Trending Now
  • Survey Finds Legal Clients Accept AI for Simple Queries but Not Sensitive Matters
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

Woodville Collapse Deepens as Administrators Probe £249M in Loans and Misapplied Investor Funds

The administration of Woodville Consultants, the litigation funder that helped bankroll the wave of UK motor-finance claims, is proving more consequential than its modest headcount suggested, with administrators now examining hundreds of millions of pounds in outstanding loans and the possible misapplication of investor funds.

As reported by Legal Futures, Woodville had funded more than 300,000 claims since 2019 and carried some £249 million in outstanding loans at the point of collapse — figures that stand in stark contrast to its staff of roughly 10. As many as six law firms are understood to be affected.

The funder's model required fixed quarterly returns and fixed repayment dates without reference to actual case recoveries, an arrangement fundamentally misaligned with the uncertain timelines of litigation. That mismatch became untenable once the Financial Conduct Authority's motor-finance redress scheme was suspended, leaving the underlying claims effectively on hold and cutting off the repayments Woodville expected from partner firms.

Administrators are now investigating how the company funded quarterly returns and redemptions to loan-note holders before its collapse, alongside potential wrongdoing and the misapplication of investor funds by directors and introducers. Joint owners Peter Legge and Ann Marie Bell opposed the administration order.

The failure follows a familiar pattern. Fenchurch Legal entered administration in April 2026 and Katch Fund Solutions in December 2025, both citing the prolonged resolution of motor-finance claims — underscoring the sector-wide strain the FCA's redress delays have placed on funders exposed to those cases.

Commercial

Uber’s New Litigation Funding Terms Would Hinder Accountability, Commentary Argues

Uber's revised terms of service — which require users who sue the company to disclose their litigation funding agreements and to waive attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over communications with funders — are legally vulnerable but could still deter funders from backing claims against the ride-hailing giant, according to new legal commentary.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Brianne Holland-Stergar of the University of Montana School of Law contends that the provisions rest on shaky legal footing. Courts have extended work-product protection to funder documents, particularly those reflecting attorney opinions, and burying the terms within a 14,000-word clickwrap agreement is unlikely to extinguish a user's reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The commentary argues the clause could also face unconscionability challenges.

Even if the terms would not survive a court test, the analysis warns they may achieve their aim in practice. With the litigation finance market having reached an estimated $20 billion by 2025, funders weighing where to deploy capital may simply avoid cases likely to become entangled in enforcement disputes — an aversion sharpened by mounting political opposition through state-level bans and congressional scrutiny.

Holland-Stergar frames the stakes in terms of accountability rather than consumer protection. Citing Uber's prior efforts to curtail litigants, she argues the tactics appear aimed at discouraging suits against the company, including cases brought by more than 3,000 individuals alleging sexual assault. The result, the commentary concludes, would be a chilling effect on meritorious claims that depend on outside capital to reach court.

Commercial

Nera Capital Secures £75 Million Funding Commitment for UK, EU and US Investment

Nera Capital has secured a new £75 million funding commitment, capital the litigation funder will deploy across three strategic initiatives spanning the United Kingdom, continental Europe and the United States.

According to a press release from Nera Capital, the commitment reflects the firm's focus on financing claims with strong legal merit and substantial economic impact, and reinforces investor confidence in the litigation finance sector.

A significant portion of the capital will support a growing portfolio of personal injury claims in the United States, where Nera Capital continues to expand through partnerships with specialist American law firms. The investment is intended to provide claimant firms with the capital required to pursue those cases efficiently, while helping injured individuals access justice without bearing the cost of lengthy litigation.

The funding will also be allocated to one of Europe's largest competition litigation matters — a €12 billion antitrust claim in Portugal. The claim is expected to involve thousands of businesses and consumers affected by alleged anti-competitive conduct, with the financing covering the legal costs required to progress the case through the Portuguese courts.

In the United Kingdom, part of the new capital is dedicated to the next phase of motor vehicle finance litigation following the Court of Appeal decision in Angel v Black Horse. That judgment confirmed that large volumes of claims can proceed using omnibus claim forms, improving procedural efficiency for claimant firms pursuing undisclosed commission claims. Nera Capital is working with leading claimant firms to finance those omnibus strategies, providing disbursement funding and operational support to manage claims at scale.

A spokesperson for Nera Capital said the commitment "demonstrates continued investor confidence in both our underwriting model and the long-term opportunities within Nera and litigation finance," citing exceptional demand across multiple jurisdictions. "Our role is to provide law firms with the financial resources they need to pursue meritorious claims, allowing individuals and businesses to access justice irrespective of their financial circumstances."

Established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin with offices in Manchester and the Netherlands, Nera Capital is a member of the European Litigation Funders Association.