Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

By John Freund |
January 7, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.

[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as “any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer”; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

Secure Your Funding Below

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Logan Alters, Co-Founder & Head of Growth at ClaimAngel

By John Freund |

Logan Alters is the Co-Founder and Head of Growth at ClaimAngel, the nation's first transparent legal-funding marketplace. He built the company from a concept into a nationwide platform trusted by 500+ law firms, 25+ funders, and 20,000+ fundings at $100M+ in volume, all at one standardized rate. Before ClaimAngel, Logan worked across MedTech, consumer products, and venture capital. He earned his degree from UC Berkeley Haas School of Business in three years while competing as a Division I point guard.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Logan Alters:

ClaimAngel positions itself as a transparency-first platform at a time when plaintiff funding is facing heightened scrutiny from regulators and bar associations. How do you see ethics, disclosure, and alignment with ABA and state rules reshaping the future of the industry, and what specific standards is ClaimAngel trying to institutionalize?

We started ClaimAngel because we saw a gap that nobody was closing. Plaintiffs have access to a new asset, their case, but the industry built to serve them wasn't working. There are more than a thousand funding companies in the U.S., each setting its own rates, contracts, and processes. That fragmentation created an environment where anything goes. Rates compounded in ways clients couldn't understand until settlement. Fees got buried in contracts. Law firms experienced the frustration firsthand or heard the stories and decided not to recommend funding at all. The whole system defaulted to relationships over results: who you knew mattered more than what you offered. Funders competed for access instead of competing on terms. That model doesn't scale, and it doesn't serve plaintiffs.

That's the problem we set out to solve. Not by becoming funder #1,001, but by building marketplace infrastructure. In 2023, we pitched Morgan & Morgan's executives on a different future. A marketplace, not a funding company. One rate, one process, one outcome for every client. They didn't think it could be done, but they believed in the mission. John Morgan recently called ClaimAngel the Charles Schwab of client funding. The comparison resonated with us because it captures exactly what we're building. Schwab didn't invent investing. He standardized it. He made access equal and fees transparent. Before Schwab, Wall Street rewarded insiders. After Schwab, everyone got the same deal. Plaintiff funding is at that same inflection point.

We've now processed more than $100 million in volume across more than 20,000 fundings. Every contract includes plain-English rate disclosures. Every case shows plaintiffs what they'll owe at settlement before they sign and at any time in their portal. That's the standard: no surprises, no fine print. That's not a pilot. That's proof the model works.

We're not a funder. We're the infrastructure that makes funding predictable, transparent, and aligned with what plaintiffs and law firms actually need. When every client gets the same terms, and every contract looks the same, there's nothing to hide from regulators or bar associations. Standardization is the compliance solution.

The industry has operated like the wild west for too long. Regulators are stepping in. Bar associations are paying attention. Law firms are already choosing partners based on compliance and transparency, not relationships. That's the shift. More than 500 firms have at least one client funded through ClaimAngel. The next chapter will be defined by who builds the standard, not who has the best relationships. That's what we're here to do.

You describe plaintiff funding as being at a pivotal moment where opaque, high-rate transactions are giving way to marketplace models. What pressures or structural changes are driving that shift, and why is standardization becoming a competitive advantage?

The old model is breaking down. Not because anyone decided it should, because the market moved.

Law firms are shifting their focus toward efficiency and growth, minimizing anything that creates friction. They want funding that helps them maximize case value, not funding that eats into their fees at settlement. A firm managing thousands of cases can't afford the chaos of tracking liens with unpredictable compounding rates that make settlements harder to close. They want one process that works every time.

This is especially true for smaller firms. A solo practitioner or ten-person shop just wants to practice law. They don't want funding to become another thing they have to manage. Standardization means funding works as a tool in the background, not an encroachment on how they run their practice.

People are more financially aware than they were ten years ago. They understand interest. They ask about caps. They compare terms. The days of burying fees in contracts and hoping no one notices are over. When clients ask questions, firms need answers they can stand behind.

On the other side of the table, insurance carriers are already ahead. They use data to model case values, they identify plaintiffs under financial pressure, and they extend timelines knowing desperate clients will settle for less. Their algorithms win. When a plaintiff can't afford to wait, the carrier knows it, and the offer reflects that weakness. As funding becomes more widespread and predictable, carriers will have to adjust. Plaintiffs who can afford to be patient change the calculus entirely. That's the power of standardized funding.

Capital markets are moving too. Litigation finance is maturing into a real asset class, and institutional money is looking for places to deploy. But capital doesn't flow into fragmentation. A thousand funders with a thousand different rate structures and contract terms isn't investable infrastructure. Standardization is what unlocks scale. It's what allows the industry to grow from a few billion dollars to tens of billions deployed annually.

These forces aren't pushing toward a slightly better version of the old model. They're pushing toward new infrastructure. The companies that figure this out early will define the next era of plaintiff funding.

Your Rule of One framework aims for one rate, one process, one outcome. Why pursue a true standard instead of a traditional pricing strategy, and how do you respond to funders who argue flexibility is necessary for risk management?

One rate. One process. One outcome. That's not a tagline. It's the entire model.

A client knows exactly what they will owe. A law firm knows what a lien looks like at any point. No surprises. No shifting rates. No complicated projections. Simplicity isn't a marketing angle. It's a consumer protection tool and an operational stability tool for firms of any size.

The old model worked differently. Every funder created its own rate structure, contract terms, and interpretation of risk. Most clients don't understand why a four percent monthly compounding rate leads to a 6x repayment in 24 months. That complexity benefits only the insiders who understand it.

Bob Simon at Simon Law Group put it simply: lawyers have an ethical duty to do what's best for their clients. If a client needs access to capital to care for themselves or loved ones, you should help them find the lowest interest rate. That's not optional. It's the job.

The consequences of getting it wrong are real. Firms inherit cases all the time where the previous attorney used funding with poor terms, and by the time the case settles, the client's net is so low the case can't even settle. It leads to law firm fee reductions or the client drops the firm or it goes to trial. That's not what plaintiff funding is supposed to do.

Funders often defend rate flexibility as risk management. But pricing in plaintiff funding didn't evolve from risk. It evolved from fragmentation. With no shared standard, companies layered compounding, step-ups, duration triggers, underwriting fees, broker fees that can reach twenty percent, and buyout fees. None of this reflects actual case risk. It reflects legacy complexity built in isolation.

That complexity helped keep plaintiff funding adoption stuck at four to six percent of the total potential market. Rates rose so high that funding became a last resort. Yet more than ninety-seven percent of personal injury cases settle or win. When an asset class has a loss profile comparable to credit card defaults, extreme pricing is hard to defend. Real risk management comes from disciplined underwriting, transparency, and fair pricing, not stacking fees to justify high rates.

Standardization isn't a constraint. It's the path to mass adoption. The Rule of One isn't a theory. It's 20,000+ fundings across 500+ firms. That's proof at scale.

You’ve set a standardized rate of 27.8 percent simple annually with a 2x cap. What was the economic thinking behind those parameters, and how does this model align incentives across plaintiffs, law firms, and funders?

We didn't start by asking what rate we could charge. We started by asking who we're actually competing with.

Ninety-five percent of plaintiffs don't use plaintiff funding. When someone is injured, out of work, and waiting on a claim, they reach for credit cards and personal loans. That's the market we're converting.

The problem is that consumer credit wasn't built for a plaintiff's reality. It prices the borrower, not the case. It assumes steady income and monthly payments. A plaintiff has access to a new asset, their case, but a credit card can't tap into that. The pressure spills onto law firms and ultimately the settlement.

So we worked backward from that reality. If we want to convert plaintiffs away from credit cards, we need to beat credit card economics for someone who can't work, can't make monthly payments, and doesn't know when their case will settle. That's how we arrived at 27.8 percent simple rate with a 2x cap.

Here's what that looks like in practice. A plaintiff who takes $5,000 and settles in 18 months owes around $7,400 with all fees. With a typical compounding product with a slew of origination and servicing fees, that same funding could easily exceed $15,000. That difference is the gap between a client who walks away whole and a client who resents their attorney.

For funders, the math works if they're willing to evolve. The old model delivered returns that would make a hedge fund blush, but in just a small percentage of cases. Our model delivers lower per-case returns but at scale, with fast capital deployment, consistent servicing, and a loss rate in the single digits, comparable to credit card defaults. The key is predictability. Our 27.8% annual rate (no compounding ever) works out to 6.95% every three months until settlement or the 2x cap. The 2x cap means a plaintiff who takes $5,000 will never owe more than $10,000, and that cap doesn't hit until 46 months. Most "2x caps" in the industry hit at one, two, or three years. Ours gives plaintiffs nearly four years.

That rate is only sustainable because our marketplace collapsed the cost structure. Traditional models relied on sales teams, manual deployment, and relationship-driven acquisition. That overhead required high rates. Our marketplace removes most of that friction. No sales cycle, no manual underwriting queues, standardized processes across every case. Efficiency and market competition make a lower rate viable. Insurance carriers already use data to identify weak and desperate plaintiffs. Our marketplace gives funders the same advantage. We standardized underwriting with quality case data (injury details, liability, policy limits, case docs, and more), so funders make calculated decisions in minutes instead of reputation-based approvals. Lower costs and disciplined underwriting mean we can sustain 27.8% at scale. It's a different business. It requires funders who see where the industry is going and law firms that recognize their clients deserve better. We've built the infrastructure to make that easy.

The legacy model asked: how much can we charge? We asked: how do we convert the ninety-five percent? One question builds an industry. The other protects a margin.

You’ve argued that plaintiff funding is best understood as a tool that converts time into negotiating power. How does ClaimAngel’s marketplace help plaintiffs stay in the fight longer and capture more of their claim’s true value?

How many situations in life can you actually buy time? That's what plaintiff funding is. Not debt. Not a loan. Time. And when you have a legal case, time is power.

When someone is injured and out of work, time is the one thing they don't have. Bills pile up. Pressure builds. Insurance carriers know this and wait. The longer a plaintiff can't afford to hold out, the lower the offer. That's not negotiation. That's leverage working against the people who need it most.

Funding flips that dynamic. A plaintiff who can pay rent and cover medical bills while their case develops is a plaintiff who can wait for the right offer. That's why they hired their attorney in the first place: to fight for the true value of their claim, not to take the first check that shows up.

When plaintiffs have time, law firms can do the work they were hired to do. Gather full medicals. Wait for maximum recovery. Push back on lowball offers. The cases that settle for $40,000 under pressure become six-figure results when the client isn't calling every day saying they need the money now. One client told us she was three days from losing her apartment when she got funded. Eighteen months later, her case settled for six figures. That's what time buys. Firms get more revenue with less pressure to settle early. Clients walk away with what they deserve from the start.

But here's the problem with traditional funding: time is power until settlement day, when it turns into kryptonite. A plaintiff who borrowed $5,000 at compounding rates suddenly owes $15,000+. The attorney's fee gets reduced. The client's net recovery shrinks. Everyone fought for two years to maximize the settlement, and the funding lien swallows the value. That's not time as power. That's time as extraction. Our model solves this. At 27.8% simple with a 2x cap, that same $5,000 costs $7,400, not $15,000. The client and attorney walk away with what they earned. Time stays power, even at settlement.

That's what ClaimAngel's marketplace delivers. In traditional funding, a plaintiff applies to one funder, waits for approval, and might get rejected. Then they start over. Our marketplace removes that friction. Multiple funders see the case simultaneously. Standardized terms mean no negotiation. A plaintiff who applies Monday can have funding by Wednesday. When you're three days from losing your apartment, that speed is the difference between staying in the fight and taking whatever offer is on the table.

The industry maximized what plaintiffs owe. We maximize what plaintiffs keep.

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.