Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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.

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.