Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Commercial Special Features

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

August 28, 2019

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

The following was contributed by Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM). The recent and well documented attacks by activist short-seller Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have brought litigation finance into the limelight. Whilst largely focussed on Burford’s accounting methods and corporate governance, the hedge fund’s accusations have raised concerns around the practices and legitimacy of the industry more broadly. One key question raised is around whether funders should even be listed on a public market. More pointedly, why can companies with questionable governance practices, an unpredictable revenue forecast, and operating in an industry with limited access to a secondary market against which claims can be evaluated, be listed? A lot of this is down to varying levels of understanding around Burford’s accounting practices, and indeed those of the wider industry. It is important to recognise that while there are many companies operating in the growing litigation finance space, they do not all do the same thing, or account the same way and shouldn’t all be tarred with the same brush. Fair value accounting – adopted by Burford and others under IFRS 9, is not an evil. But the application of it does matter. There are differing ways of adopting fair value accounting and how it is used is ultimately a management team decision. The accounting treatment for litigation projects varies across the industry and some approaches are more reliant on subjective judgement by management teams than others. For a clear representation, fair value numbers should always be given alongside historical cash accounting figures, so investors and counterparties are able to see the underlying performance of the business. It is vital that funders are fully transparent and have numbers that can be easily verified and valued externally. In practice, this entails the development of a fair value accounting method that can be scrutinised and tested by external parties. This probably results in lower valuations than management may have reached alone. But ultimately, as we’ve seen over the past fortnight, it is prudent to be cautious and conservative. The importance of disclosure to shareholders and clients cannot be underestimated. Subject to the right application of fair value accounting, there are several significant advantages to being listed – relating to transparency, regulation and access to capital – that make it a highly appropriate model for funders. Being listed on any stock exchange ensures a level of regulation and transparency that the private markets do not. We say this with some authority having been listed on both a main market (the Australian Securities Exchange) and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”). Our experience has been that there is little difference in standards and accountability between the two. As a constituent of a public market, there is pressure to ensure that standards of corporate governance are upheld. Natural checks exist to hold companies to account in the form of selling investors, analysts publishing negative research, and, at the most extreme level, activists or short sellers publicly targeting companies. What’s difficult is that there is no formal regulation of the litigation finance sector, although its introduction in multiple jurisdictions is inevitable in time. It is hard to predict what form it will take, but I have no doubt that respectable funders will welcome it when it arrives, and we should do. In the meantime, our listed status provides a platform through which we can continue to meet regulatory standards. This is particularly important for firms like LCM looking to fund corporate portfolio transactions. Naturally, sophisticated corporates have stringent KYC protocols, and being listed demonstrates a level of oversight and transparency around where your capital is coming from, often in stark contrast to some. Furthermore, litigation finance is capital-intensive by its very nature and being listed provides funders with access to public sources of capital in the equity and bond markets. Equity raises provide funders with permanent capital to invest from the balance sheet, thereby avoiding any potential liquidity mismatches that might occur with some alternative fund structures. It also means investors of all types (from institutions to individuals) can gain access to the asset class’s attractive, uncorrelated returns. There will be a failure in this industry soon. This will be in large part due to the use of contingent revenues to hide loss positions, as well as funders being over reliant on one part of the market, such as single case investments. This is clearly not a sustainable business model and further illustrates the need for the considered use of fair value accounting. Recent events have been no help to the ongoing education process around the benefits of legal finance generally. It is a rude awakening that the practices of one business in our industry have raised so many questions around the governance and reporting of its peers. It will take time for the jitters to settle. In the meantime, the regulatory oversight that being a listed company provides should be seen as a positive. Nick Rowles-Davies is Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) and leads the company’s EMEA operations.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Fundraising

IVO Capital Partners Launches Fund IV for Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Paris‑based litigation funder IVO Capital Partners has launched its fourth vehicle, named IVO Legal Strategies Fund IV, targeting €150 million (approx. US$173 million) to back contested commercial disputes and arbitration claims across continental Europe and beyond.

According to an article in WealthBriefing, the fund will deploy capital primarily within France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and is focused on claim types such as competition law, data protection infringements and collective redress mechanisms. With over 11 years’ experience investing in cases across Europe, the UK and the U.S., IVO says its team is “uniquely positioned to capitalise on the growing need for capital to fund meritorious cases.”

The vehicle is structured as a closed‑ended fund with an 8‑year life, a 3‑year investment period and a target internal rate of return of 14 percent. Typical individual lawsuits range between €500k and €5m; IVO expects to invest in 50‑60 diversified matters for Fund IV, thereby reinforcing the argument that legal finance can serve as an uncorrelated asset class — largely decoupled from macroeconomic trends. The firm emphasises that the European litigation‑funding market remains nascent compared with the U.S., but regulatory changes such as the EU Damages Directive and the Representative Actions Directive are enhancing access to collective actions and follow‑on claims.

Investors in the preceding fund mix included family offices and wealth managers (wealth advisors now form over a third of the investor base), and the minimum entry into Fund IV is €100k for professional and qualified investors. Key risks remain case‑selection, outcome uncertainty and length of duration; IVO says capital‑protection insurance helps mitigate downside.

Commercial

Third‑Party Litigation Funding Gains Ground in Environmental Cases

By John Freund |

Environmental suits, increasingly seen as tools to hold governments and corporations accountable for ecosystem destruction and climate risk, often stall or never get filed because of steep costs and limited budgets.

An article in Nature highlights the U.S. commercial TPLF market as managing over US $12.4 billion in assets, showcasing the potential scale of the model for environmental justice. The core argument is that by providing funding to plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford the fight, TPLF can enable lawsuits that address pollution, habitat loss and climate change liability — aligning with broader calls to broaden access to justice in sustainability law. At the same time, the author cautions that TPLF carries risks: it may bring conflicts of interest, shift control of litigation away from claimants, or impose commercial pressures that are misaligned with public-interest goals.

For the legal funding industry this correspondence underscores important dimensions. It signals an expanding frontier: environmental litigation is becoming a viable sector for funders, not just mass-torts or commercial disputes. But it also raises governance questions: funders will need to establish best practices to ensure alignment with public interest, preserve claimant autonomy and guard against criticisms of “outsourcing” justice to commercial actors.

The article suggests that regulators, funders and civil-society actors should collaborate to craft transparent frameworks and guardrails if TPLF is to fulfill its promise in environmental realms.

Commercial

How Litigation Funding Evens the IP Playing Field

By John Freund |

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is becoming increasingly important for small firms, inventors and universities seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights against major corporations.

According to an article in Bloomberg, funding arrangements enable plaintiffs with viable claims—but limited resources—to access litigation and expert fees that would otherwise be prohibitive. In the complex IP space, cost and risk often preclude smaller rights holders from doing anything meaningful when a financially strong infringer acts. In effect, the commentary argues, litigation finance helps tilt the playing field back toward fairness and innovation rather than letting size alone determine outcomes.

The piece also observes that public debate has at times mis-characterised litigation funding—especially after efforts to tax funder returns—which it says “shined a spotlight on the solution” rather than creating the problem. The authors stress that the proper policy response is not punitive taxation or sweeping disclosure mandates that risk chilling investment. Instead, they advocate for targeted transparency under court supervision, combined with a recognition that accessible funding is a core part of ensuring just enforcement of IP rights.

For the legal-funding industry, the commentary underlines several take-aways: funders who back IP-rights holders serve a social as well as economic role, helping inventors and smaller entities access justice they could not otherwise afford. The industry should engage proactively in outreach: educating IP counsel and claim-holders about funding, telling success stories of smaller plaintiffs, and working with policymakers and legislators to shape rational regulation. The challenge remains to balance the benefits of funding with ethical, transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards—as discussion in the broader TPLF context shows.