Nera Capital!!
What is happening with Nera Capital loans?. All contracts tell only interest payments till expiration. But today NC started principal repayment of all loans running for 3 months or less and also some 17% interest loans still running for 8 months. Are there no secured agreements between Mintos and Credittors? Seems like it and an ongoing issue creating most of the loan problems?
-
Ugo,
If Mintos, a leading platform with a respectable volume, was truly defrauded as you say, after a historic experience, then it's best to change careers. I expect Mintos to provide a sincere and transparent response on this matter from every perspective!0 -
A quote from a Linkedin post:
The underlying UK law firm borrowers have stopped paying interest to Nera while an SRA review is ongoing. Over €61m is reported as unpaid since late March 2026; restructuring discussions are in final term sheet stage.
Two Nera-funded UK law firms are worth pulling out as accounts have just been belatedly filed by one and the other is due this week.
Veritas Solicitors LLP (OC332899), a major Nera borrower at approximately £45m of secured exposure. Its FY24 audited accounts (year ended 29 November 2024) were filed at Companies House on 11 June 2026, 9.5 months past the statutory deadline. They show that of £11.56m of interest that crystallised in the year on cases settled, only £5.96m was paid in cash to the funder. Roughly 52p in the £. Interest at 37% to 39% applies on the Nera facility, contingent on case resolution; the £11.56m fell due as cases settled in FY24, and even that crystallised cohort could only be partially serviced. Loss for the year £13.78m on turnover £9.79m; net liabilities £22.69m; cash £806k. The position is now 18 months stale; whether the repayment rate has improved is not on the public record, but on the FY24 trajectory there is no obvious reason it would have. FY25 accounts due 29 August 2026.
Barings Limited (07072321), trading as Barings Law. FY25 accounts due this week, 27 June 2026. The FY24 set (year ended 30 March 2024) showed approximately £45m of borrowing on roughly £300k of turnover, with cash of £59k at year end and a loss of £13.06m. The numbers to watch in the FY25 filing: whether turnover has moved, and what (if anything) has been repaid on the £45m principal in a year in which the funder itself stopped receiving interest from its borrowers.
Both firms are heavily exposed to PCP claims. The FCA's motor finance redress scheme (PS26/3, 30 March 2026) has been legally challenged. The FCA does not expect tribunal hearings before October 2026; substantive resolution plus any appeal track is likely to run through 2027 and possibly into 2028.
So the picture: borrowers under pressure to repay; funder unable to pay its own investors; the main monetisation event (motor finance redress) pushed out another year or two by legal challenge. Pressure will mount on the borrowers to repay, with no money left for reinvestment in new cases.0 -
I've just searched barings law reviews over the web and that's not comforting.. These fraudsters
0 -
Thanks for this info. And I’m not at all surprised. It’s also unbelievable that Nera Capital is just acting as if nothing happened. No press release, nada. Apparently, they’ve covered themselves so well legally that only Mintos was foolish enough to endorse this arrangement and recommend it to its investors as an attractive investment.
0 -
Hello Marek (Mintos) Lucja (Mintos),
Can I have an answer on how they manage to pay until now without problem and no case resolution by definition ?
Why rolling the debt wouldn't be an acceptable solution ?
And can you react on the last "discovery" is the sra the root cause of the problem ? It seems more and more that's not the main problem...0 -
Dear investors,
We've consolidated answers to the points that have come up most often here in the community.
How has Nera serviced interest until now if no cases have resolved?
Nera Capital Funding 2 DAC has been required since inception to maintain a cash reserve at the Lending Company level. Interest payments to date have been serviced primarily from that reserve, alongside other cash flows available at the LC. With case resolutions taking longer than originally expected, the reserve and incoming cash flows are no longer sufficient to cover scheduled payments on the original timeline.
Why not just extend the Notes?
The Notes' contractual terms don't allow Mintos or the LC to extend the maturity unilaterally. Any change has to go through a formal restructuring, which is what the parties are currently working towards finalising. In economic terms, the framework under discussion is expected to function similarly to an extension, re-profiling payments to align with case resolutions.
Is the SRA review the cause, or is it the case-resolution timeline?
Both factors are at play, and they are linked but distinct. The SRA review focuses on the solvency of the UK law firms; it is an industry-wide solvency review, not a review of any other wrongdoing. To preserve solvency during the review, the firms paused payments at the end of March, which triggered the immediate cash flow stop to investors. Separately, the underlying cases are taking longer to resolve than originally anticipated, in part because of an ongoing legal case that is expected to clarify whether certain consumer claims can be pursued collectively rather than individually. Further clarity on that may emerge by the end of summer or during autumn 2026, though the timeline depends on legal and regulatory processes outside the parties' control.
Why does the platform show different amounts across note series?
Contractually, investors are entitled to unpaid principal and scheduled interest accrued up to the point the borrower stopped paying. After the 60-day delay window elapses, unpaid principal moves to Pending Payments status and Pending Payment Interest is calculated by Mintos from that point onward. Series are at different stages of this two-phase logic, which is why displayed amounts vary. We've identified these display inconsistencies and are working on a fix so the platform view aligns with the contractual position.
Does the buyback obligation apply, and is it cash-backed?
The buyback obligation from Nera Capital Funding 2 DAC remains in place and is triggered 60+ days after a borrower payment delay. However, the buyback obligation does not mean that cash is immediately available for repayment: with the underlying claims not yet resolved, Nera Capital Funding 2 DAC may not have sufficient cash flows to make buyback payments until funds are received from the underlying recovery process. The buyback right is preserved while the restructuring framework is being progressed.
What does ATE insurance cover?
ATE covers case-level disbursements (court fees, expert reports) and the opposing party's legal costs if a case proceeds to trial and is lost. It does not cover law firm insolvency, SRA intervention, or other operational risks at the borrower level. Mintos verifies ATE coverage through the documentation provided by the LC as part of standard reporting on the loan book.
Why is Nera paying on another platform but not on Mintos?
The exposures on the two platforms relate to different legal cases in different countries, with different payment schedules and structures. The portfolios are not the same set of receivables, so the cash flow status on one platform does not directly indicate the position on the other.
How concentrated is the loan book at single law firm level?
We are not in a position to disclose borrower-level details, consistent with our standard practice across all Lending Companies on the platform. The focus from our side is on the structural protections at the LC level: the buyback obligation, ATE on the case pool, and the security position under the Notes.
We will continue to provide updates as the restructuring documentation advances.
Regards,Mintos Team
0 -
I would suggest the SRA review is linked, primarily but not exclusively, to the risks associated by the funding of the law firms. Any law firm with £45m at rates of 35-38% is at risk of failure, particularly if it cant meet interest payments falling due. Barings Law accounts overdue, massive loan exposure v income.
There are other reasons for the investigations, such as case aquisition channels (at least for one). But the SRA is very concerned about the continual demise of over funded law firms and the consequences on clients; Pure Legal, SSB, High Street , Quanta, McDemott Smith, Sandstone, Angelus, BPS, Langton, AWH & Nicholson Jones Sutton. Familiar tale, certainly one individual involved in brokering a number of the lends .
PCP is likely to run for another year or 2 , hard to see the law firms surviving even if the money comes in.1 -
LitFun
Could you explain that a bit better? What exactly does the PCP program entail? What is your take on it—in simple terms—and how might it turn out for us investors? Thanks0 -
Peter, happy to explain in plain terms.
PCP, personal contract purchase, is the way most people have bought cars on finance for the last fifteen years or so. The claims aren't really about PCP itself; they're about the commission the dealer earned for arranging the finance. For years, dealers could set the interest rate and pocket a bigger commission the higher the rate went; a discretionary commission arrangement, or DCA. Customers were rarely told. The courts have found that non-disclosure can make the lender/borrower relationship "unfair" under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act, which opens the door to compensation.
The FCA scheme (policy statement PS26/3, March 2026) is the regulator's attempt to deal with this at industry scale rather than case by case. Roughly 12.1m agreements are in scope, average redress around £830, total bill around £7.5bn. It splits into two: Scheme 1 covers agreements from 2007 to March 2014; Scheme 2 covers April 2014 onwards.
It's worth pausing on that £830 figure, because it's the number the whole model rests on. Even on a full success fee of, say, 30% plus VAT, a firm nets only around £250 to £300 per successful case; and that is before you account for the cases that fail, are excluded, or never complete. Now set that against the cost of acquiring the client, commonly 10 to 20% of the sums financed handed to an arranger or packager, plus advertising spend; and against funder interest at 35% and above, compounding for years while the case sits unresolved. On those economics the margin per case is wafer-thin, and on a slow-running book it turns negative.
That split between the two schemes matters, and it's the pre-2014 point. The FCA only took over consumer credit regulation on 1 April 2014. There's a live legal question over whether it even has the power to force redress on agreements written before that date. The FCA has deliberately ring-fenced the older cohort so that, if the pre-2014 limb is struck down, the post-2014 scheme can still run. It's worth appreciating that millions have effectively been gambled on the pre-2014 point; firms and funders have acquired and financed large volumes of older cases on the assumption the regulator's power holds, and that assumption is precisely what is now being tested.
Timescale is the hard part for investors. The scheme has been challenged by four parties; three lenders and a consumer group. On 2 July the Upper Tribunal suspended key parts of the scheme; lenders don't have to calculate or pay redress until the challenge is heard. That hearing is now listed for December 2026 or February 2027, with judgment some months after. Realistically, no meaningful payouts before mid-2027, and later still if anyone appeals. That's the "another year or two" I referred to.
Some good news this week for those doing PCP: there was a judgment, Black Horse v Angel, in the Court of Appeal on 30 June. It's a genuine win; thousands of claims can be run together on single claim forms rather than issued individually, which keeps large volumes commercially viable. Notably, that case was run by Barings Law. But two cautions. First, it's a procedural win, not a finding of liability; every claimant still has to prove their own unfair relationship, and the court was scathing about the costs run up and the thin particulars. Second, and more relevant to us as investors, the FCA is actively steering consumers towards its free scheme rather than towards CMCs and law firms. If claimants take the free route, the firms earn little or nothing on those cases; so a court win on procedure doesn't necessarily translate into the fee income the funders are relying on to be repaid.
It's also worth remembering that not every case is a scheme case. Some fall outside the FCA's parameters entirely; excluded agreements, timed-out cases, high-value or high-commission cases better suited to litigation. Those still have to be run through the courts on their own merits, at their own cost and pace, which cuts against any assumption that the book monetises cleanly through the scheme.
Two further concerns worth adding. The first is duplicate claims. Where clients are sourced through third-party marketing rather than direct, the same individual can end up signed up with several firms; the claim gets sold more than once, and nobody has a clean picture of true, deduplicated volume until it's tested.
The second is where the money goes. I'm not involved with Nera, but across this market it's common for 10 to 20% of the sums financed to end up with the arranger or packager; those who have run successful advertising, the Genius Group among them (I'm not suggesting they have done anything wrong), capture value at the point of introduction. The clients, the law firms and the investors only see a return if the underlying schemes actually succeed; the brokers, by contrast, earn their margin on drawdown, at the front end, regardless of outcome.
That, to my mind, is the fundamental weakness. The party taking the least outcome risk is paid first and paid with certainty, while everyone whose return depends on the cases landing sits behind them and waits. It's a structure that rewards origination volume over case quality, and that promotes exactly the kind of over-funded, unsustainable lending we've watched unwind at firm after firm.
My real concern is that some of these firms will reach insolvency before their book pays out, even where that book contains perfectly good cases. That is precisely what should worry the SRA; an insolvent practice puts client matters, and in the worst cases the client account, at risk regardless of how strong the underlying claims are. A good case book is no protection if the firm carrying it cannot service its borrowings long enough to realise it.
My honest take: the recoverable value is real, but it's slow, contested, and increasingly channelled away from the firms carrying the funder debt. Interest keeps compounding on those facilities while everyone waits. Even if the money eventually arrives, it's hard to see how some of these firms service borrowings at 35%-plus through to 2027 and beyond.
0 -
Thanks you very much. It's complicated
0 -
It is. Historically litigation funding to consumer law firms hasn't gone well.
Over exposure to a single , unproven, work stream, a law firm that expands too quickly without the infrastructure .
Recently VFS , Katch , Fenchurch etc have all become insolvent .0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Komentāri
131 comments