insurance markets who play a central role in our market and beyond. We appreciate that we are just one of many players in the market and that this will have to be an industry-wide effort, but it must start somewhere. So, our contribution to the industry’s future growth is a starting point that encourages greater engagement and highlights the issues that we see prohibiting growth, all whilst practising the things we preach. Your website states that you are not a traditional litigation funder – how does LionFish differentiate from the competition? We are often asked by funders, insurers and lawyers to talk about “your fund” because many assume that all litigation funders are investment managers using third party capital raised from external investors. LionFish’s core business does not involve managing investor monies; we do not run a fund based on management and performance fees, but instead invest straight off our balance sheet such that if we lose, we are not losing investor monies but our own. Conversely, if we win, we keep those returns instead of paying them to investors. Greater reward but also greater risk, but critically, and in terms of how this translates to our client, this means that the decision-making sits with us and not our investors. This benefits our clients in several other ways. Firstly, we do not waste time looking at cases that may be remotely fundable but unsuitable for our portfolio. We are therefore candid, sincere and swift in our responses. Secondly, given that the decision-making sits solely within LionFish, we deal with opportunities and live investments efficiently and quickly. Thirdly, we are not investing in a defined pool of capital for fees but simply building and sustaining a profitable business. We therefore think in terms of long-term solutions that help forge long-term relationships. Perhaps most importantly though, our model allows us to invest in the £500k to £2m range that most often funders cannot do viably because of their business models. So, while we do compete for and have funded investment tickets considerably larger than £2m, our greater range of investment appetite means that we are more relevant to a wider range of lawyers than most others. How has the Foresight acquisition changed LionFish’s strategy and operations? When our previous parent company, RBG Holdings Plc, announced that they were going to sell LionFish, we received significant interest in the business from multiple, differing parties. However, because of the different perspective they had on us as a business Foresight was such a natural fit. From very early on, it was very clear that Foresight recognised the strengths of our model and acknowledged that the issue was that the business was housed in the wrong structure (RBG being listed). Foresight therefore had no want to make changes to our business model but instead sought to enhance it. For example, our previously robust infrastructure became even more resilient and slick. We have also been able to assemble a new Board and panel of advisors, all of whom bring very relevant, heavy-hitting gravitas both in terms of breadth and depth of expertise and experience. So, although our strategy and USP has not changed, the operational tweaks have strengthened the business and improved the ‘user experience’ for our customers, providing them with greater confidence in working with and choosing LionFish as long-term partner. Much is being made about the recent PACCAR ruling in the UK, where the Supreme Court found that litigation funding agreements can be classified as ‘DBAs’, and may therefore be unenforceable under the 2013 DBA Regulations. What are your thoughts on the implications of this ruling? How impactful will this be on the funding industry in the UK going forward? Six months on from the judgment, we are pleased to see that the recognition of its damaging implications have been widespread and that there is movement and an explicit desire from the government to address it. The Post Office scandal in the UK has highlighted the value of litigation funding; at the height of its widespread media coverage, the lead claimant Alan Bates (after whom a BBC mini-series on the scandal was named) wrote a piece in the Financial Times regarding his views on reversing the PACCAR judgment given that justice would not have been served following one of the greatest domestic injustices of the 21st century to-date. This brought the consequences of the PACCAR judgment to the fore. Against this backdrop, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk MP told the Financial Times that litigation funders should be protected from the PACCAR judgment and that the Government would remedy the issue across the board at the earliest possible opportunity. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer bill is working its way through parliament and if it is passed into law, LFAs in opt-out competition claims (where DBAs are not permissible) will not be deemed to be DBAs (which would of course apply retrospectively). The latest Parliamentary debate surrounding the bill has been quite telling and reflective of the Lord Chancellor’s statement regards the intention to remedy what some Lords described as the “mistaken decision” and for this to be achieved across the justice system. Although the latest Parliamentary debate suggests that the bill will not go further than the CAT, Lord Offord of Garvel emphasised government’s policy to return to the pre-PACCAR position at the earliest opportunity. It is worth noting the long-term support of this point, in that as early as 2015, the Ministry of Justice has stated that LFAs should not be considered DBAs and the DBA Regulations should be clarified to reflect this. If nothing changes, the impact will continue to be damaging to the detriment of some claimants and more generally to access to justice – despite the fact that the industry would (as it has already done) adapt. That said, at the time of writing, we are encouraged by the drive and determination at the legislative and parliamentary levels to address the consequences of the PACCAR judgment. What are the key trends to watch out for as the litigation finance industry continues to evolve over the coming years? Consolidation and sophistication are probably the two key trends to watch out for. That said, the elements that drive these trends are what we think are the most interesting to watch. The first is that the institutional capital involved in the market is more experienced than ever and is sharpening in terms of appetites and investment profiles. This will inevitably continue to propel the industry forward and see it evolve in a Darwinistic way, with institutional capital focusing on the stronger players. Another, and a sign that the market is maturing, is the recognition of the various subsets of the litigation funding asset class – in the same way that real estate investing has long been recognised as a combination of many subsets of investing (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.). This is because funders are developing more targeted investment strategies. For example, the rise of law firm portfolio lending, which is very different from single case investing, appears to have driven funders to hire former bankers rather than lawyers. While some focus on group actions and mega-value claims, others focus on specialist claim types such as intellectual property or high-volume mass tort consumer claims. And, within single case investing, some are even redefining their strategies around philosophies such as ESG, or size (as we are). Fundamentally, with greater focus and specialisations, the feel of the litigation funding market will become more comparable to other established financial markets. The biggest trend-setting-element though is the increasing financial sophistication of the industry. To date, the industry has been dominated by ex-litigators but with the interplay of litigation insurance and funding, it is clear that beyond the underlying investment is a need to understand the structure it sits in. With funders increasingly hiring beyond the litigation sphere, we can only see this as a beneficial element which will allow for the market to continue evolving and maturing.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Ian Garrard, Managing Director of Innsworth Advisors

By John Freund |

Ian Garrard is the managing director of Innsworth Advisors Limited, the advisor and manager to the funds that provide third party litigation funding for high value claims in the UK, EU and US.

Claims under management include high profile and groundbreaking claims in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal against Meta and Amazon, claims in the Netherlands against Oracle and Salesforce, as well as claims against VW in Germany and Apple in the US.  Before moving into litigation funding, Ian was a lawyer in private practice (on financing, restructuring and litigation matters) as well as a founder of specialist law firms and an advisor to major oil & gas interests on exploration and production assets.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ian Garrard:

The claim against Rightmove alleges that the portal charged estate-agents “excessive and unfair” listing fees, and that the action will proceed on an opt-out basis for thousands of agencies. What specifically attracted Innsworth to fund this case, and how does it fit with your overall litigation-funding strategy? 

Your readers will appreciate that we can’t say too much at this early stage, but on our evaluation it is a strong case on its merits, with a considerable amount of harm caused to the proposed class of businesses. Jeremy Newman, the proposed class representative and a former CMA panel member has an excellent team supporting him, led by lawyers from Scott+Scott UK LLP. Innsworth is a committed funder of opt out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and this case fits squarely within our focus. More information on the claim is available at rightmovefeesclaim.com.

More generally, this is an exciting time for us. We are funding three other opt out claims in the CAT and we have just announced a claim on behalf of Uber drivers in the UK and Europe, which alleges that Uber has unlawfully used automated decision-making, including profiling, in its pricing systems to dynamically set driver pay by algorithm and reduce their take-home pay. If the claim doesn’t settle in the pre-action phase then the intention is to issue collective proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands. We also have lots of promising cases in our pipeline at the moment, working in collaboration with a range of London and EU based law firms.

Opt-out class actions in the UK’s competition-law space have historically faced procedural and payout-challenges. How is the funding arrangement structured in this Rightmove claim to align incentives across Innsworth, the claimants, and their legal counsel? 

There has been much said and written about the challenges the UK’s opt out regime is working through - including the need to balance reasonable certainty as to the level of returns a funder will derive and the desire to ensure that the regime delivers for the benefit of the class. The benefit of any recovery by the class comes at a cost - as in any commercial context – and the CAT to its credit recognises the importance of third party funding to the functioning of the opt-out regime. Recognising this and the interests of the class, the funding is structured in a way that seeks to align those interests.

From a business model perspective, Rightmove commands a dominant share of UK property-portal traffic and listings (reportedly over 80%). How do you assess the strength of the antitrust and competition arguments in the claim, and how does Innsworth evaluate the potential for a precedent-setting outcome if the tribunal rules favourably? 

The Rightmove fees claim announcement follows a series of English unfair pricing judgments which have gone a long way to clarify how an English court or tribunal will approach these kinds of cases. Rightmove uses its high market share as a marketing tool and has achieved sky-high margins over many years, achieved through regularly increasing its prices.  Many agents feel they have no choice but to be on Rightmove and Rightmove knows that. Commentary from industry figures following the announcement of the claim has highlighted how strongly many class members feel about Rightmove’s pricing.

Litigation funding in large scale opt-out claims is increasingly visible to institutional investors. How does Innsworth view its role as a funder in terms of transparency, reputation-risk management, and alignment with claimant-interests?   

We take our role as a stakeholder in the UK (and global) litigation funding community very seriously and we are confident in the value that our funding provides. The service we provide, of non-recourse funding, protects claimants against the costs of litigation.

If our funding unlocks redress for a class, that is a recovery for those harmed that would not otherwise have been achieved, so there is therefore a synergy between the interests of a funder and a class harmed by breach of competition law.  Innsworth is transparent about its funding and terms of funding in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

We do think there is a debate to be had about whether defendants should have access to financial information on e.g. a claim budget and funder commission. We think it’s fair that a defendant should be satisfied that a litigation funder can meet any adverse costs order made against it in an opt out claim (as England and Wales is a ‘loser pays’ jurisdiction). But currently defendants to these claims will scrutinise claim budgets and funding agreements in detail and use this to make opportunistic arguments, while claimants typically have no visibility on defendant budgets and funding. It’s an example of the information asymmetries which exist when seeking to hold dominant companies to account.

What is your take on the litigation funding market for opt out claims in England and Wales at the moment? 

We’ve seen a real slowdown in the number of claims being filed in the last year or so. A lot of this is due to uncertainty as to the level of return that the Competition Appeal Tribunal will permit a funder to receive, even if this has been freely agreed between a class representative and funder. Of course, the effect of PACCAR has made funding more challenging in England and Wales generally.

That said, Dr Kent’s recent success in her claim against Apple highlights the potential of the regime to hold dominant companies to account and to deliver meaningful redress to class members. The judgment is timely as the UK government is currently considering making reforms to the opt out regime in the face of a concerted lobbying effort from big business groups. We think the opt out regime is starting to deliver on its objective of improving competitiveness in the UK economy, so making any wholesale changes now would be counterproductive, but the prospect of reforms is adding to the uncertainty facing the regime.

LFJ Conversation

How Nera Capital Reached $150M in Investor Returns

By John Freund |
Aisling Byrne is a Director at Nera Capital, a leading litigation funder with a global footprint, where she plays a central role in driving the firm’s growth and strategic initiatives. With extensive experience in litigation funding and investor relations, Aisling focuses on building strong partnerships with law firms, funders, and stakeholders while overseeing the operational efficiency of the firm. Her leadership combines a pragmatic, solutions-driven approach with a deep understanding of both consumer and commercial claims.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Aisling Byrne:
Nera recently passed $100 million in investor repayments, citing a “data-driven approach to case selection and risk management” as a key factor. What specific data-centric approaches have contributed the most impact?
At Nera, we see data not as a supporting tool but as the backbone of our decision-making. Our proprietary models assess thousands of variables across historical case outcomes, jurisdictional nuances, law firm performance metrics, and even the efficiency of courts. By feeding this data into predictive analytics, we can more accurately model recovery timelines and probabilities. What’s been most impactful is combining quantitative scoring with qualitative oversight—data helps us remove emotional bias, while our team of experienced professionals ensures the analysis is grounded in real-world legal and enforcement dynamics. That dual approach has allowed us to deliver consistent investor repayments while scaling responsibly.
Nera has now reached $150m in investor returns.
You secured a £20 million funding line from Fintex Capital, bolstering Nera’s ability to support consumer claims and expand funding sources. How do such funding lines influence your ability to take on riskier or less predictable claims, including those where pre-judgment attachment might play a role in enforcement?
Regardless of how many new funding lines we secure, it doesn’t mean our approach changes. In the consumer division, our strategy of supporting proven, legal precedent set claim types and claim selection criteria remains exactly the same—and that high bar has been fundamental to our success and our ability to deliver substantial repayments to investors. The additional capital simply allows us to scale what we already do well, without diluting our standards.
For investors with a different criteria, the commercial division may be better suited. Those cases can sometimes have less predictable timelines, but also offer higher potential returns. In this way, we can align capital sources and timelines with the most appropriate claim types, ensuring consistency in performance while broadening the opportunities we can pursue.
Many financialized legal claims carry the potential for post-judgment or post-award interest and/or enforcement costs. Could you speak to how Nera evaluates the enforceability of judgments, including the likelihood of successful asset attachments (domestic or abroad), in structuring returns for investors?
Enforceability is as important as the merits of the case itself. A favourable judgment is meaningless without a realistic pathway to recovery. At Nera, we always seek to avoid claims where enforceability is in doubt. Before committing, we carry out a comprehensive enforceability assessment, which includes mapping the defendant’s asset profile, reviewing local enforcement regimes, and stress-testing recovery prospects. This rigorous upfront analysis is a cornerstone of our underwriting approach, and in our 15 years of business, we have not experienced enforcement issues—a strong validation of the discipline and prudence built into our process.
Given that litigation finance is often argued to be an “uncorrelated asset class,” how does Nera balance its portfolio of consumer mass claims, commercial disputes, and potential cross-border enforcement matters to provide both stability and high upside for investors?
Diversification is central to our portfolio construction. Consumer claims tend to generate steady, repeatable outcomes that provide stability and heavy settlement cash flows. Commercial disputes, on the other hand, carry larger ticket sizes and higher upside, but sometimes involve greater complexity and longer timelines.
When it comes to cross-border enforcement matters, we take a very cautious stance. We look to avoid supporting claims where enforceability could present difficulties and always conduct an upfront enforcement assessment. By working with leading lawyers and advisers in each jurisdiction, we ensure risks are fully evaluated and mitigated before committing capital.
Because these different claim types are not only uncorrelated with traditional markets but also with one another—thanks to variations in claim structure, jurisdiction, and duration—we can actively balance short-term liquidity against long-term growth. This layered approach allows us to deliver both stability and meaningful upside, while staying true to the uncorrelated nature of litigation finance.
 
As Nera has expanded into the Netherlands and joined the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA), what regulatory, ethical, or procedural hurdles have you confronted? How do these shape your funding models?
Europe presents both opportunities and challenges. In the Netherlands, collective redress mechanisms are still evolving, and with that comes heightened regulatory and judicial scrutiny. By joining ELFA, we’ve committed to the highest standards of transparency, governance, and ethical practice, which we see not as a constraint but as a competitive advantage.
One hurdle has been adapting our funding structures to meet jurisdiction-specific requirements, such as disclosure obligations and court oversight of funder involvement. These challenges have made us more deliberate in how we design our funding contracts and financial models, ensuring they are robust, compliant, and aligned with the long-term sustainability of the sector. Ultimately, we welcome this direction—it elevates the industry and builds trust with investors, law firms, and claimants alike.
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le of Siltstone Capital

By John Freund |

Jim Batson serves as Managing Partner, General Counsel, and Chief Investment Officer of Siltstone Capital’s legal finance strategy, where he leads investment origination, diligence, and portfolio management for global dispute-related opportunities. With over a decade of experience in legal finance, Jim brings a unique blend of legal expertise and investment acumen to Siltstone’s expanding platform.

Before joining Siltstone, Jim served as the Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors, a litigation finance advisory company, and before that, as the Co-Chief Investment Officer – U.S. at Omni Bridgeway, a global litigation finance fund manager. At Omni, Jim was instrumental in expanding the firm’s U.S. presence, implementing the U.S. investment strategy, and developing one of the most respected teams in the industry.

Jim began his career as a trial lawyer. He later became a partner at Liddle & Robinson in New York, where he handled groundbreaking cases, including the seminal e-discovery case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. His experience as both a litigator and investor enables him to evaluate risk and opportunity from multiple angles, making him a trusted partner to law firms, claimholders, and investors.

Robert Le is a Founder and Managing Partner of Siltstone Capital. Prior to founding Siltstone, Mr. Le was a Portfolio Manager at an investment platform of Millennium Partners, a hedge fund located in New York. Mr. Le managed a portfolio of public investments in the energy sector. Before Millennium, Mr. Le helped launch the E&P strategy at Zimmer Lucas Partners (“ZLP”), a Utility and Master Limited Partnership (“MLP”) focused hedge fund. During his tenure, the E&P portfolio became the top performing strategy.

Prior to ZLP, Mr. Le worked as an Analyst at Canyon Capital. Prior to Canyon, Mr. Le was an Investment Banking Analyst at Morgan Stanley in the Global Energy Group. Mr. Le graduated from the University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude and as a Benjamin Franklin Scholar. Mr. Le also received a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship for postgraduate studies in Sydney, Australia.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jim Batson and Robert Le:

How does Siltstone integrate legal considerations into your investment strategies, particularly in the niche asset classes you focus on?

At Siltstone, legal analysis is at the heart of every decision we make. Before we commit capital—whether it’s in complex commercial disputes, or intellectual property—we start by looking at the case through a legal lens.

We’ve also developed proprietary software that allows us to quantify and track those risks in a disciplined way. By integrating legal considerations directly into our financial models, we’re able to bridge the gap between legal strength and economic value. Bringing on Jim Batson further strengthens our focus on diligence, given his breadth of experience.

Siltstone emphasizes 'organically sourced alternative investment opportunities.' Can you elaborate on the process of identifying and securing these unique opportunities?

When we talk about “organically sourced alternative investment opportunities,” we mean opportunities that come to us through the network we’ve built and cultivated.  Over the years, we’ve developed deep relationships across the litigation finance ecosystem, including law firms, businesses, claimants, insurers, experts, and brokers.  Those connections give us access to opportunities early, often before they hit the broader market.

We’ve also worked hard to create platforms that connect the industry more broadly, most notably LITFINCON—the premier litigation finance conference. LITFINCON has become a central gathering point for funders, law firms, insurers, investors, and thought leaders. In January 2026, we’ll host our fifth iteration in Houston, where we will once again be at the center of conversations shaping the industry and making connections.

By combining long-term relationships, our collective experience, and the connections we form at LITFINCON, we’re able to consistently identify and secure unique, high-quality opportunities that align with our investment strategy.

Siltstone aims to provide 'uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns.' What strategies do you employ to ensure the portfolio remains uncorrelated and resilient to market fluctuations?

At Siltstone, when we talk about delivering “uncorrelated risk-adjusted returns,” we mean building a portfolio that’s insulated from broader market swings. Case outcomes move on their own timelines and are driven by judicial processes, not by macroeconomic headlines.

Our proprietary risk-assessment tools enable us to model duration, damages, appeal exposure, and recovery probabilities, which provides discipline in portfolio construction and helps keep correlations low.

This mix of uncorrelated assets, disciplined structuring, and diversified exposure makes the portfolio resilient, regardless of broader market fluctuations.

Could you share insights into any recent developments or trends you're observing in the legal finance sector, and how Siltstone is adapting to these changes?

One of the biggest developments we’re seeing in legal finance is the continued professionalization and institutionalization of the space. What was once a niche, under-the-radar asset class is now drawing attention from major investors who are looking for uncorrelated returns. That shift brings both opportunity and competition.

We’re also watching growth in secondary markets—funders and investors are increasingly finding ways to trade exposure midstream, whether through portfolio sales, insurance solutions, or securitized products. That liquidity dynamic is changing how capital flows into the sector and how risk is managed.

Another important development is the ever-changing landscape of insurance. The use of insurance to protect downside risk has become far more sophisticated, with products ranging from adverse costs coverage to judgment preservation insurance. For funders like us, insurance provides an additional tool to de-risk investments and expand our ability to structure creative solutions for clients and investors alike.

We’re also seeing the rise of technology and data-driven tools. From case analytics to AI-driven damages modeling, the sector is moving toward greater use of predictive insights. At Siltstone, we’ve leaned into this by building proprietary software to better quantify and track litigation risk, which enhances both origination and portfolio management.

Finally, the regulatory conversation is becoming more active. We’re paying close attention to potential disclosure requirements and other legislative proposals. Our approach is to stay ahead of the curve by structuring deals with transparency in mind and building flexibility into our agreements so that regulatory changes don’t disrupt performance.

LITFINCON has quickly established itself as a premier event in the U.S. Now that it’s expanding globally, what factors drove that decision?

LITFINCON has quickly become the premier litigation finance event in the U.S., and expanding globally was the natural next step. As we continue to deploy capital and evaluate opportunities, we’re seeing that the market is increasingly international as claims, structures, and counterparties are emerging across multiple jurisdictions. To stay at the forefront, we need to be engaged globally.

We’re also seeing greater diversity in both the types of cases and the investment structures being developed around the world. Expanding LITFINCON beyond the U.S. allows us to explore those innovations directly, while also connecting with new partners and perspectives.

That’s why, in addition to hosting LITFINCON Houston on January 14–15, 2026, we’ll be taking the event global—with a conference in Singapore this July and another in Amsterdam this Fall. Ultimately, going global is about building on the momentum we’ve created by expanding relationships, opening new doors, and growing a broader, more connected LITFINCON community.