Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Implications of Portfolio Financings on Litigation Finance Returns

January 15, 2020

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

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.