Trending Now
Commercial People Moves

Nera Capital Kicks Off 2025 with Ambitious Recruitment Drive

By John Freund |

Leading litigation finance firm Nera Capital is bolstering its already flourishing team, with several senior hires. A new In-House General Counsel, Managing Director of Commercial Claims Division and Financial Controller are currently being recruited to bolster the management team with new experienced talent.

In addition, the firm has already acquired a new financial analyst and the firm’s audit team is also branching out, with new hires expected to join its Manchester and Dublin offices.  Nera’s success comes after a period of sustained growth in the litigation finance market.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne shared her thoughts on the expanding team: 

“At Nera Capital, we believe that strong leadership and diverse talent are the cornerstones of our success. We don’t just work together – we grow together. Nera Capital is a place where passion, strategy, and collaboration meet, creating an environment where every team member can thrive and make a meaningful impact. I’m very proud of what we’ve achieved so far. Our expansion isn’t just about numbers – it’s about nurturing a vibrant culture of collaboration and innovation that empowers us to take major steps forward in the litigation finance space.”

The firm ended the year on an undoubtable high with the introduction of its Access to Justice Fund to assist those in need of legal assistance or financial support. 

In yet another successful funding deal, Nera also managed to procure a further $25 million to boost UK consumer protection claims and ensure increased access to justice for individuals seeking redress. The firm also recently announced the opening of its Dutch office in Amsterdam as it takes on more work in the Netherlands, adding to its locations in Dublin and Manchester. 

Aisling added: “With every fresh perspective we welcome, we are igniting a powerful movement in litigation finance – one driven by passion, purpose, and an unwavering dedication to ensuring that justice is within reach for all.

“Together, we will continue to push boundaries and redefine what’s possible in litigation finance. But most importantly, we will continue to make a difference and increase access to justice for all.

She added: “I’d like to thank our amazing team and partners in the UK, US and across Europe for greatly contributing to our success. We look forward to what the future holds.” 

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

UK Supreme Court Hears Crucial Case on Motor Finance Commissions

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

At the start of this month the Supreme Court heard an appeal in three motor finance test cases with huge ramifications for lenders.  

In Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, the appeal court held last October that the car dealers involved were also acting as credit brokers, and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. It found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. However, if there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can still be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court held that the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

The appeal court ruling sent shockwaves through the industry, and the two lenders involved, Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank (MotoNovo), challenged the decision in a three-day Supreme Court hearing from 1 – 3 April. Commentators have pointed to the huge significance of the case, which could lead to compensation claims of up to £30bn. Close Brothers is reported to have set aside £165m to cover potential claims, while FirstRand has set aside £140m. Other lenders are reported to have set aside even more substantial sums:  £1.15bn for Lloyds, £290m for Santander UK and £95m for Barclays. 

The Financial Conduct Authority is considering setting up a redress scheme to deal with claims, which is currently on hold as it awaits the judgment of the Supreme Court this summer.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the lenders’ appeals, or will the Court of Appeal’s logic win out? My own view is that the appeals are likely to fail, and October’s Court of Appeal decision will be upheld. Lenders will therefore face substantial compensation bills as they find themselves faced with a huge number of claims. What’s more, the ramifications of this significant Supreme Court ruling are likely to reach beyond the motor finance sector, to other areas where businesses provide credit through intermediaries who take a commission, without making that crystal clear to the consumer.

Sentry supports litigation funders looking to deploy funds into cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance, as well as a number of other miss-selling and hidden commission claim types.

Commercial People Moves

Harshiv Thakerar Joins Gallagher as Head of Disputes Risk

In an announcement posted on LinkedIn, Gallagher announced the appointment of Harshiv Thakerar as Head of Disputes Risk based in the firm’s Middle East office. 

Thakerar’s new position will see him lead the insurance and risk management company’s dispute resolution practice in the Middle East and Africa, engaging with law firms and litigation funders in the region. Gallagher offers a range of dispute resolution and investment insurance solutions, including after the event (ATE) and contingent legal risk insurance.

Thakerar joins Gallagher having most recently served as Chief Investment Officer at litigation funder Asertis, where he also sat as board director. Thakerar brings a wealth of experience in the legal sector, having also spent time as a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya before moving into the world of litigation funding. Prior to his time at Asertis, Thakerar also held positions as Head of Litigation Funding at Global Growth Capital and Head of Commercial Litigation at Augusta Ventures.

Case Developments Commercial

High Court Rules in Favour of Henderson & Jones in Hearing on £2.15 Million Award

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered at the beginning of March, litigation funder Henderson & Jones had secured a significant victory in an assigned claim that saw the High Court award the funder £2.15 million in damages

Reporting by ICLG highlights a development in the matter, as a hearing before the High Court last week was set to decide on eight issues arising out of the previous award of damages. The issues which the parties had agreed to resolve before the court included the appropriate level of interest on the judgment sum, the entitlement to indemnity costs and the validity of a Part 36 settlement offer.

On the issue of the interest rate on the judgment sum, the defendants had argued for 1% above the Bank of England’s base rate, whilst Henderson & Jones had argued for 6% above the base rate. The High Court’s determination favoured the claimant, with a rate set at 5% above the base rate, with the court taking into consideration the funder’s position as a small business and the Bank of England’s own data.

As for the validity of Henderson & Jones’ settlement offer that had been made in October 2023, the defendants had argued that it was invalid due to the lack of a defined ‘relevant period’ for the offer to be accepted. The claimant argued that, in line with previous Part 36 offers made in the case, the period was understood to be 21 days. Once again, the court found in favour of the defendant and in acknowledging that the offer was both valid and had been surpassed, the claimant was entitled to additional benefits.

The court denied the defendants’ request to appeal the decision.