Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Litigation Finance is Cheaper Than You Might Think!

The following was contributed by Matthew Pitchers, Head of Investment Valuation at Augusta Ventures. 

I was in conversation the other day with a prospective user of our finance – a law firm who will remain nameless. The conversation was going well, very well in fact, until those seven words came up: “what is it going to cost me?”. I replied that our fee would be based on the higher of a multiple on the funds deployed or a set percentage of damages awarded. After a few seconds of silence which felt like an eternity, the response I got back was “that is very expensive, and I don’t think my client will go for it”.

This left me bemused because whilst there is a general misconception that litigation funding is expensive, when compared to other sources of secured and unsecured funding available on the market, it is in fact very competitive and sometimes even cheap. This left me thinking about how best to explain this to the enquirer at the other end of the phone who would be left explaining all available options to his client.

What is litigation funding?

What I wanted to say was:

Sir, in considering how expensive litigation funding is, one needs to first analyse what litigation funding is. This is easier to think about when considering what litigation isn’t.

It isn’t a traditional debt product. There are no guaranteed cash flows. There is no obligation on the user of the debt to repay it. Any returns that the funder makes are payable from what the defendant pays if the claim is successful, not from the finance user. Furthermore, the entire financial risk of the case is transferred to the funder, and if a case loses, the risk of adverse costs falls to the funder and not the claimant. Therefore, an amount invested upfront in a legal case in order to share in the same risks and rewards as the claimant, feels more akin to a purchase of an equity participation in a start-up than a one-step-removed loan.

To put it another way: If you were going on Dragon’s Den and your great idea was to ask the Dragons for an upfront investment in a legal case for a future share of any available returns which may or may not occur, how much of the case do you think the Dragons would want?

What the market says

In haggling over the value of your idea, the Dragons would probably consider the availability of unsecured loans, and the returns expected from venture capital start-up funding.

If you, as an individual, were to go into the market today and look for an unsecured loan you might find APR’s that range from 10.3% per annum, for those people with excellent credit scores, up to 32.0% per annum for those with poor credit scores, and that is only on amounts up to £25,000.

A good benchmark for the percentage of cases a litigation fund might win, despite all the due diligence that is performed, is around 70%. Loaning out money with only a 70% chance of getting any of it back is not similar to loaning money to a person with an excellent credit score, so litigation funders are firmly in poor credit score territory, where an APR could typically be between 28.5% and 32.0%. And remember, that is only on amounts up to £25,000, an investment in a legal case more-often-than-not, is many multiples of this size.

A such, the IRR that the funder aims for is more akin to those expected by venture capitalists, who might typically look for 30-40% annual returns on a start-up investment.

The tenor of investments

A classical case tenor for litigation funding is usually two to four years. In the interim period the funder will have not received any payments. Their risk exposure goes up over time as more money is deployed as the legal case progresses, and there is limited availability to claw back any investment if the case looks like it isn’t going to win. It is, to all intents and purposes, an investment with a binary outcome and once invested there is no going back.

An investment with an annualised return of 40% over three years would expect to achieve a 2.74X money multiple for the investor at the end of the life of the investment. Over four years the money multiple would be expected to be 3.84X. This would be at the upper end of what a litigation funder might achieve. A normal equity investment in a company has fewer downsides regarding the capital locked up, as covenants would be in place to claw back any investments if the company were mismanaged in the interim period.

Summary

In short, litigation funders are able to make worthwhile returns through rigorous diligence, investing in  cases that they expect to win and which meet their internal criteria, whilst building up a large enough portfolio that the effect of the unsystematic binary risk of losing an individual case is diluted. In return, a competent litigation funder should expect to achieve on their portfolio a rate of return that is better than a correlated investment, but lower than that achieved in the start-up markets.

A claimant, in using litigation finance, should expect all their costs to be covered, and any risk of adverse costs to be transferred to the funder. In effect it becomes a risk-free investment for the claimant, whilst they still take the larger share of any return. This would be the dream scenario for any owner of a start-up company, selling a small stake in the company and removing all future down-side risk to themselves, whilst removing the burden of future costs.

In summary Sir, this is a great opportunity for your client and it is highly competitive.

Instead, I said to the man on the other end of the phone: ‘I’m sorry yes, it does sound expensive, let me see what we can do’.

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Scott Davis, Partner, Klarquist

By John Freund |

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice."

Case Developments Commercial

$170 Million Settlement Approved in Allianz Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Halves Funder’s Legal Costs in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.