Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Susanna Taylor

October 16, 2023

Member Spotlight: Susanna Taylor

Susanna Taylor is Head of Investments – APAC, for Litigation Capital Management (LCM). Susanna leads LCM’s team of Investment Managers in Australia and Singapore and is responsible for overseeing the sourcing, due diligence and management of LCM’s investment activities across the APAC region. Susanna is a highly experienced and skilled operator being active in the litigation funding industry since 2014 when she joined LCM. Since that time Susanna has been responsible for sourcing, underwriting and managing a large and diverse portfolio of dispute projects consisting of commercial disputes, class actions, insolvency claims and international arbitration. Susanna sits on LCM’s investment committees for both APAC and EMEA and is intimately involved in the operational aspects of LCM’s business, taking part in regulatory and compliance and capital raising activities, investor relations and the expansion of LCM to new jurisdictions. Prior to joining LCM in 2014, Susanna was a litigation specialist with Norton Rose Fulbright in Sydney where her practice canvassed class actions, financial institutions disputes, contentious regulatory work (including work for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and corporate disputes. Before joining Norton Rose Fulbright, Susanna practised in London for UK firm Hammonds Suddards Edge where her focus was on construction litigation. Susanna’s Chambers and Partners profile describes her as “one of the top operators in the industry,” and as “an extremely impressive litigation funder with a strong ability to cut to the commercial reality of claims.” Company Name & Description:  LCM specialises in providing bespoke dispute finance solutions to facilitate the pursuit and successful recovery of funds from legal claims, while protecting our clients from the downside risk associated with disputes. Founded in 1998, LCM is one of Australia’s most experienced and successful disputes finance companies. LCM has completed over 260 cases and has assisted hundreds of companies and individuals in achieving significant recoveries from claims that, without LCM, may not have been pursued due to the associated costs and risks. All of LCM’s Investment Managers are former litigators with the level of experience required to facilitate successful outcomes in disputes. LCM’s team is highly skilled in the assessment of claims and in providing strategic assistance throughout the process of determining the dispute. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection, active project management and robust risk management. LCM’s capability stems from being a pioneer of the industry with more than 25 years of disputes finance experience. LCM is listed on AIM (at the London Stock Exchange), trading under the ticker LIT. Company Website https://lcmfinance.com/ Year Founded: 1998 Headquarters: Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne Area of Focus: Arbitration, Insolvency Claims, Commercial Claims, Class Actions Member Quote: “Disputes finance is a risk management tool which allows a variety of claimants from small to large to leverage their dispute assets in order to transfer the costs and risk of a dispute to a third party funder.  Being involved in structuring these finance solutions and sitting alongside claimants to assist them to reach a successful outcome makes this a very rewarding industry to be a part of“.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Op-Ed: Policymakers Must Fix the Tax Treatment of Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

As private equity firms extend their reach into the legal industry, a new commentary argues that the tax code has failed to keep pace with how litigation funders actually earn their returns.

Writing for RealClearMarkets, Michael Toth contends that third-party litigation funders routinely claim favorable capital gains treatment on their returns when that income should be taxed as ordinary income. He notes that the Treasury Department "has never bothered to clarify the proper tax treatment of TPLF returns," leaving a roughly $20 billion industry to structure deals as "derivative contracts" despite funders performing work that closely mirrors that of plaintiffs' attorneys—vetting cases, advising on strategy, and managing litigation budgets.

The piece opens with Fortress's recent $125 million investment in an Arizona personal injury firm, which Toth frames as evidence that funders are shifting from wagering on individual case outcomes toward financing law firms' back-office operations and steadier revenue streams. He argues that the disclosure bills congressional Republicans have introduced since 2019 are "focused on yesterday's market," addressing single-case funding even as investors move toward portfolio and operational models. He also flags that nonresident foreign funders can often avoid federal tax on U.S. litigation gains altogether.

Toth's proposed fix relies on existing authority: he urges Treasury to apply the substance-over-form doctrine and tax funding returns as ordinary business income, while noting that Congress could amend the definition of capital assets to exclude legal claims.

Commercial

Are Class Members Out of Reach? Low Take-Up Tests the UK’s Opt-Out Regime

By John Freund |

The credibility of the UK's opt-out collective action regime increasingly depends on a stubborn problem: persuading class members to actually claim the damages won on their behalf.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, Rachel Rothwell, editor of Litigation Funding, examines how little of the money awarded in landmark cases is reaching the consumers it is meant to compensate. In Gutmann v South Western Trains, the boundary fares case, roughly £25 million was awarded—yet take-up was less than 1%, with only about £200,000 distributed to class members and £3.8 million directed to the Access to Justice Foundation. Many passengers, she notes, abandoned their claims once asked to supply bank details, wary of fraud.

The forthcoming Merricks v Mastercard payout will test the regime on a far larger scale. With £100 million of the £200 million settlement ringfenced for as many as 44 million potential claimants—roughly £45 to £70 each—the case has become a referendum on whether opt-out actions can deliver for the public rather than primarily for lawyers and funders.

Rothwell canvasses several proposed fixes: a central public register of claims endorsed by government or the courts; compelling defendants, particularly in the tech and utility sectors, to assist with distribution; and building trust through charities and consumer groups while offering vouchers in place of direct bank transfers. Legitimacy, she argues, hinges on a meaningful share of damages reaching those actually harmed.

Commercial

Innsworth Loses High Court Challenge to £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The High Court has rejected litigation funder Innsworth's judicial review challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's distribution of the £200M Merricks v Mastercard settlement, ending the first substantive test of a CAT settlement decision and handing class representative Walter Merricks what he called "a total victory."

As reported by Legal Futures, the CAT's January ruling allocated the first £100M to consumers, repaid Innsworth its estimated £46M outlay, and capped the funder's profit at 50% — roughly £23M — for a guaranteed total return of about £68M. In setting a 1.5x return, the tribunal noted that the settlement of a claim originally valued at £14bn was "very far from a success" for the 44M-member class.

Lord Justice Males rejected all three grounds of review, observing that a 50% profit "was not a bad result" for a funder that would likely have lost its entire investment had the case gone to another trial. Merricks accused Innsworth of seeking "to elevate its grab for profits over and above all other considerations," and said distribution to consumers can now begin. Innsworth, which is separately pursuing arbitration against Merricks, warned that inadequate funder returns will drive "a reallocation of capital towards lower-risk claims," and accused the CAT of acting as "a de facto regulator of the litigation funding market" while offering no clear guidance on permissible returns.

Winward Litigation Finance CIO Jeremy Marshall predicted the ruling "will certainly put the brakes on funders' appetites" for CAT claims.