Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Covid-19 and Defendant Collectability Risk

April 15, 2020

Covid-19 and Defendant Collectability Risk

The following article is part of 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 SUMARY
  • Covid-19 will likely lead to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
  • The crisis has affected the solvency and viability of corporations and sovereigns
  • Litigation managers need to re-assess collectability risk, immediately and regularly, of each defendant in their portfolio
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Diligencing litigation managers should involve a deep understanding of how they assess defendant collectability risk
  • Defendant collectability risk is an ongoing risk that changes over time, therefore managers need a continuous risk assessment methodology
  • Investors looking to invest in litigation finance secondaries to take advantage of the current dislocation should avoid single case risk and look to portfolio acquisitions, but must assess collectability risk across the portfolio being acquired
As Covid-19 has taken the planet and the legal community by surprise, I think there are some lessons learned from private equity that can be applied to litigation finance.  In short, focus on cash – its collection, generation, distribution and availability. So, how does this relate to Litigation Finance? This novel Coronavirus-driven healthcare crisis which has spiralled into a broad-based economic crisis, the likes of which the modern global economy hasn’t seen since the Great Depression, has had the effect of taking otherwise viable, profitable and cashflow positive businesses and stopping them in their tracks.  Overnight, certain businesses and industries have performed a complete one-eighty, whereby they went from solvent to being on the precipice of insolvency.  For many litigation finance firms, their immediate reaction has and should be to undertake an immediate and urgent review of the defendants involved in each and every case in which their portfolios have an investment, in order to re-assess collectability risk, one of the key areas of litigation finance underwriting. When an economy, especially a consumer driven economy like the US, effectively shuts down overnight, there are few industries and companies that will be spared from a diminution in their value and blockage from access to capital.  Former “recession-resistant” and “necessity” businesses have just experienced a new reality, which is that necessity is determined by context.  The current context states that the only necessity is feeding, hand washing, shelter and healthcare, and this has had a massive impact on the economy. While this too shall pass, the economic impacts will likely linger for a number of months and years.  The hope for a “V” shaped recovery has been dashed, as the crisis has extended beyond initial duration estimates.  My personal opinion is that it will at best look like a “U” shaped recovery with the possibility of a double “W”, meaning there will likely be some ups and downs along the way, should the dreaded “C-19” rear its ugly head again going into the next flu season, or should it fail to be contained due to premature ‘return to daily activity’ policy.  My hope is that the massive amounts of stimulus that are being pumped into the global economy actually make their way to the most hard-hit regions of the economy, namely ‘Mainstreet’, and thereby mitigate the damage that would otherwise be experienced for many small and medium-sized businesses on which most economies rely. While we tend to focus on home first, litigation funders should also be mindful that the economy is global.  As bad as developed countries think they may have it, fund managers who participate in the international arbitration market, which by definition, involve developing countries and corporations therein, need to be mindful that those defendants in developing countries will likely be even more greatly affected. Yes, even sovereigns. Those managers that are focused on patent litigation involving start-up technology companies should also ensure the plaintiff is solvent through the end of the litigation, not to mention the collectability risk of the defendant, which may have been negatively impacted. All of this is to say, that it is in the best interests of litigation finance managers to undertake a re-assessment of collectability risk of each and every defendant in their portfolio, and to do so on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.  Managers will need to assess (i) the degree to which the defendant’s industry has been impacted, (ii) the strength of each defendant’s business and balance sheet, (iii) the ability for the defendant (business or sovereign) to access sufficient capital to maintain solvency, (iv) the degree to which the value of such business has declined, (v) a study of the defendants’ behaviour during the last economic crisis, as it relates to litigation ongoing at that time, if any, (vi) determine the extent to which other parties have security and seniority ahead of the plaintiff’s claims and (vii) assess the defendants’ ability to raise capital outside of financing (i.e. asset sales, equity raises, etc.). Once a determination has been made as to the relative collectability risk, managers will then need to determine next steps with respect to protecting themselves from those cases where the defendant collectability risk has materially changed.  This may involve the withdrawal of any further financing provisions (to the extent the financing was milestone-based), partnering with other parties to share the increased risk of the case, or selling all or a portion of a case or a portfolio (although the manager would be selling into a weak secondary market with relatively few participants, which will be reflected in the valuation, if they can secure bids).  While the options may not be great, they may be better than investing ‘good money after bad’. Investor Insights For investors that are invested in the sector or considering making an investment in the litigation finance market, now is a good time to diligence how and the extent to which managers were on top of their portfolio in assessing collectability risk.  For those investors interested in secondary market opportunities, caveat emptor.  The risk profile for a single case secondary is much higher given the high level of uncertainty in today’s market so a portfolio of secondaries may be a better risk-adjusted avenue to pursue but the portfolio’s diversification benefits would not negate the need to reassess the collectability risk of each defendant in the portfolio.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.