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
Announcements Commercial Regulatory Issues

More Than 100 Companies Sign Letter Urging Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule for Federal Courts Ahead of October Judicial Rules Meeting

By Harry Moran |

In the most significant demonstration of concern for secretive third-party litigation funding (TPLF) to date, 124 companies, including industry leaders in healthcare, technology, financial services, insurance, energy, transportation, automotive and other sectors today sent a letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging creation of a new rule that would require a uniform process for the disclosure of TPLF in federal cases nationwide. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will meet on October 10 and plans to discuss whether to move ahead with the development of a new rule addressing TPLF.

The letter, organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), comes at a time when TPLF has grown into a 15 billion dollar industry and invests funding in an increasing number of cases which, in turn, has triggered a growing number of requests from litigants asking courts to order the disclosure of funding agreements in their cases. The letter contends that courts are responding to these requests with a “variety of approaches and inconsistent practices [that] is creating a fragmented and incoherent procedural landscape in the federal courts.” It states that a rule is “particularly needed to supersede the misplaced reliance on ex parte conversations; ex parte communications are strongly disfavored by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges because they are both ineffective in educating courts and highly unfair to the parties who are excluded.”

Reflecting the growing concern with undisclosed TPLF and its impact on the justice system, LCJ and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted a separate detailed comment letter to the Advisory Committee that also advocates for a “simple and predictable rule for TPLF disclosure.”

Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel said: “The Advisory Committee should propose a straightforward, uniform rule for TPLF disclosure. Absent such a rule, the continued uncertainty and court-endorsed secrecy of non-party funding will further unfairly skew federal civil litigation. The support from 124 companies reflects both the importance of a uniform disclosure rule and the urgent need for action.”

The corporate letter advances a number of additional reasons why TPLF disclosure is needed in federal courts:

Control: The letter argues that parties “cannot make informed decisions without knowing the stakeholders who control the litigation… and cannot understand the control features of a TPLF agreement without reading the agreement.” While many funding agreements state that the funder does not control the litigation strategy, companies are increasingly concerned that they use their growing financial leverage to exercise improper influence.

Procedural safeguards: The companies maintain that the safeguards embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) cannot work without disclosure of TPLF.  One example is that courts and parties today are largely unaware of and unable to address conflicts between witnesses, the court, and parties on the one hand, and non-parties on the other, when these funding agreements and the financial interests behind them remain largely secret.

Appraisal of the case: Finally, the letter reasons that the FRCP already require the disclosure of corporate insurance policies which the Advisory Committee explained in 1970 “will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation.” The companies maintain that this very same logic should also require the disclosure of TPLF given its growing role and impact on federal civil litigation.

Besides the corporate letter and joint comment, LCJ is intensifying its efforts to rally companies and practitioners to Ask About TPLF in their cases, and to press for a uniform federal rule to require disclosure. LCJ will be launching a new Ask About TPLF website that will serve as a hub for its new campaign later this month.

Read More
Commercial People Moves

Mesh Capital Hires Augusto Delarco to Bolster Litigation Finance Practice

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Mesh Capital announced the hiring of Augusto Delarco who has joined the Brazilian firm as a Senior Associate, bringing a “solid and distinguished track record in complex litigation and innovative financial solutions” to help develop Mesh Capital’s Litigation Finance and Special Situations practices. 

The announcement highlighted the experience Delarco would bring to the team, noting that throughout his career “he has advised clients, investors, and asset managers on strategic cases and the structuring of investments involving judicial assets.”

Delarco joins Mesh Capital from Padis Mattars Lawyers where he served as an associate lawyer, having previously spent six years at Tepedino, Migliore, Berezowski and Poppa Laywers.

Mesh Capital is based out of São Paulo and specialises in special situations, legal claims and distressed assets. Within litigation finance, Mesh Capital focuses on “the acquisition, sale and structuring of legal claims, covering private, public and court-ordered credit rights.”

Case Developments Commercial

Delaware Court Denies Target’s Discovery Request for Funding Documents in Copyright Infringement Case

By Harry Moran |

A recent court opinion in a copyright infringement cases has once again demonstrated that judges are hesitant to force plaintiffs and their funders to hand over information that is not relevant to the claim at hand, as the judge denied the defendant’s discovery request for documents sent by the plaintiff to its litigation funder.

In an article on E-Discovery LLC, Michael Berman analyses a ruling handed down by Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in the case of Design With Friends, Inc. v. Target Corporation. Design has brought a claim of copyright infringement and breach of contract, and received funding to pursue the case from Validity Finance. As part of its defense, Target had sought documents from the funder relating to its involvement in the case, but Judge Bibas ruled that Target’s request was both “too burdensome to disclose” and was seeking “information that is attorney work product”.

Target’s broad subpoena contained five requests for information including Validity’s valuations of the lawsuit, communications between the funder and plaintiff prior to the funding agreement being signed, and information about the relationship between the two parties.

With regards to the valuations, Judge Bibas wrote that “while those documents informed an investment decision, they did so by evaluating whether a lawsuit had merit and what damages it might recover,” which in the court’s opinion constitutes “legal analysis done for a legal purpose”. He went on to say that “if the work-product doctrine did not protect these records,” then the forced disclosure of these documents “would chill lawyers from discussing a pending case frankly.”

Regarding the requests for information about the relationship between Design and Validity, Judge Bibas was clear in his opinion that these requests were disproportionately burdensome. The opinion lays out clear the clear reasoning that “Target already knows that Validity is funding the suit and that it does not need to approve a settlement”, and with this information already available “Further minutiae about Validity are hardly relevant to whether Target infringed a copyright or breached a contract years before Validity entered the picture.”The full opinion from Judge Bibas can be read here.