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
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.