Trending Now
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
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Court Approves Final Settlements in Car Delivery Charges Class Action

By John Freund |

Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.