Published 27 October 2026 | By FJP Investment Editorial Team

Legal disputes can be extraordinarily expensive.

A company may believe it has a strong contractual claim worth a substantial amount of money while facing months or years of legal fees before the dispute is resolved.

It might have a perfectly viable business but prefer not to commit a large amount of working capital to litigation.

Another claimant may simply lack the financial resources required to pursue a well-funded defendant.

This is where litigation finance, also known as litigation funding or third-party litigation funding, can enter the picture.

In a conventional litigation-funding arrangement, an independent third party provides some or all of the capital required to pursue a legal claim. If the claim succeeds, the funder receives the payment agreed under the litigation funding agreement. If the claim fails, the funder can lose the capital it committed, subject always to the precise agreement and arrangements relating to costs.

From an investment perspective, however, the subject becomes more complicated.

Providing capital directly to a legal case is not necessarily the same thing as investing in a litigation-finance company, lending money to a litigation funder or gaining exposure to a portfolio containing numerous cases.

Those structures can create very different legal rights and risks.

This guide explains how litigation finance works, what funders examine before agreeing to finance a case, some of the principal risks and how investors can analyse litigation-finance structures without confusing the underlying legal claims with the investment instrument through which their capital is deployed.

Important: This article is provided for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, legal or tax advice, an invitation or inducement to invest or a recommendation concerning litigation finance or any other investment. Litigation-related investments can be complex, illiquid and high risk, and investors can lose some or all of their capital.

What is litigation finance?

Litigation finance is the provision of capital by a third party to help finance legal proceedings.

The Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales describes litigation funding as a situation where an independent funder provides financial resources to enable litigation or arbitration to proceed.

The funding can help pay costs such as:

• solicitors;
• barristers;
• expert witnesses;
• court fees;
• forensic work;
• disclosure;
• investigations;
• case-management costs; and
• other agreed litigation expenses.

In return, the funder receives a contractual entitlement if the case produces a successful financial outcome.

The exact economics depend on the litigation funding agreement.

You can read the Association of Litigation Funders’ explanation of litigation finance for additional background.

Why might somebody use litigation funding?

The obvious answer is that litigation is expensive.

But lack of cash is not the only reason.

A substantial company may have enough money to fund a legal case itself and still decide that it would rather use its capital elsewhere in the business.

Litigation funding can potentially allow a claimant to transfer some of the financial risk associated with pursuing a dispute.

Reasons for seeking funding might therefore include:

• insufficient capital to pursue the claim;
• preserving working capital;
• reducing exposure to legal expenditure;
• sharing litigation risk;
• funding a portfolio of disputes;
• supporting insolvency-related claims;
• financing commercial arbitration; or
• allowing a claimant to pursue a substantially better-funded opponent.

The appropriate structure depends on the case and the parties involved.

Litigation funding does not create a successful claim

A funder provides capital.

It cannot change the underlying facts of the dispute.

If the claimant has a weak legal case, financing does not make it stronger.

If the defendant has no assets, winning a judgment may still result in difficult recovery.

If the damages are substantially lower than originally expected, the economics of the funding can change.

Litigation finance therefore depends heavily on legal and commercial due diligence before capital is committed.

How does a litigation funder assess a case?

A professional funder will normally investigate considerably more than whether the claimant says they have been wronged.

Areas that can be examined include:

• legal merits;
• evidence;
• the causes of action;
• defences likely to be raised;
• the amount potentially recoverable;
• the expected legal budget;
• likely duration;
• the claimant’s legal team;
• the defendant’s financial position;
• enforceability of any eventual judgment;
• jurisdiction;
• appeal risk;
• adverse-cost exposure;
• insurance arrangements; and
• the overall economics of pursuing the case.

It is a form of underwriting.

The funder is deciding whether the legal claim presents a risk it is prepared to finance.

A hypothetical litigation-finance case study

Consider a fictional example.

Company A supplies specialist equipment to Company B.

Company A believes Company B has breached a long-term commercial contract and that the breach has caused substantial financial loss.

Company A’s lawyers believe there is a properly arguable claim supported by contracts, correspondence and financial evidence.

But the litigation is expected to be lengthy and expensive.

Company A therefore approaches a litigation funder.

Stage 1: initial review

The funder receives information about the dispute and decides whether the claim is potentially suitable for further investigation.

Many cases may be rejected at this stage.

Stage 2: legal due diligence

The funder and its advisers examine matters including:

• the contract;
• legal opinions;
• evidence;
• witnesses;
• potential defences;
• damages;
• procedural issues; and
• the likelihood of enforcement.

Stage 3: financial analysis

The funder considers the expected litigation budget and compares it with the potential value that could realistically be recovered.

A claim might be legally strong but economically unattractive to fund if the expected costs are disproportionate to the realistic recovery.

Stage 4: funding agreement

If both sides decide to proceed, a litigation funding agreement defines the respective rights and obligations.

The precise terms can address:

• what expenditure will be funded;
• maximum funding commitments;
• information rights;
• termination;
• settlement;
• the funder’s entitlement following success;
• what happens following failure;
• dispute resolution; and
• other contractual matters.

Stage 5: the litigation proceeds

The claimant’s lawyers conduct the case.

The funder may receive information allowing it to monitor the investment, but funding and controlling the litigation are not the same thing.

Under the Association of Litigation Funders’ Code of Conduct, member funders must not take control of the litigation or settlement negotiations or cause the funded party’s lawyers to breach their professional duties.

Stage 6: the case resolves

Several outcomes are possible.

The claimant could win at trial.

The parties could settle.

The claimant could lose.

An appeal might follow.

A judgment might be obtained but prove difficult to enforce.

The eventual financial outcome is then dealt with according to the legal agreements and applicable law.

What happens if the claimant loses?

In a conventional non-recourse litigation-funding model, the funder’s own capital is exposed to the success or failure of the case.

If the funded claim fails, the funder may lose the money deployed to finance it.

But that does not mean there are no other costs associated with losing litigation.

In England and Wales, unsuccessful litigants can potentially face liability for some of the successful opponent’s legal costs.

This is known as adverse costs risk.

Funding structures may therefore also involve after-the-event insurance, commonly known as ATE insurance, or other arrangements designed to address potential adverse-cost liabilities.

The precise responsibility for costs depends on the case, court orders, agreements, insurance and circumstances.

What is ATE insurance?

After-the-event insurance is insurance obtained after the event giving rise to the legal dispute.

It can be used to protect against specified costs arising if litigation is unsuccessful.

Depending on the policy, this can include exposure to an opponent’s recoverable legal costs.

ATE insurance should not be assumed to eliminate every cost risk.

Investors examining litigation-finance structures should understand:

• who provides the policy;
• what it covers;
• the level of cover;
• exclusions;
• conditions;
• the premium structure; and
• circumstances in which the insurer might decline a claim.

Winning the case is not always the final step

A court judgment establishes legal rights.

It does not necessarily place cash immediately in the claimant’s bank account.

The defendant may appeal.

Payment may be delayed.

Enforcement proceedings may be necessary.

The defendant may have insufficient assets.

Assets may be held overseas.

Another creditor may have priority.

For a litigation funder, collectability can therefore be almost as important as legal merits.

A good case against an insolvent defendant can still be a poor economic proposition

Suppose the claimant has overwhelming evidence that a company owes it money.

If the defendant has no meaningful assets and is approaching insolvency, obtaining judgment may provide limited economic benefit.

Litigation funding therefore involves assessing both:

Can the claim be won?

and

If it is won, can the resulting award actually be recovered?

Single-case funding and portfolio funding are different

A funder can finance one individual legal dispute.

It can also deploy capital across numerous cases.

This creates an important distinction for investors.

A single-case strategy can be heavily dependent on one legal outcome.

A portfolio strategy spreads capital across several disputes.

Portfolio construction can potentially reduce dependence on one case, but diversification should not simply be assumed because several claims exist.

Cases could still share common risks.

For example, they might:

• involve the same defendant;
• depend on the same legal principle;
• operate within the same jurisdiction;
• rely on the same expert evidence;
• belong to the same claimant group; or
• be affected by the same appellate decision.

Ten highly correlated claims are not necessarily ten independent risks.

Litigation finance can involve very long and uncertain timeframes

Legal proceedings rarely operate to an exact investment timetable.

A case may be delayed because of:

• disclosure;
• expert evidence;
• court availability;
• procedural applications;
• settlement negotiations;
• changes of legal team;
• appeals;
• enforcement; or
• developments in related cases.

This creates duration risk.

An investment expected to resolve within a particular period can remain outstanding considerably longer.

What is litigation-finance investment risk?

There is no single risk.

Possible risks include:

• merits risk – the claimant loses;
• quantum risk – the claimant wins but recovers substantially less than expected;
• duration risk – the case takes considerably longer;
• appeal risk – an apparently successful result is challenged;
• enforcement risk – judgment is obtained but recovery proves difficult;
• cost risk – litigation expenditure exceeds the original budget;
• adverse-cost risk – costs become payable to another party;
• insurance risk – expected insurance protection does not respond as anticipated;
• legal-change risk – legislation or case law changes;
• concentration risk – too much capital depends on a small number of cases;
• funder risk – the litigation-finance company itself encounters financial difficulty; and
• liquidity risk – investor capital cannot readily be withdrawn.

Investing in litigation finance is not necessarily the same as funding litigation

This is one of the most important distinctions for a private investor.

Imagine that a litigation-finance company has a portfolio of twenty funded legal cases.

An outside investor might obtain exposure in several possible ways.

They might:

• participate directly in a particular funded case;
• participate in a portfolio vehicle containing several cases;
• own equity in the litigation-finance business;
• lend money to the litigation-finance company;
• hold a loan note issued by that company; or
• invest through another fund or special-purpose vehicle.

Those are legally and economically different investments.

A loan note issued by a litigation funder is still a loan note

Suppose an investor buys a loan note issued by a litigation-finance company.

The investor is normally a creditor of the company issuing the loan note.

They do not automatically become a direct participant in every court case the company finances.

The investor therefore needs to understand:

• which company owes the debt;
• what assets sit within that company;
• whether litigation interests are legally owned by that entity;
• what other creditors exist;
• whether the note is secured;
• what that security actually covers;
• how the issuer expects to service its debts; and
• how capital will ultimately be repaid.

Our guide What Is a Loan Note and How Does It Work? explains the debt structure in more detail.

The underlying legal cases do not automatically secure the investor

This deserves particular attention.

A litigation-finance company may describe itself as having a substantial portfolio of claims.

That does not automatically mean somebody lending money to the company has security over those claims or their proceeds.

Investors need to establish the actual legal position.

Questions can include:

• Which entity owns the rights under the litigation funding agreements?
• Have those rights been charged?
• Can they legally be assigned?
• Does another lender have priority?
• Does the security extend to bank accounts receiving case proceeds?
• What happens following insolvency?
• Who can enforce the security?

The word litigation backed should therefore be investigated in the same way as any other description of asset backing.

Our guide to asset-backed investments and security explains why identifying the actual security is so important.

The FCA highlighted this distinction in August 2026

The distinction between litigation funding as a business activity and investing in securities issued by a litigation funder is not merely theoretical.

In August 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a warning about unregulated loan notes and mini-bonds after the failure of Woodville Consultants Limited, which the FCA described as a litigation funder that had raised capital from retail investors through unregulated loan notes.

The regulatory warning concerned the risks of the loan notes issued to investors.

That is different from saying that litigation funding as an entire industry is inherently the same thing as an unregulated loan-note investment.

The example demonstrates why investors need to identify the precise instrument they own.

You can read the FCA’s August 2026 warning concerning loan notes and mini-bonds.

Who controls the litigation?

Funding a legal claim should not be confused with controlling it.

The claimant remains the party to the litigation and its lawyers owe their professional duties accordingly.

The Association of Litigation Funders’ Code of Conduct prohibits its funder members from taking control of funded litigation or settlement negotiations.

The funder can nevertheless have legitimate information and monitoring rights because it has capital at risk.

The precise boundary between monitoring and control is therefore an important area to understand in a funding agreement.

What happens if the claimant wants to settle?

Settlement can create tension in any litigation-finance structure.

A claimant may wish to accept a settlement that a funder considers economically unattractive.

A funder may believe continued litigation is justified while the claimant wants certainty.

The litigation funding agreement should therefore address settlement and disputes between the funded party and funder.

Under the ALF Code applicable to its members, funders must not take control of settlement negotiations, and the Code contains mechanisms dealing with disputes concerning settlement and termination.

Capital adequacy matters

A litigation funder needs enough capital to meet the commitments it has made.

Running out of money halfway through a major case could create serious problems for the claimant and potentially for other parties.

The ALF Code therefore imposes capital-adequacy requirements on its member funders.

Among other things, the Code requires member funders to maintain adequate financial resources to meet their obligations and cover aggregate funding liabilities for a minimum period specified by the Code.

However, ALF membership is voluntary.

Not every litigation funder operating in England and Wales is necessarily an ALF member.

How is litigation funding regulated in England and Wales?

The regulatory position is developing.

Historically, commercial litigation funding in England and Wales has operated largely under common law, court supervision and voluntary self-regulation through organisations including the Association of Litigation Funders.

The Civil Justice Council completed a major review of litigation funding in June 2025.

It recommended moving from the current self-regulatory model towards formal, statutory, light-touch regulation.

Its recommendations included areas such as:

• capital adequacy;
• preventing funder control of litigation;
• conflicts of interest;
• anti-money-laundering requirements;
• disclosure of the fact and source of funding;
• additional consumer protection; and
• greater oversight of funding in collective proceedings.

The CJC did not recommend immediate FCA regulation of litigation funding. Instead, it proposed regulation under the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, with the possibility of revisiting the role of the FCA after the regime had operated for a period.

The Government has subsequently confirmed its intention to legislate in this area.

Because the framework remains capable of changing, anyone dealing with a litigation funding agreement should check the law applying at the relevant time.

The Civil Justice Council litigation-funding review provides the official background.

What was the PACCAR decision?

One reason litigation funding has received considerable legal attention is the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in R (PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The issue concerned litigation funding agreements under which the funder’s payment was calculated by reference to a percentage of damages recovered.

The Supreme Court held that the agreements fell within the statutory definition of damages-based agreements.

That had important consequences for enforceability and created substantial uncertainty across the litigation-funding industry.

You can read the Supreme Court’s PACCAR case summary.

The position after PACCAR continues to develop

Following PACCAR, litigation funders amended structures and agreements.

Subsequent litigation considered whether revised funding arrangements fell within the same statutory definition.

In 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld revised funding agreements whose operative return was structured differently from the percentage-based agreements considered in PACCAR.

The Supreme Court subsequently refused permission to appeal in linked cases concerning those revised arrangements.

Separately, the Civil Justice Council recommended legislation reversing the effect of PACCAR for litigation funding agreements, and the Government announced that it intends to introduce legislation addressing the issue.

The important point for an investor is not to become an amateur litigation lawyer.

It is to recognise that legal-structure risk is itself part of litigation-finance risk.

Legal change can affect existing investment assumptions

Litigation finance is unusually exposed to legal developments because law is not simply the framework surrounding the asset.

Law is part of the asset.

A judgment from a higher court can affect:

• the enforceability of funding agreements;
• the merits of groups of cases;
• procedural routes;
• recoverable damages;
• limitation;
• costs;
• settlement economics; or
• the viability of a litigation strategy.

This means monitoring significant legal developments can be important throughout the life of a litigation-finance portfolio.

What due diligence might an investor undertake on a litigation-finance business?

The investor needs to look at more than a list of court cases.

Areas can include:

• corporate structure;
• management experience;
• legal underwriting process;
• case-selection criteria;
• funding agreements;
• portfolio diversification;
• committed versus deployed capital;
• remaining funding obligations;
• legal budgets;
• capital adequacy;
• insurance;
• historic case outcomes;
• duration assumptions;
• cash flow;
• existing creditors;
• security;
• regulatory position; and
• how investor obligations are expected to be met.

Our investment due diligence guide provides a broader framework for assessing private investments.

Case value should not be confused with expected recovery

A claimant may seek a very large amount of damages.

That figure is not necessarily the amount that will ultimately be recovered.

The eventual outcome could be affected by:

• legal liability;
• causation;
• evidential issues;
• valuation of losses;
• contributory conduct;
• settlement;
• appeal;
• costs; and
• the defendant’s ability to pay.

Investors should therefore be cautious about valuing a litigation portfolio simply by adding together the maximum damages claimed in every case.

Outstanding legal commitments matter as much as money already spent

A litigation funder may have deployed only part of the capital required for a case.

That does not necessarily mean the remaining money is freely available.

The funder may have contractual obligations to finance future stages of litigation.

An investor examining the funder’s balance sheet should therefore understand:

• capital already deployed;
• capital committed but not yet deployed;
• expected future legal costs;
• potential adverse-cost exposure;
• insurance arrangements; and
• the company’s available liquidity.

A portfolio containing substantial potential claims can still create cash-flow pressure if numerous cases require additional funding simultaneously.

Historical wins deserve context

A funder may legitimately point to successful previous cases.

Investors should still investigate what those outcomes demonstrate.

Questions can include:

• How many cases were funded?
• How many concluded?
• How many lost?
• How many settled?
• How long did cases take?
• Were earlier cases comparable with the current portfolio?
• Did management responsible for those cases remain with the business?
• Were successful recoveries actually received in cash?

A handful of successful cases should not automatically be treated as proof of the expected outcome of every future claim.

Does litigation finance diversify conventional investment risk?

Litigation outcomes are driven by legal claims rather than directly by movements in stock-market indices.

That does not mean litigation finance is automatically uncorrelated with every other economic risk.

Economic conditions can affect:

• defendant solvency;
• settlement behaviour;
• insolvency litigation;
• corporate disputes;
• legal budgets;
• financing availability; and
• the value of businesses and assets involved in claims.

Nor does a low apparent correlation make an asset safe.

Diversification and investment quality remain separate issues.

Litigation finance can be extremely illiquid

Legal claims do not trade like listed shares.

A funded case can take years to resolve and there may be no straightforward secondary market through which an investor can exit.

If an investor instead holds a private loan note or an interest in a private litigation-finance vehicle, that instrument can itself also be illiquid.

An investor should therefore understand whether:

• transfers are legally permitted;
• issuer consent is required;
• a secondary market exists;
• redemption rights exist;
• capital is locked until particular cases conclude; or
• the instrument has a contractual maturity independent of the timing of litigation outcomes.

Investor maturity and case duration can create a mismatch

Suppose a company issues debt that matures before several important funded cases are expected to conclude.

The company might then need to repay investors before receiving the proceeds it expects from those cases.

That creates a potential asset-liability mismatch.

The issuer may need:

• existing cash;
• income from other completed cases;
• new financing;
• asset sales;
• refinancing; or
• another source of capital

to meet its obligations.

This is why investors should understand the timing of both sides of the balance sheet.

Portfolio value needs to be treated carefully

Unlike cash in a bank account, unresolved litigation does not have a single objectively observable market value.

A valuation may depend upon assumptions concerning:

• probability of success;
• potential damages;
• settlement;
• time to resolution;
• future legal costs;
• enforcement;
• appeals; and
• discount rates.

Two knowledgeable professionals could therefore reach different views about the economic value of exactly the same portfolio.

What should an investor ask about a litigation-finance opportunity?

A useful educational checklist includes:

• What legal instrument am I actually investing in?
• Who receives my money?
• Am I funding cases directly or lending to a company?
• Which entity owns the litigation interests?
• How many cases are in the portfolio?
• How concentrated is the portfolio?
• Who performs legal due diligence?
• What criteria determine whether a case is funded?
• What independent lawyers are involved?
• What capital has already been deployed?
• What capital remains contractually committed?
• What happens if legal budgets increase?
• How are adverse costs dealt with?
• What insurance exists?
• What happens if cases take longer than anticipated?
• How financially strong are the defendants?
• How would successful judgments be enforced?
• What existing debt does the litigation funder have?
• What security does an investor actually receive?
• Where does the investor rank?
• What regulatory framework applies?
• How liquid is the investment?
• How will the issuer meet investor obligations if cases are delayed or lost?
• What happens if the litigation funder itself becomes insolvent?

Investor eligibility remains separate from investment quality

Some private investment structures may only be capable of being communicated to particular categories of investor under applicable financial-promotion rules.

That classification does not determine whether a litigation-finance investment is good, safe or personally suitable.

Our guide to high-net-worth and sophisticated investor self-certification explains why eligibility and suitability are separate concepts.

How FJP Investment approaches specialist investments

FJP Investment has operated within the alternative investment market since 2013 and considers a range of private-market structures.

Where we examine a specialist opportunity, the purpose is to understand the structure and material risks before deciding whether it is one we are prepared to introduce.

For a litigation-finance-related opportunity, areas that may require consideration could include:

• the legal investment structure;
• the underlying litigation-finance business;
• management;
• financial information;
• case-selection processes;
• portfolio composition;
• funding commitments;
• legal documentation;
• insurance;
• existing borrowing;
• security where applicable;
• liquidity;
• regulatory considerations; and
• the proposed mechanism for meeting obligations to investors.

FJP Investment acts as an introducer.

We do not manage investor capital, provide personalised investment recommendations or assess personal suitability.

Reviewing an opportunity does not remove the underlying investment risk, constitute a recommendation or guarantee any legal or financial outcome.

You can read more about our role on our How We Work page.

Frequently asked questions

What is litigation finance?

Litigation finance is the provision of capital by a third party to help finance litigation or arbitration, usually under an agreement providing the funder with a contractual entitlement if the claim produces a successful financial outcome.

Why would a company use litigation funding?

A company may lack the capital required to pursue litigation or may prefer to preserve its cash for its operating business while transferring part of the financial risk associated with the dispute.

Does a litigation funder control the legal case?

Funding and control are different concepts. The Association of Litigation Funders’ Code prohibits its funder members from taking control of litigation or settlement negotiations. The precise contractual and legal position should always be checked.

What happens if a funded case loses?

In a conventional non-recourse funding structure, the funder’s deployed capital is at risk if the case fails. Separate issues can arise concerning adverse costs, insurance and the particular funding agreement.

What is adverse-cost risk?

In England and Wales, an unsuccessful party to litigation can potentially be ordered to pay some of the successful party’s legal costs. Funding structures may use insurance or other arrangements to address this exposure.

Is litigation finance regulated by the FCA?

Litigation funding in England and Wales has historically operated largely under common law, court supervision and voluntary self-regulation rather than as a generally FCA-regulated activity. The Civil Justice Council has recommended formal statutory light-touch regulation and the Government has announced plans for legislation. The precise current position should therefore be checked.

What was PACCAR?

PACCAR was a 2023 UK Supreme Court judgment concerning whether certain litigation funding agreements calculated by reference to damages were damages-based agreements. The decision had major consequences for the enforceability and structuring of litigation funding agreements.

Is investing in a litigation funder the same as funding a court case?

No. An investor might instead own shares in a funder, subscribe to a loan note, lend to a special-purpose vehicle or participate in a portfolio. The investor’s legal rights depend on the investment instrument actually acquired.

If a litigation funder has valuable cases, does that mean a loan note issued by it is secured?

No. The investor must establish whether legally effective security exists over specific assets or rights. The existence of valuable litigation interests does not automatically give every creditor security over them.

Can litigation finance be illiquid?

Yes. Legal cases can take years to resolve and private investment instruments associated with litigation finance may have no active secondary market.

Does funding a portfolio remove litigation risk?

No. A portfolio can spread exposure across several cases, but those cases may still share legal, defendant, jurisdictional or economic risks. Individual cases can also lose or take longer than expected.

Does FJP Investment recommend litigation-finance investments?

No. FJP Investment acts as an introducer and does not provide personalised investment advice or assess personal suitability. Any specific opportunity would be subject to applicable investor-eligibility, legal and regulatory requirements.

Final thoughts

Litigation finance is an unusual area of private markets because the underlying asset depends heavily on law.

The economics of a case can change following new evidence, procedural decisions, settlement negotiations, appeals or developments in the law itself.

That makes due diligence particularly important.

An investor needs to understand not only whether the underlying litigation appears credible, but exactly how their own capital is connected to it.

Funding a claim directly is one structure.

Participating in a portfolio is another.

Owning equity in a funder is another.

Lending money to a litigation-finance company through a loan note is another again.

The words litigation finance describe the economic sector.

They do not, by themselves, tell an investor what legal rights they own.

That distinction should sit at the centre of any serious analysis of the sector.

FJP Investment provides general information about the alternative investment market and acts as an introducer to third-party opportunities. If you wish to understand more about FJP Investment’s introduction process, you can register your interest below. Whether information concerning any particular opportunity can be provided will depend on applicable investor eligibility and legal and regulatory requirements.

Capital is at risk. Litigation-finance and other private investments can be complex, unregulated, illiquid and/or non-transferable and investors may lose some or all of their capital. Legal claims can fail, settlements and recoveries can be lower than anticipated and litigation can take materially longer than expected. Security, insurance and contractual rights do not guarantee repayment or recovery. FJP Investment acts as an introducer and does not provide personalised investment, legal or tax advice or assess personal suitability. Investors should carry out their own due diligence and obtain independent professional advice where appropriate.