Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

2020 Co-Investment Survey Results

April 24, 2020

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
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.