Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding: Beyond the Headlines, the Facts Tell a Different Story
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Event: How Investors Approach Litigation Finance

July 26, 2022

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Event: How Investors Approach Litigation Finance

On Thursday, July 14th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a digital event, “How Investors Approach Litigation Finance.” The event featured a unique cross-section of investor types, including David Gallagher, Co-Head of Litigation Investing at The D.E. Shaw Group, CJ Wei, Vice President of Private Credit at Northleaf Capital, Benjamin Blum, Managing Director at Flexpoint Ford, LLC, David Demeter, Director of Investment at Davidson College, and Kendra Corbett, Partner at Cloverlay. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital. Below are some key highlights from the discussion: ET: How did you start investing in Litigation Finance? What types of results did you focus on, and how has your strategy changed over time? DG: It takes time to obtain a meaningful number of results from litigation finance investments, and you can learn a lot along the way, even before the results come in. And because you invest in such a small proportion of the opportunities you look at, you try to learn from the investments you don’t make, as well as the investments you do make. And one of the lessons I’ve learned as it relates to deployment strategy, is that good deals are so hard to come by, and are a product of so many variables outside of your control, that it’s better to be responsive to the opportunity set in front of you, than to be wedded to the abstract ideas of portfolio construction or deal structuring. I think adaptiveness is key. KC: We’ve been active in deploying capital in litigation finance for over six years now, and I wouldn’t say our approach has changed dramatically. We’ve been laser-focused on maintaining diversification across cases to avoid binary risks, and finding alignment across all of the involved parties. I think we’ve looked for market specialists, and we haven’t necessarily tried to find litigation finance beta, and instead we’ve looked for partners with a demonstrable value-add and strategic advantage. ET:  For those panelists more interested in credit opportunities in the legal finance space, why did you decide to focus on credit? DG: At the D.E. Shaw Group, the litigation investing team works closely with the Private Credit group, which I like to think broadens the types of deals we do. So, in addition to investing in litigation finance deals with a more typical risk/reward profile, we also invest in less volatile opportunities that are less about litigation risk, and more about timing risk and basic credit risk. BB: There are a few ways to create a credit-like opportunity in litigation finance. In addition, the way David was describing, the other way is to create a credit-like product by lending against a diverse portfolio of individual case fundings. So the asset is a little bit less credit-like, but the investment structure creates a credit-like investment. Both areas are of interest to us, especially when there is strong alignment with the borrower and downside protection through underwriting, to justify accepting a return profile that is either capped or has limited upside. CW: At Northleaf, we have many different funds with many different return hurdles, so we view ourselves as a capital solutions provider to litigation finance businesses. That being said, our thesis around the asset class is akin to a type of Private Credit approach strategy. Principal protection is our priority. We not only have asset coverage of the legal assets, but additional covenants and protections, and bespoke structures where we have guardrails against any downside scenario. ET: From an equity perspective, how is litigation finance the same as, or different from, other equity assets in which you invest? DD: If you suspend disbelief a bit, I would equate it with early venture investing. Liquidity cycles tend to be uncorrelated in the long run, you’re generally creating milestones for capital, outcomes can be pretty skewed, where large winners make up the majority of profit (although it’s certainly more skewed in venture than in litigation finance), and the investment strategy isn’t all that scalable—managers have to be cognizant of all that they’re trying to deploy. DG: I’ll focus on some of the differences. First, a litigation finance investor has no control over the litigation, while an equity investor or investors that own the majority of the company—they do control the company. So the closest analogy is to a class of shares that has no voting rights. Second, LitFin investments are typically illiquid. Equity investments are typically liquid. Another difference is that case outcomes are typically more binary than business outcomes.  And one last difference is that a company you might invest in can pivot and respond as needed to market opportunities, a case you invest in—it pretty much is what it is, and there’s only so much that even the most talented lawyers can do, with the facts and the law involved. ET: One of the common criticisms I hear from fund managers, at least early on in the life cycle, is that investors are not willing to pay management fees to fund their operations. How does the panel respond to this criticism, given that the average litigation finance claim is small—around $3-5MM—and there is a lot of relatively sophisticated operations needed to be conducted by investment managers?   DD: I think there are ways of paying someone a full fee and making sure deployment is there. And that is my primary concern, and I think most LPs primary concern, when it comes to paying a management fee. We’re also concerned about misalignment. At the fund level, people should really be making a large amount of their compensation from performance fees, not salary. KC: It’s definitely a difficult issue. The fee drag that comes with charging investors on committed capital becomes pretty untenable when you’re comparing gross returns to net returns. So from our perspective, at a minimum, fees need to be on an as-committed basis. We’ve also seen scenarios where there is a lower management fee on committed capital that steps up once it’s drawn. It’s just really difficult with some of the commercial litigation strategies to have a full freight fee—2%–committed from investors.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Perpetual Lifts Omni Bridgeway Stake to 15.4% After Months of Buying

Perpetual Limited has increased its holding in litigation funder Omni Bridgeway to 15.403%, according to a substantial holding notice lodged with the ASX, consolidating its position as one of the funder's largest institutional shareholders.

As reported by Kalkine Media, the Form 604 shows Perpetual and its related bodies corporate now control 44,613,540 ordinary shares carrying 15.403% of voting power in Omni Bridgeway, up from 41,291,970 shares and 14.256% at the time of the previous notice in April 2026. The change in relevant interest was recorded on September 18, and company secretary Sylvie Dimarco signed the notice on September 22.

The annexure to the filing sets out a two-stage pattern of trading by Perpetual Investment Management Limited between June 12 and September 18. Perpetual was a net seller through June and July, with disposals executed via custodians Citicorp Nominees and HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia). From late July onward the direction reversed, with purchases recorded on multiple dates including August 27 and 28 and across September 15 to 18, executed through both custodians.

The accumulation comes during a period of pronounced volatility for the ASX-listed funder. Omni Bridgeway reported record FY26 commitments and investment proceeds alongside a 89% fall in net profit, and was recently dropped from the S&P Global BMI index. A sizeable institutional shareholder adding to its position against that backdrop is a notable signal for a sector where public-market sentiment has lagged operational performance.

Omni Bridgeway has not commented on the change in Perpetual's holding.

Commercial

Funder’s 20% to 25% Cut Draws Scrutiny in Macquarie Shield Class Action

A funded class action filed against Macquarie Investment Management over the collapse of the Shield Master Fund is drawing criticism from within the Australian advice industry, with questions being raised over whether litigation funding is the right route for investors who have already been partially compensated.

As reported by ifa, the action was served on September 17 on behalf of Rachelle Dessent and roughly 2,800 account holders who lost superannuation in the Shield collapse. Gordon Legal, which is running the case, alleges investors have not been fully compensated despite the $321 million Macquarie paid out last year covering total amounts invested, after the firm admitted failures related to Shield. The claim seeks the growth those savings might have achieved had they remained invested elsewhere, together with damages for distress. Netwealth was served with draft documents for a separate potential class action on September 21.

Central to the criticism is the cost of the funded route. Save Our Super advocate Melinda Kee, who told ifa that Gordon Legal approached her last year and that she "wasn't interested," pointed to the firm's own disclosure that the litigation funder is entitled to between 20% and 25% of any settlement fund if the action succeeds, with legal costs also payable from the group's award subject to court approval.

Kee argued that pursuing claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is free and delivers compensation directly to investors. With average losses around $120,000, and lower for many Macquarie and Netwealth investors following the return of capital, she suggested many residual claims could fall within the $150,000 CSLR cap.

The case turns in part on so-called "but for" losses. Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino recently confirmed that only actual losses will be compensated through the CSLR from July 1, 2027.

Commercial

Court of Appeal Rules Clients Cannot Force Disclosure of Secret ATE Commissions

The Court of Appeal has ruled that former clients have no mechanism under the Solicitors Act to compel their solicitors to reveal commissions earned on after-the-event insurance, even while criticising firms that refuse to answer the question as behaving unwisely.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the judgment in Turner v Coupland Cavendish upheld a challenge brought by the solicitors and found there is no route through a Part 18 request for further information to force disclosure in a Solicitors Act costs assessment. Lady Justice Andrews, giving the lead judgment, said there was no "shortcut" for former clients seeking information about secret commissions on ATE premiums.

Andrews nonetheless made clear her discomfort with the position. As a fiduciary, she said, a solicitor ought to tell a client about any commission if asked, and where a firm refuses there appears to be no easy or cost-effective remedy. She described the solicitors' conduct as "unattractive," "unwise" and "unedifying," and acknowledged the unfairness of requiring a client to produce evidence that a commission was paid in order to obtain the evidence needed to prove it, when that evidence sits with the solicitor. She stopped short of proposing a fix, flagging it instead for those able to change the rules or the law.

The sums at stake in the underlying matter were modest. The ATE premium on the original personal injury claim was £245, with any commission likely to be no more than £25. Andrews observed that the principal beneficiaries of a successful challenge would be those who have built an industry out of challenging solicitors' costs. The claim was led by Leeds firm JG Solicitors.

At first instance, Costs Judge Rowley refused the Part 18 request. Mr Justice Sweeting reversed that decision in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has now restored the original position.