Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Asset Recovery, Collectability and the Uses of Intelligence in Litigation Finance

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

  • Collectability risk has moved to the forefront of litigation finance as a result of the Covid-19 induced financial crisis
  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a niche area within litigation finance that requires a unique skill set to be successful

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a component of any piece of litigation, but certainly more prominent in certain case types and during times of financial stress
  • There are many risks associated with asset recovery and enforcement actions which give rise to different investor return characteristics – higher volatility, higher potential returns, and longer durations, to name a few.

Expanding on a recent article I wrote about defendant collectability risk in the context of the current Covid-19 induced financial crisis, I have reached out to AVVISO, a firm specialising in enforcement and collection, to discuss some of the challenges litigation finance managers may face in the current environment.

The Covid-19 pandemic is forcing many industries to adapt to new realities. The litigation finance industry is no different. As new realities emerge, so do new opportunities, and as the dust settles, we anticipate the following developments:

  • Collectability risk will be assessed as rigorously as legal risk before any commitments are made against sovereigns and commercial counterparties affected by the crisis.
  • A growth in demand for asset recovery and enforcement funding.

This article explores how to effectively assess collectability and maximise returns on asset recovery investments. Key to both is a multidisciplinary approach to supplement the traditional legal one.

COLLECTABILITY RISK

Let us take a closer look at what it means to assess collectability in the context of the broader litigation finance underwriting process. Woodsford Litigation Funding provides an overview of the assessment process it employs, which is broadly representative of the wider industry. “The funder will focus on six fundamental criteria when evaluating a claimant-side litigation funding opportunity”:[1]

  1. Merits of the claim
  2. Claimant (e.g. motivations for seeking funding and prior litigation history)
  3. Strength of claimant’s legal representation
  4. Litigation budget
  5. Expected damages
  6. Respondents and recovery

Litigation funds are well-equipped to address the first five criteria. Between the formidable in-house legal knowledge of most funds, input from external law firms which are retained to provide opinions on the merits, and input from claimant’s counsel and other experts, funders have this covered.

However, fund managers without internal expertise may be on comparatively shakier ground when it comes to that final sixth point, which is concerning at a time when the importance of effectively assessing collectability risk has perhaps never been greater. So why is this?

Assets…but not only

A sophisticated methodology to properly assess collectability is not just about assets. It is also about humanising problems which are predominantly viewed through a legal lens. Whether the opposition is a state, corporation or individual, we would explore:

Key stakeholders

  • Profile and motivations of the main decision-makers
  • What is their level of resource and resolve?
  • How entrenched is their position: are they likely to settle or fight a protracted legal battle?
  • If the former, what do they perceive to be an acceptable settlement range?
  • How politicised is the dispute and how would a change of government impact a state’s attitude towards it?

Modus operandi: disputes

  • Are they currently or have they in the past been involved in other major disputes?
  • If so, what lessons can be gleaned from the experiences of others who have faced them?
  • Do they have a history of avoiding payment of judgment/award debts?
  • Could we face a scenario where we are competing with other creditors over a limited pool of assets?

Assets

  • What assets does the defendant/respondent hold directly in jurisdictions amenable to enforcement?
  • How leveraged are these assets? How has the current financial crisis impaired asset values?
  • What is their asset profile more broadly and how is their ownership of these assets structured (if not held directly)?
  • Would these structures impede our ability to attach key assets if we needed to?
  • Are there any indications that the defendant is actively dissipating assets or otherwise making themselves ‘award proof’?
  • Has the defendant been forced to sell off assets previously thought available for collection as a result of liquidity needs stemming from the financial crisis?

Commercial activities

  • What is the nature and extent of their ongoing commercial operations?
  • How viable are these operations long-term and how concerned should we be about any commercial vulnerabilities (e.g. high customer concentration)?
  • Are there any commercial vulnerabilities which could be exploited as part of a legal or enforcement strategy (e.g. unreported allegations of bribery)?

Enforcement plan

  • What is the proposed enforcement plan if no voluntary payments are made at the conclusion of the litigation/arbitration?
  • Is the proposed enforcement budget realistic?

And so on. These kinds of questions are answered by means of specialised open source research, human intelligence gathering and other investigative means. In short, collectability is at its heart an intelligence problem – not a legal one. This explains why funds are comparatively weaker at addressing this problem – because the underwriting process they employ is mainly underpinned by legal analysis.

There are of course powerful legal tools (e.g. discovery to identify bank accounts internationally) which can and should feed into the process of assessing collectability. As long as someone then takes the time to understand the data generated by legal means, and answers the ‘so what?’ question by placing it in the context of the broader intelligence picture.

One final point on collectability: it is fluid. Once litigation finance commitments are made, funds would be well-advised to thoroughly monitor how the answers to the above questions evolve over the duration (often years) of major legal disputes. In the same way that investment banks, private equity firms, and major corporations routinely use intelligence to inform their investments and operations, so too will the litigation finance industry, as it becomes more competitive and established.

ASSET RECOVERY 

We are frequently asked why asset recovery problems are so common. One reason is the ease with which judgment and award debtors can avoid paying what they owe – if they so choose – which must represent one of the most profound shortcomings of the legal process.

And it is easy. If a sophisticated fraudster, sovereign state, or hostile corporate makes a commercial or political decision not to pay a debt, then it is fairly straightforward for them to structure their affairs in such a way that makes it difficult, time consuming and costly for creditors to pursue them. The Covid-19 pandemic will only increase the propensity of debtors to follow this path.

Another reason is the failed enforcement approach adopted by many creditors. Typically, the legal team which secured an award or judgment goes on to inherit the enforcement problem if the other side refuses to pay. Often, this team is ill-suited to tackle what is a very different problem than winning the legal argument. Indeed, it is not uncommon for legal teams to inadvertently trigger this problem by adopting a process-driven ‘get the judgment’ approach, while failing to engage sufficiently throughout the lifetime of the dispute with the question their clients care about most: how will we get paid?

This creates enormous investment potential in the asset recovery space, especially now, yet it remains on the frontier of the litigation finance industry. We anticipate an increase in opportunities to invest in asset recovery and enforcement matters, and for more funds to develop the knowhow to maximise their returns on these investments. For example:

  • Monetising awards and judgments against sovereign states and/or state-owned enterprises
  • Funding and coordinating enforcement efforts against fraudsters and other recalcitrant commercial debtors
  • Providing capital and expertise to governments to assist with their efforts to repatriate proceeds of corruption (e.g. post regime change)
  • Investing in the non-performing loan (NPL) portfolios of financial institutions in emerging markets
  • Funding cross-border insolvencies and restructurings

So, how will we get paid?

Major asset recovery situations are complex problems requiring a flexible, coordinated and multi-disciplinary approach. If funds want to play this game well and maximise their returns on investments, then they need to retire the tired lawyer-investigator trope. Below is a sample of the methods in a multidisciplinary asset recovery playbook:

Legal

  • Relevant civil legal work in appropriate jurisdictions (e.g. for the purpose of discovery and to attach assets)
  • Criminal remedies (e.g. private criminal prosecutions and confiscation orders)
  • Insolvency tools

Intelligence

  • Open source intelligence (e.g. to map complex offshore structures and identify revenue streams or personal assets)
  • Human intelligence (identifying and developing relationships with individuals who have access to information of potentially critical importance to the recovery)
  • Surveillance (e.g. to establish a debtor’s pattern of life, identify key associates, or to serve documents)
  • Financial intelligence and forensic accounting
  • Software and other tools (e.g. eDiscovery and proprietary asset tracing software)

Stakeholder engagement

  • Diplomatic approaches (e.g. working with ambassadors to facilitate negotiations with governments)
  • Backchannel negotiations with opposition decision makers
  • Well-timed media and PR strategies (e.g. prior to elections in a sovereign enforcement case)

Secondary market solutions

  • Post-settlement monetisation
  • Identifying non-traditional buyers of awards and judgments. Examples include: hedge funds with existing country exposure seeking to strengthen their hand during sovereign debt restructurings; or global commodities companies which can use a sovereign award to offset their tax liabilities in-country.

This list is not exhaustive and every bullet point merits its own separate discussion. The point is that as with collectability, asset recovery is not just about identifying (and in this case pursuing) assets. It is also about creative problem solving and recognising that there are people on the other side of the equation whose commercial or political calculus needs to change.

Asset recovery situations should be overseen by asset recovery specialists – professionals who have an awareness and understanding of the uses and limitations of all the tools in the box and are able to deploy the right ones at the right time. Their individual specialisation matters less than their ability to coordinate international teams and provide overall strategic oversight.

If funds embrace the complexities of asset recovery and the need for a multidisciplinary approach, then the new frontier will be bountiful. If they follow too narrow a path, then it may prove unforgiving.

Investor Insights

For investors in the litigation finance asset class, there should be an appreciation that enforcement and asset recovery represents a niche within a niche. Accordingly, these types of investment exposures have a different risk-reward profile than traditional litigation finance as they are much more about collection risk than litigation risk.  Consequently, proficiency in this area requires a different skill set from a fund manager perspective, and that capability can either be internalized or outsourced depending on the frequency of these opportunities. Concerns in this segment of the market are around ultimate collectability and the timelines involved with collection, both of which may be difficult to assess at the outset.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Ed is currently designing a product for institutional investors to provide unique access to the asset class.

[1] See https://woodsfordlitigationfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Practical-Guide-to-Litigation-Funding_ROW.pdf

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.