Trending Now
  • La financiación de las acciones colectivas en el punto de mira
  • Funding of collective actions under the spotlight
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 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.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Ken Epstein and Matt Leland, Co-Founders, Backlit Capital Solutions

By John Freund |

Ken Epstein is a co-founder and principal of Backlit Capital Solutions and brings 25 years of experience in bankruptcy law, commercial litigation, restructuring and finance. Ken leverages his deep industry expertise to provide tailored solutions for companies, law firms, investors, and individuals navigating complex litigation and financial restructuring challenges.

Prior to co-founding Backlit, Ken was a Senior Investment manager and Legal Counsel in the New York office of Omni Bridgeway, a legal finance and risk management company, where he led the company’s U.S. insolvency litigation finance platform. In this role, he originated, structured, and managed a diverse portfolio of legal assets, playing a key role in many of the firm’s most significant transactions. Prior to his tenure at Omni Bridgeway, he was a managing director at MBIA, a public financial services company, where he led large-scale initiatives and crisis management efforts. He was also on the board of directors of MBIA Services Corp. Ken started his career as a lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he specialized in financial restructuring and corporate bankruptcy law.

Ken graduated from Brooklyn Law School (cum laude) and holds an accounting degree from the University of Maryland. Ken has also served as an adjunct professor of bankruptcy law at Cardozo Law School. He has been recognized in Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Third Party Funding Guide and the LawDragon Global Restructuring Advisors & Consultants Guide.

Matt Leland brings over 20 years of experience in commercial litigation and litigation finance to Backlit Capital Solutions.  Most recently, Matt was as an Investment Manager and Legal Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Omni Bridgeway.  There, Matt sourced and evaluated funding opportunities, negotiated deal terms, and monitored funded matters through to resolution.

Before Omni Bridgeway, Matt served as partner and as a commercial litigator for nearly two decades at AmLaw 100 firms King & Spalding LLP and McDermott Will & Emery LLP, experienced in all facets of civil litigation, including appeals, trials, arbitrations, and mediations. He successfully represented corporate clients engaged in diverse legal issues including government reimbursement claims, contractual disputes, unfair business practices, deceptive trade practices, civil RICO, and trademark infringement. Over his career, Matt helped clients recover hundreds of millions in damages and has extensive experience working closely with corporate executives and in-house counsel to develop budgets, fee structures, and strategies for all phases of litigation, including early case assessment, discovery, trial, and settlement. He has repeatedly been recognized in peer-reviewed guides including The Best Lawyers in America, Legal 500, and Super Lawyers.

Matt received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was the Publications Director for The Tax Lawyer and The State and Local Tax Lawyer. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the University of New Hampshire.

While earning his law degree, Matt was as a top aide for former U.S. Senator and Congressman John Sununu, after serving previously as the Deputy Campaign Manager on Mr. Sununu’s first campaign.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Ken and Matt: Could you elaborate on Backlit Capital's approach to fundraising support for law firms, particularly start-ups, and what key factors contribute to successful fundraising in today's market?

There’s been no better time to be a law firm seeking financing, as new investors enlarge the funding universe and options multiply. However, the landscape can be daunting and complex.  We invite those firms to take advantage of our experience.  We have spent years on the funding side of negotiations - evaluating claims and risks - and understand the nuanced distinctions between a fundable investment and one that gets passed over by litigation funders, lenders, and alternate investment sources.

Rather than simply connecting lawyers to potential sources of capital, we collaborate with firms, no matter their experience level, to implement comprehensive strategies that achieve specific financing goals.  We showcase the potential of their assets with smart strategic positioning and precise financial modeling to address the investment concerns of potential funding sources. And to drive successful fundraising, we help firms provide transparency with risk profiling, highlight their operational credibility, and seize upon tactics to mitigate unpredictability so that the firm can showcase high-grade opportunities.

Finally, to ease the burden of this process, we provide end-to-end transaction management.  We take on all of the complex and time-consuming tasks associated with legal funding so that clients can focus on providing first-rate legal services.

With the increasing complexity of legal finance, what innovative risk management strategies does Backlit Capital employ to mitigate potential losses for investors and lenders?

We appreciate that these are high-stakes transactions for both the investor and the claimant and our review is disciplined, transparent and robust. Each transaction is different and we provide additional services depending on the client’s need, but here’s how we approach every opportunity:

  • Early-Stage “Pressure Testing”:  We test key legal theories, jurisdictional issues, damages, and enforcement risk with input from independent experts before approaching funders. Backlit will only move forward with quality transactions that bring clear value to all parties. Our funders know that we’ve done the work and stand behind every law firm and claimant we represent.
  • Contingent Insurance Products:  Whether for judgment preservation or adverse cost coverage, we’ll provide detailed financial modeling and help source appropriate products that can reduce litigation risk and, in turn, improve pricing or expand access to capital.
  • Post-funding Oversight:  We offer ongoing monitoring of case progress, legal developments, and emerging risks.  Our proactive oversight, combined with strategic advisory services, allow for early adjustments to protect investments and provide better measures of valuation as the investment moves through the litigation process. Further services include exploration of secondary market options when an investor wants to acquire or monetize a litigation asset.

By combining deep legal and financial expertise with market tools, Backlit ensures that risk is not just identified, but actively managed.   

How does Backlit Capital stay ahead of emerging trends in legal finance, and what future developments do you anticipate will significantly impact the industry?

We’re always focused on potential shifts in the market.  At Backlit, our experience comprises not only litigation finance, but also decades of credit analysis, restructuring, commercial litigation, and government policymaking.  This expertise enables us to identify how trends in financial, legal, and public sectors might influence litigation funding, and this positions Backlit extremely well for what we see as the biggest catalyst in the market – the addition of significant new funding capacity driven by new investors in the sector, like hedge funds, family offices and middle-market institutions. This provides a great opportunity for claimants and law firms looking for funding, but also injects unprecedented complexity into the marketplace.

At Backlit, we developed our services to not only identify, but capitalize, on opportunities for clients on either side of these transactions. Our connections with and understanding of the private capital space allow Backlit to find and structure deals that address the financial, operational and reporting requirements of all parties. As this market continues to grow, we’re positioned to create exciting new investment opportunities for funders and drive strong deals for clients seeking capital.

Can you share insights into a recent successful deal Backlit Capital facilitated, highlighting the unique challenges and solutions implemented?

We expect that over time, most of our business is likely to be on the brokerage side and we are actively working with numerous clients to develop solutions to their diverse funding needs. In the short period since our launch there are two particular engagements that demonstrate the breath of the services we offer beyond traditional funding.

In the first, we have been engaged as an expert in a multibillion-dollar, high-profile bankruptcy litigation to assist a private equity client in the valuation of a complex litigation asset. Backlit has provided counsel, analytics and testimony in support of the client’s position. Our broad in-house capabilities and market expertise allow us to quickly analyze and deliver valuations that support our clients’ goals and survive deep scrutiny.

We have also been engaged on a project basis to help a large multi-billion dollar investment fund evaluate, structure and close a large loan transaction backed by a legal claim.  The borrower’s existing lending relationship ended when the share collateral was involuntarily converted into a legal claim due to litigation surrounding a merger of the entity that had issued the shares.  This was a time sensitive transaction with high stakes for all involved. Selecting legal counsel, working through conflicts, providing assistance on the unique features of legal finance - a discreet asset class - as part of the diligence and in-house deal team was a rewarding experience.

In the context of distress and insolvency, what specific pre- or post-Chapter 11 assistance strategies have proven most effective for Backlit Capital in maximizing creditor trust and claims management?

While we work across sectors, we have a proven specialty in maximizing litigation assets for entities in financial distress and insolvency. Claimants facing the challenges of bankruptcy often have few other meaningful assets, and are extremely capital-restricted in their ability to effectively pursue damages. Additionally, these parties have fiduciary duties that need to be satisfied fully and transparently. Running a robust marketing process and ensuring best pricing is in the best interest of the estates, will enable the trustees to defend their fiduciary decisions if challenged, and given the multiple interests in the case, ensure a fair process and optimization of assets.

With such complex interests to manage, these clients demand specialized approaches that differ significantly from traditional commercial litigation support.

  • Funding for the debtor or trustee: We can help a debtor, bankruptcy trustee or litigation trustee secure funding to pursue legal claims (e.g., fraudulent transfer, preference, breach of fiduciary duty) or help support ongoing administrative costs. Our process ensures all parties are comfortable with transparency, discipline and reporting.
  • Funding for creditors and committees: We can help creditors and committees push back on a debtor’s attempt to bury valuable claims because they don’t benefit management or insiders.  Consulting with us early in the process can help add negotiating leverage and drive up recoveries.
  • Sale or assignment: When parties want to divest all or part of an estate asset, we can help sell or assign litigation claims and judgments, accelerating recoveries and ensuring a minimum return to stakeholders.
  • Post-confirmation litigation trusts: When establishing a post-confirmation trust to investigate and prosecute claims, we can help drive a competitive process, ensuring that the trust is adequately funded and that key professionals are fairly compensated for their work.
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Juliana Giorgi, General Counsel for Latin America at Loopa Finance

By John Freund |
Juliana Giorgi Is a Colombian lawyer and holds a law degree from Spain, with postgraduate studies in international arbitration. She has over 15 years of experience in consulting, litigation, domestic and international arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Juliana Giorgi: Could you elaborate on Loopa Finance’s specific investment criteria when evaluating potential litigation and arbitration funding opportunities in Latin America and continental Europe? The first and foremost consideration in our investment decision-making process is to conduct a rigorous due diligence procedure aimed at maximizing the likelihood that the fund is making a sound investment.  To this end, we follow a two-tiered analysis process comprising both internal and external legal due diligence. The internal review is carried out by our in-house legal team, while the external review is conducted by top-tier law firms retained specifically for this purpose. During these due diligence phases, counsel will thoroughly review the case documentation and information provided by the claimant. To be eligible for funding, the case must meet the following minimum criteria:
  • Financial metrics: The amount of funding sought and the value of the claim must be reasonable and proportionate.
  • Duration: The maximum timeframe the fund is willing to wait for a return on its investment is five years.
  • Respondent’s solvency: There must be sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the opposing party has the financial capacity to satisfy a potential award.
  • Merits of the claim: The likelihood of success must be high, based on a legal and factual assessment.
How does Loopa Finance manage the risks associated with funding litigation and arbitration cases, particularly in regions with varying legal systems and enforcement mechanisms? Variability—and even instability—in legal systems is not necessarily a negative factor. On the contrary, it can be advantageous for the litigation funding industry, as it often leads to a higher volume of disputes, thereby generating a broader pool of investment opportunities. What is particularly noteworthy is that legal instability in a given country does not automatically translate into judicial instability or unpredictability in adjudication. In fact, while fluctuations in substantive law may lead to more disputes, the procedural rules and the competence of the adjudicating authorities often remain stable and reliable. This enables us to reasonably forecast litigation outcomes. That said, we recognize that external factors unrelated to the merits of a case may still influence its resolution. To mitigate such risks, our team includes highly trained and internationally experienced dispute resolution lawyers. This internal capability is further reinforced through the engagement of top-tier law firms to conduct independent due diligence, as previously outlined. Finally, we are fully aware that there are exceptional jurisdictions where the level of systemic instability makes outcome predictability unfeasible or where adverse rulings may result from extrinsic factors. In such cases, we simply refrain from investing in disputes arising in those jurisdictions. Since Loopa Finance operates with its own capital, how does this influence your investment strategy and decision-making process compared to firms that use external funding? Operating with our own capital allows us to act with greater agility and make swift investment decisions without relying on third parties, external processes, or outside funding sources. This autonomy is particularly valuable when participating in a “beauty contest” among funders. In such competitive processes—where multiple funds vie for the opportunity to finance a case—clients place a premium on the funder’s ability to respond quickly and decisively. The ability to independently negotiate commercial terms, assess client counteroffers, and move expeditiously through the decision-making process is critical. In this regard, Loopa holds a significant competitive advantage. What impact has Loopa Finance’s funding had on access to justice and the resolution of legal disputes in Latin America and continental Europe? Broadly speaking, our service has a significant social impact and contributes meaningfully to the administration of justice.  On the one hand, we provide the financial resources necessary for a party with a meritorious claim—who may otherwise lack the means to pursue it—to bring their case forward. In doing so, our involvement facilitates access to justice. On the other hand, our service promotes the principle of “equality of arms.” In many disputes, there may be a significant disparity in the financial capabilities of the parties. While the economically stronger party can afford to retain top-tier legal representation, the weaker party may not have such access. Litigation funding helps level the playing field, enabling both sides to secure high-caliber legal counsel and pursue the dispute on more equitable terms. Can you discuss any recent trends or developments in the litigation and arbitration funding landscape that are influencing Loopa Finance’s strategies and priorities? We are a technology-driven litigation fund with operations across Latin America and Europe. The fund has been active since 2019 and has experienced significant growth in recent years. As our operations expand, we have identified several key trends shaping the markets in which we operate: Market Growth Across Jurisdictions While there are substantial differences between the Latin American and European markets, we are seeing growth in both regions.
  • In Latin America, where the litigation funding industry is still in its early stages and claims tend to be smaller in value, we have observed increasing demand and a rising number of funding inquiries. We are funding more cases—particularly in the energy, mining, oil & gas, construction, and infrastructure sectors.
  • In Europe, our activity has increasingly shifted toward portfolio funding, which provides greater risk diversification and operational efficiency. We are also seeing the rise of hybrid funding structures, involving partnerships with insurers and specialized litigation finance products tailored to complex cases.
Moreover, there has been notable growth in environmental and consumer rights litigation, which amplifies the corporate accountability dimension of our portfolio and enhances the social impact of our investments. Integration of Technology and Artificial Intelligence As a technology-based fund, technology underpins every aspect of our operations. Our team includes not only lawyers but also software engineers who have developed a proprietary platform to support the fund’s end-to-end operations. This platform supports the commercial management of leads, case sourcing, and comprehensive case tracking, from legal analysis and economic structuring to contractual execution and post-investment monitoring. It features a wide range of functionalities and is under continuous development. We are consistently integrating advanced tools into the platform, including AI modules to support legal review, machine translation, and data analytics tools, all aimed at increasing the efficiency and accuracy of our case assessment and management processes.