Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy.

The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March.

The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries.

As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing.”

By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available.

“When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.”

London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.”

Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

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.