Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

2020 Co-Investment Survey Results

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ 

Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. 

EXECUTIVE SUMARY

  • Survey suggests the litigation finance industry has demand for co-investment capital
  • Speed to commitment and having a fully funded commitment ranked highest in terms of co-investor characteristics
  • Most funders expect a co-investment commitment within less than 4 weeks

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • While investors might be attracted to co-investment opportunities, diversification is a strong component to successful long-term investing in commercial litigation finance
  • Co-investing should only be considered in the context of creating a portfolio, or to add specific exposures to an existing portfolio, but should never be viewed as a single investment

Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal recently undertook a survey of commercial litigation finance participants to obtain a deeper understanding of the extent to which there is demand for third-party co-investment capital.

The survey was distributed globally, with the majority of responses coming from constituents in the USA (50%) and UK (18%) markets, or from funders that invested globally (18%).  Of the responses, 22% were from advisors/intermediaries and 78% were from funders (with the vast majority of funders having dedicated litigation finance funds).

Co-Investment in Litigation Finance

 Co-investment opportunities are an attractive sub-set of opportunities for many investors in a variety of asset classes, with particular appeal for private equity (buy-out, growth equity, real estate and venture capital) asset classes.  However, in the context of litigation finance, an investor needs to take a different perspective when considering co-investment opportunities.

Whereas it may be perfectly acceptable for a family office, endowment or pension plan to co-invest in a specific private equity opportunity as part of their larger portfolio, the quasi-binary nature of litigation finance should make investors think twice about how they approach investing in litigation finance.  The key difference lies in the probability weighted set of outcomes accorded to each asset class. In a private equity buy-out transaction, a high number produce positive results, and the results vary across a spectrum of potential return outcomes (from 1+ X original investment, to a 5+ X original investment).

In litigation finance, even though many cases settle before going to court, there tends to be two outcomes – a win or a loss.  The wins are allocated across a tighter spectrum than private equity, and the losses tend to be absolute (with exceptions).  Accordingly, due to the quasi-binary nature of the outcomes of litigation finance, co-investing should only be considered where the investors are committed to assembling a portfolio of such co-investment opportunities, and have the ability to assess the fundamental aspects of litigation finance.  Alternatively, to the extent an investor has existing investments in litigation finance, but is looking to round out his or her portfolio with specific case exposures to achieve a particular portfolio objective, co-investment opportunities may play a role in that investor’s portfolio construction approach.

2020 Co-Investment Survey results are summarized below:

Demand

Of the 23 respondents, 70% stated they had a need for co-investment capital, whereas 30% did not.  However, 13% indicated that the need for co-investment was occasional, and that sometimes their LPs had pre-emptive rights with respect to investing in those opportunities.

Frequency

In terms of frequency of co-investment opportunities, almost 50% of respondents indicated they have from 1 to 5 opportunities in a given year, with just over 20% in the 6-10 range, and a few managers indicating they had 20 such opportunities in a given year.  The number of opportunities directly correlated with the size of the funder and the size of the cases they typically finance.

Co-Investor Characteristics

Regarding the characteristics that are most important in a co-investment partner, speed to commitment and having a funded capital source ranked the highest, with responsiveness and understanding complex litigation also ranking highly.  However, there was not a huge disparity in terms of the importance of the six criteria listed, suggesting that all criteria were factored into their decision-making process. Keep in mind that the compilation of rankings on the chart below is an average of the six criteria, so a high number on the chart should be viewed as being more important (even though that answer drew more 1’s and 2’s), whereas a low number on the chart should be viewed as less important. For example, ‘Speed to Commitment’ and ‘Having a Funding Capital Source’ both received the most 1’s and 2’s, but their average ranking is the highest and therefore most important.  ‘Flexible Capital’ received the most 6’s, but has the lowest average score, and is therefore the least important metric.

When we dive further into the ‘speed to commitment’ characteristic, we find the vast majority of respondents expect a commitment within 3-4 weeks.  It remains to be seen if expectations and reality are in alignment, a good question to include in the next survey.

Expected Duration

With respect to the underwritten expected duration, most fall within the 12-36 month range, which is consistent with duration expectations for the industry as a whole.  However, 30% of respondents did indicate that duration was a function of the type of case being underwritten, with certain case types (patent, international arbitration, etc.) having longer durations and appeal cases having shorter durations.

Co-Investment Structuring

In terms of insight into how these co-investment transactions are typically structured, the responses varied.  In the ‘other’ category, some respondents indicated they have used a variety of the choices offered, whereas one respondent stated that they received a specified interest in the profits produced by the investment.

Current Co-Investors

As it relates to where the current co-investment opportunities are being offered, the majority were offered to other funders, suggesting there is a fair amount of cooperation in the litigation finance marketplace.  However, within the ‘other’ category, most respondents suggested it was a combination of all of the choices listed.

This brings to a close the results of our first commercial litigation finance co-investment survey.  Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal would like to thank those that participated in the survey for their time and feedback.

Our next survey will cover fundraising initiatives by fund managers in the commercial litigation finance sector. We anticipate making the fundraising survey an annual survey so we can track fundraising activities over time.

If you would like to participate in future surveys, please contact Ed Truant here to register your interest.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

CAT Hearing for £200m Mastercard Settlement Highlights Divide Between Funder and Class Representative

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class representative and funder over a proposed settlement shows that it is not always a relationship in which both parties see eye to eye.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of the ongoing hearing at the CAT, as the tribunal hears arguments as to whether the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard hearing should be approved or not. The hearing, which is scheduled to last until the end of the week, saw counsel for the claimant, defendant and funder each offer their arguments on whether the judges should proceed with the collective settlement approval order (CSAO).

Mark Brealey KC, counsel for class representative Walter Merricks CBE, stated that it was the position of both Merricks and Mastercard that the value of the settlement was “in a range that was fair and reasonable.” Responding to the intervention of Innsworth Capital, the litigation funder opposing the settlement, Brealey argued that “the funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings”.

Charles Bear KC, representing Innsworth as the intervener, highlighted the cost of the funder’s support for the case and argued that approval would mean that “the class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.” Bear went further and emphatically stated that Innsworth’s view is that “it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.”

Sonia Tolaney KC, counsel for Mastercard, suggested that it was the views of the class representative and defendant that should hold the most weight, arguing that “There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].” Tolaney also targeted Innsworth’s questioning of whether the £200 million settlement was the best possible outcome for the class representative, declaring that in Mastercard’s view, “that is the wrong question.”

Announcements Commercial

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services Business Adopts Broadridge’s Global Class Action Solution to Maximize its Clients’ Global Asset Recovery Opportunities

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business, a leading global custodian with USD 13.7 trillion under custody, has partnered with global Fintech leader, Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE:BR) to expand its global custody services, appointing Broadridge as service provider for its global securities class action services.

“As the Securities Services business of BNP Paribas, we are committed to delivering innovative and differentiating products and services to our clients. Broadridge brings advanced technology, market-leading information security and deep industry expertise that align with our goals, enhancing our clients’ experience and supporting their business,” said Christian Houillon, Head of Custody Product for Securities Services at BNP Paribas. “We will be able to harness Broadridge’s proprietary technology to identify, file and recover investment losses, alongside their extensive industry expertise.”

Broadridge provides a comprehensive, proprietary technology solution for global class action services that will help clients identify and act on asset recovery opportunities. This includes a seamless process for identifying, filing, and recovering investment losses, backed by Broadridge's industry expertise.

“As the volume of securities class actions continues to rise, it’s crucial for the clients of BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business and other global financial institutions to leverage all available asset recovery opportunities,” said Steve Cirami, Vice President, Head of Corporate Actions & Class Actions at Broadridge. “Broadridge’s solutions will enable the clients of BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business to obtain all required information to support their decisions on claim recoveries, facilitate investor participation in settlements and support key business functions, delivering a seamless and impactful client experience.”

Investors have more recovery opportunities than ever before as the class action landscape continues to expand globally with more than 35 jurisdictions around the world adopting collective redress mechanisms for shareholders. In 2024 alone, there were more than 125 recovery opportunities and $5.2 billion in settlements. The ability to monitor all opportunities globally requires leading edge technology and expertise, particularly in jurisdictions where considerations of litigation can be complex to navigate.

Broadridge’s dedicated global class action services team comprises deeply knowledgeable and experienced securities litigators, claims administrators, claims auditors and data specialists, equipped to provide clients with unmatched end-to-end services, portfolio monitoring and claims filing and registering processes in global jurisdictions. Learn more about the team here.

About Securities Services at BNP Paribas (securities.cib.bnpparibas)

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business is a leading global custodian providing multi-asset post-trade and asset servicing solutions to buy-side and sell-side market participants, corporates and issuers. With a global reach covering 90+ markets, its custody network is one of the most extensive in the industry, enabling clients to maximise their investment opportunities worldwide. As a pillar of BNP Paribas’ diversified banking model, Securities Services provides asset servicing solutions that are closely integrated with the first-class services of the Group’s other business lines, in particular those of Global Banking and Global Markets.

As of 31 December 2024, Securities Services had USD 13.7 trillion in assets under custody and USD 2.8 trillion in assets under administration.

About Broadridge

Broadridge Financial Solutions (NYSE: BR) is a global technology leader with the trusted expertise and transformative technology to help clients and the financial services industry operate, innovate, and grow. We power investing, governance, and communications for our clients – driving operational resiliency, elevating business performance, and transforming investor experiences. 

Our technology and operations platforms process and generate over 7 billion communications per year and underpin the daily trading of more than $10 trillion of securities globally. A certified Great Place to Work®, Broadridge is part of the S&P 500® Index, employing over 14,000 associates in 21 countries.

For more information about us, please visit www.broadridge.com.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Craig Geraghty, Legal Director, O’Connors Legal Services

By John Freund and 4 others |

Craig is a highly experienced corporate lawyer and Head of Corporate at O'Connors. His expertise covers a broad range of high-value transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity deals, business reorganisations and restructurings, joint ventures, corporate governance, and regulatory matters. He also has significant experience of advising law firms on litigation funding arrangements.

Craig joined O'Connors from global law firm Bedell Cristin where he handled significant offshore transactional work in their Jersey office. Craig’s offshore experience is a valuable asset, particularly for O'Connors investment fund and insurance practices, while his expertise in litigation funding is a key asset for the firm's legal sector clients.

Company Name and Description: O’Connors Legal Services Limited (which trades as O’Connors). O'Connors is a nationally recognised firm of business lawyers and advisers. Although business sector agnostic, the firm has particular expertise in supporting legal businesses, including law firms, barristers' chambers and claims management companies. Its unique blend of corporate, commercial, insurance, and regulatory legal expertise and unparalleled sector knowledge delivers strategic support and innovative solutions to help legal businesses navigate the legal landscape, manage risk and capitalise on market opportunities.

Website: https://www.oconnors.law

Founded: 2003

Headquarters: Liverpool - additional office in London

Area of Focus: Corporate, Commercial, Commercial Insurance, Litigation Funding, Financial Services and Legal Services Regulation

Member Quote: “We are known as the law firm for law firms and our deep understanding of the legal regulatory landscape means we are perfectly placed to assist law firms in accessing the resources they need to pursue justice through litigation funding.”