Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Commercial Litigation Finance Covid Survey Results

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

  • Survey suggests the litigation finance industry has experienced an increase in demand due to the Covid-related financial crisis
  • Law firm portfolio financings are a particular active sector of the market
  • Defendant collectability risk is top of mind for most respondents
  • Covid-19 related cases are predominant in the contract and insurance case types

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • 2020 should be a good vintage for new litigation finance opportunities
  • Generally, there is a feeling that the current economic crisis will put some pressure on IRRs or MOICs of existing portfolios
  • Additional diligence on unrealized portions of litigation finance portfolios is warranted in the current environment when assessing fund manager performance

Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal recently undertook a survey of commercial litigation finance participants to obtain a deeper understanding of the extent to which demand for financing had changed as a result of the current Covid-related financial crisis.

Editor’s note– the following contribution appears with illustrative graphs and charts here. 

Demand for Litigation Finance during Economic Crises

It has been thought that crises breed litigation, and while that appears to be the case in the current crisis, that may not have been the case in the Great Financial Crisis of 2008/9, as pointed out by Eric Blinderman in an article he contributed to Law360 in 2019, also referenced in a recent article in Litigation Finance Journal.  The reason for the ultimate lack of litigation, Eric argued, was fear.

In the current environment it appears as though people are less fearful (of litigation, that is) as the number of Covid-specific cases is clearly on the rise, and I suspect that will continue for the foreseeable future as the crisis increases its impact on businesses and forces business owners to react in ways previously thought unthinkable, but in the current context are deemed necessary. When the data is analyzed with respect to case type, it is evident that the volume of cases is focused on contract and insurance claims, which should come as no surprise.

Issues of Force Majeure and breaches of contract are likely the majority of the volume of contract claims.  Business owners have been placed in an unprecedented position in that they are likely being forced to breach contracts to save their businesses.  While business owners and executives may regret their actions and would not have acted in a similar way under normal circumstances, they are no doubt acting in the best interests of the business to avoid insolvency and will deal with the repercussions (litigation) once they have ‘righted the ship’.  The insurance sector has also been particularly negatively impacted, and much of this likely stems from denial of payouts under policies, with business interruption insurance being particularly active. In fact, the UK insurer, Hiscox, is being sued in a class action-style litigation in the UK with Harbour Litigation Funding providing the litigation finance to pursue the case.  Accordingly, litigation finance has and will continue to be a beneficiary of this activity.

Covid Survey Results

Let’s now take a look at the Covid Survey results to see how the broader commercial litigation finance industry has been impacted by the Covid-induced financial crisis.

The survey was distributed globally.  Of the respondents, the vast majority were funders with dedicated litigation finance funds.

Overall, the industry has been positively impacted by the financial effects of Covid-19 with 64% of respondents experiencing an increase in origination activity.

In some cases, the increase in origination activity has been dramatic, with originations in excess of 25% being experienced by approximately half of respondents.

The largest impact in terms of the type of activity is equally split between law firm portfolio financings and single case financings.  However, since portfolio financings are inherently larger, it stands to reason that a much larger dollar volume of financing will be required for these financing types.

In terms of the source of originations, it appears to be a combination of existing relationships, mainly from law firms, and new relationships, mainly from law firms and directly from plaintiffs. It is encouraging to see new relationships continuing to be formed at this stage of the evolution of the industry.

A natural consequence of demand for litigation finance is a demand for capital commitments by the litigation funders.  Accordingly, it appears that the demand impact of Covid will have the effect of accelerating plans for new fundraisings, with about half of respondents indicating their fundraising plans have been accelerated.  Accordingly, investors in search of good risk-adjusted and non-correlated returns should expect to see more opportunities in the marketplace.  As always, diversification is critical to successful and prudent investing in the litigation finance marketplace.

As it relates to the impact that the current financial crisis will have on the expected return profile, almost 50% of respondents suggested it is too early to tell.  However, for those who did have some visibility or were confident in making an estimate, it appears that the expectation is that their existing portfolios may be negatively impacted, which is consistent with what I would have expected given the extent of this economic crisis.

I was personally forecasting that durations would be longer, simply due to the effect that court closures would have on existing cases, where the timing of settlement discussions are ultimately impacted by the timing of the court process.  In this light, I would expect to see portfolios maintain longer durations which may equate to lower internal rates of return, but this depends on the escalator clauses within their funding agreements, which may see funders obtain larger multiples of invested capital if the delay breaks through timing thresholds.  I would also expect that the threat of collectability risk might put pressure on plaintiffs to accept lower settlement amounts, and defendants will use liquidity concerns to their advantage by low-balling settlement offers. However, this phenomenon could be situation-specific, and more prevalent in certain industries. 

As previously stated, one of the reasons I would have expected return expectations to be increasingly negative is due to defendant collectability risk.  In this vein, it seems that most managers are focused on the impact this risk will have on their portfolios, with most managers indicating that collection risk has increased, which is expected given the impact the crisis has had on certain industries, and the impact it has had on corporate liquidity. 

Looking forward, managers are focusing on credit risk more than they have in the past, and this is mirrored in their focus on the industries in which their defendants operate.  Interestingly, despite the significant impact the crisis has had on the demand for legal services, few managers are concerned about the impact on the solvency of the plaintiff law firm.  This may be explained by the fact that the law firm can be substituted by the plaintiff should it run into solvency issues, and so managers may view this as an acceptable risk.

The Bonus Question

 And now the moment you’ve all been waiting for….

When asked whether Covid-induced isolation has caused respondents to think about the benefits of boarding school, the majority confirmed that their children are angels and that they would like to spend as much time with them as possible.  Although, there were a few who noted an interest in boarding schools, and one did attempt to sell his child to the highest bidder.

This brings to a close the results of our second commercial litigation finance survey.  Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal would like to thank those that participated in the survey for their time and feedback.

Our next survey will cover fundraising initiatives by fund managers in the commercial litigation finance sector. We anticipate making the fundraising survey an annual survey, so we can track fundraising activities over time.

If you would like to participate in future surveys, please contact Ed Truant here to register your interest.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.