Trending Now
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

Family Offices Turn to Litigation Finance as a Portfolio Diversifier

Family offices are increasingly treating litigation finance as a diversification tool, drawn by returns that are largely uncorrelated with public markets at a time of rising inflation and interest rates.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appeal rests on three characteristics: appetite for risk, patience for investments of uncertain duration, and the absence of correlation to other holdings. Kelly Daley, founder of Celsia Capital, described family offices as a "uniquely good fit" for the asset class, noting that most operate on evergreen horizons with few external constraints — unlike LP-backed funds, pension plans and endowments working to fixed terms.

Thomas Mellor, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said insurance-backed structures, in which an asset is insured and then borrowed against, have widened the pool of capital available to the market. Over the past seven to eight years the ecosystem has expanded to the point where family offices are "just one of the many other market participants who became part of" it.

The scale of that capital is substantial. More than half of the 351 respondents to Citi Wealth's Global Family Office Report 2026/2027 manage over $500 million, and Deloitte projects roughly 75% growth in the number of family offices between 2019 and 2030, against $9.5 trillion in family wealth.

The interest arrives as institutional fundraising remains slow. Corbin Capital's $342 million litigation finance fund took nearly two years to close, underscoring why funders are looking to capital sources that can commit without a fixed exit date.

Commercial

Federal Court Appoints Contradictors to Test Funder’s $244M Cut of Toyota Settlement

Justice Michael Lee has appointed two barristers as contradictors to scrutinise the commission a litigation funder is seeking from a record A$750 million settlement of two Toyota class actions — the largest funder commission ever sought in an Australian class action.

As reported by Lawyerly, the appointment marks a change of heart by the judge, who will now have independent counsel test Balance Legal Capital's proposed A$244 million share before deciding whether to approve it. Contradictors are appointed precisely because a commission application would otherwise go unopposed, with both the applicants and the respondent supporting approval.

The proceedings concern allegedly defective diesel particulate filters and have already produced significant precedent. In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344, the Federal Court made the first aggregate damages award under section 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act in favour of a funded litigant, with roughly 260,000 vehicle owners in the class. At that stage the funder had sought a commission of up to 25%.

The contradictor mechanism has materially reduced funder returns before. In the Robodebt class action, a contradictor argued that A$23 million was the appropriate commission against the funder's A$71 million request from a A$548.5 million settlement — a reduction of close to two-thirds.

The outcome will be closely watched by funders active in the Australian market, where commission approval has become the principal point at which courts exercise control over the economics of funded class actions.

Commercial

Litigation Lending Services Funds Landmark Australian Class Action Against Meta

A funded class action filed in Australia's Federal Court alleges that Meta Platforms exposed children to harmful content on Facebook and Instagram and kept them engaged through addictive design features. It is understood to be the first Australian case to attribute harm to social media platforms.

As reported by Al Jazeera, the action is funded by Litigation Lending Services and was filed by MinterEllison on behalf of eight plaintiffs who say they were harmed while under the age of 18. The funder said it was backing the claim for Australian families who "would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant."

The Federal Court in Sydney has issued a suppression order restricting publication of the statement of claim and the identities of the applicants. A Meta spokesperson said the company is "aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously," with HSF Kramer acting for the defence. MinterEllison partner William Nolan said the proceeding "raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia."

The funding structure reflects standard Australian practice, where class actions are typically backed by third-party funders taking a percentage of any recovery rather than run on contingency by the firm itself. The case follows Australia's December 2025 minimum-age rules, which require platforms including Facebook and Instagram to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts, and Meta's agreement in August to pay up to $17.1 billion to resolve claims brought by a coalition of US state attorneys-general.

The matter returns to court on November 3.