Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Implications of Portfolio Financings on Litigation Finance Returns

The following article is the first in 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 Summary

  • Portfolio financings represent as much as 62% of all US commercial litigation finance investments
  • Strong growth trend for Law Firm and Corporate portfolios
  • Law firms recognize the inherent value in incubating portfolios
  • Not prevalent in non-contingent fee jurisdictions

Investor Insights

  • Potential effect of reducing overall investor returns relative to a portfolio of single case risks
  • Investors benefit from better risk-adjusted returns than single case investing
  • Cross-collateralized nature significantly reduces risk & shifts value to law firm
  • Portfolio financings may limit upside potential for investors
  • Review the portfolio composition (single vs. portfolio), past and future, to set return expectations.

One of the most significant trends in litigation finance for fund managers over the last few years has been the strong trend toward “portfolio financings”. Litigation finance can be broadly segmented between single case investments and portfolio financing investments. Single case is a reference to the provision of litigation finance to a single litigation, the outcome of which is completely dependent on the idiosyncratic case risk and binary litigation process risk.  Portfolio financing is a reference to the aggregation and cross-collateralization (typically) of a portfolio of cases, whether Law Firm or Corporate, whereby the results are determined by the performance of the portfolio as opposed to a single case. The trend has been so significant, that according to WestFleet’s 2019 Buyer’s Guide, Law Firm portfolio financings now account for 47% of capital commitments and Corporate portfolios account for 15% of commitments, for an aggregate of 62% of the commitments of the US industry.

Why is Portfolio Financing Growing So Quickly? 

  1. The primary growth driver of portfolio financings is that the industry, arguably, started in the area of single case financings and is now evolving its offerings into a more complex and larger area of litigation finance. It is typical for an industry to begin with the financings of single exposures, and then as the industry gets more comfortable and gains deeper experience, it evolves into other larger applications like portfolio financing.
  2. The second driver is that as litigation funders have expanded their capital base, they have had to look further afield in terms of where they can effectively invest their capital at scale. To this end, portfolio financings are an ideal way for litigation funders to put large amounts of capital to work quickly and in a better risk-adjusted way than undertaking the laborious task of assembling a series of single case investments into a portfolio.
  3. One of the knocks against litigation finance is a low degree of capital deployment. Managers are motivated to reduce risk by slowly investing capital into the case in a measured way so as to mitigate loss of capital. Unfortunately, this negatively impacts the amount of capital they deploy and is inversely proportional to the effect their management fees have on returns. Portfolio financings, on the other hand, allow litigation funders to commit large amounts of capital and also expedite the deployment of capital, as they typically replace dollars that have been deployed (actual or notional) previously by the law firm. One could view a portfolio as a series of cases that have been ‘incubated’ by the law firm, and are now ready to be invested in by a litigation funder.
  4. Law firms have, astutely, come to realize there is value in (i) originating cases, arguably one of the most difficult and expensive services litigation funders provide, and (ii) applying modern portfolio theory to a series of cases and cross-collateralizing the pool, both to the benefit of the law firm. Progressive law firms married the new availability of large amounts of capital with the value inherent in their incubated portfolios and parlayed that into significant portfolio financings at a reasonable cost of capital, thereby capturing some of the economics for themselves.
  5. As awareness for litigation finance has grown throughout the legal community, awareness has also grown for plaintiff bar firms with large portfolios of cases. This market has also evolved and extended into corporate portfolios (LCM, an Australian litigation finance manager, is actively pursuing corporate portfolios). Accordingly, the increased awareness of the industry in general has also increased awareness for portfolio financing opportunities.

What Does it All Mean for Investors in the Asset Class?

The following quote from Burford’s 2018 capital markets event sums it up nicely:

“When we moved from single cases to portfolio investments, people wondered whether returns would decline, but they went up”

This statement suggests that on a risk-adjusted basis, portfolio financings deliver superior outcomes. However, when you look at Burford’s return profile over a long period of time, you will see that relatively few single case investments contributed to their overall multiple of capital, with the Pedersen & Teinver claims being considerable contributors. In fact, the size of the gross dollar returns of these single case investments dwarfs the rest of the portfolio and skews the overall results. Burford makes the point in their disclosures that removing these outliers disrupts the core of their strategy, which is more akin to venture capital. As with all portfolios, one needs to assess the outliers. Yet having witnessed a large number of portfolio results, I would suggest the return profile of a portfolio is more aligned to the approach, strategy, size and nature of cases in which the manager has chosen to invest, as opposed to the notion that portfolio financings produce inherently superior results than investing in a cross-section of single cases. Some funders produce very consistent results in terms of returns and duration, whereas other strategies are more volatile; it just depends on what risk profile you are willing to accept (i.e. are you looking for venture capital or leveraged buy-out type returns).

I think it is fair to say that the public domain lacks enough data to determine whether portfolio financings are better risk-adjusted returns than a diversified portfolio of single cases. However, when you consider that most portfolio financings are cross-collateralized, this single feature does have a significant impact on risk. The question then becomes how much return does the Law Firm or Corporation extract for delivering a fully originated portfolio with cross-collateralization features.

I would expect that over a large portfolio of transactions, portfolio financings will outperform in terms of returns in relation to volatility, and that single cases will outperform in terms of returns, but at the expense of higher volatility. The other aspect that is difficult to control in comparing results of two sets of portfolios is whether the nature of the cases (case type, life cycle, jurisdiction, size, etc.) are common across the single case control group and the portfolio financings group.

We may never know the answer, but logic dictates that portfolio financings should be lower returning, lower volatility investments, as compared to a portfolio of single cases – the key difference being the cross-collateralization feature.

Investor Insights

When reviewing fund manager results one should look closely at the composition of the portfolio to understand what portion is being derived from portfolios compared to single cases.  It will also be important to note the trending in these case types.  If the manager is scaling its operations, as many currently are, their motivations are to deploy large amounts of capital quickly in large portfolios with lower risk.  While this is a prudent approach for the manager, one then has to determine whether the historic return profile based on a portfolio of single case exposures is indicative of a future portfolio which will be mainly comprised of portfolio financings.  The portfolio financings will have a different risk-reward dynamic and so investors will need to model their return expectations accordingly.  Either way, I expect the return profile for litigation finance to remain robust both in the areas of single cases and portfolios and continue to believe that diversification is a key success factor to prudent investing in the commercial litigation finance asset class.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.