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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.