Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

July 22, 2020

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

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 SUMMARY
  • As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be more competition, more fragmentation and more specialization
  • Competitive advantages will be necessary for managers to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and produce strong risk-adjusted returns
  • Managers should institutionalize their “edge” to create equity value for themselves, and separate the value of their organizations from the principals running it
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Investors should be looking for managers that have some advantage, or “edge” vis-à-vis their competition; an informational advantage is one approach
  • Funders should be open-minded about their diligence process, and experiment with non-conventional approaches to add value to the case
  • Informational advantages may be particularly beneficial in collections and enforcements
In the capital markets industry, there is a concept referred to as “edge”, which can be defined as any legal form of information, insight or proprietary process or knowledge which an investor possesses that allows him or her to outperform peers and generate alpha.  Investors look for managers with “edge” as a point of differentiation, and as a means to lower risk and enhance returns in a given investment strategy. In thinking about how a litigation funder can develop ‘edge’, one option is to acquire an informational advantage that enables the funder to invest where others do not dare to tread, or avoid investing where the path is well worn.  One way to obtain an informational advantage is to look where others are not looking.  Today, we have at our disposal the world’s largest accessible database free for anyone to access – the worldwide web.  We also have the so-called “dark web”, where fewer dare to participate, but which may possess insights nonetheless. In order to get a better perspective on the nuggets of gold that lie within the web, I decided to reach out to Cameron Colquhoun of NEONCentury, a UK-based intelligence firm, to better understand how the litigation finance community may be able to generate edge. The Web…. In some ways, little has changed about our use of the internet in 30 years: we all still use screens, keyboards and mice to open windows and browser pages. What has changed, without exception, is the size of the world behind our screens – which is far bigger than our brains and imaginations can appreciate. As of 2016, Google revealed it knew of 130 trillion web pages, and the real number today is likely to exceed 200 or 300 trillion. To put it another way; as the Head of Security at Twitter pointed out back in 2011, one-in-a-million events happen on the internet every second, and one in a billion events happen almost as frequently. It is a mathematical near-certainty that within all of this data, game-changing intelligence is sitting there, waiting to be found – vital to the success of any litigation. The truth is, very few law firms or investors understand this reality, and therefore rarely ever engage or commission the type of intensive, detailed online investigations that are required to push the confidence intervals of success up by 1, 2, 5, 10 or even 20%. In the biggest cases, this can mean tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of difference in settlement. …and the Dark Web The dark and unindexed web is another part of the web that is as yet untouched by both law firms and litigation finance. In particular, leaked data and data ‘dump’ sites hold huge amounts of pivotal intelligence. The most prominent case of leaked data to date is of course the Panama Papers, where millions of files belonging to a single Panamanian law firm were leaked online and led to over $1.2bn in recoveries (the real figure is likely to be far higher, as most countries do not make settlement data public). Dozens of prominent individuals had their assets exposed, and with millions of documents available to research – many more hidden assets and frauds are likely to be revealed amongst the 11.5 million files. Every time a new major leak is released online, (more recently BlueLeaks and 29Leaks), law firms or litigation financiers should be feverishly combing through its contents looking for angles. Case Study At NEONCentury, we are often tasked with conducting investigations prior to a potential litigation. In one case, a hedge fund asked for our help as they believed a group of CEOs were meeting in secret, and were considering a litigation. This global company, they suspected, was going to be sold for several billion below market value in some kind of backroom boys club deal. Using our data capabilities, we tracked the private jets owned by those who attended these meetings, but the planes were delisted from public view (this is known as a BARR / LADD request and often used by CEOs and Ultra High Net Worth investors for anonymity). BARR-listed jets do not appear on sites like FlightRadar and FlightAware. However, these aircraft, by law, must emit radio signals (ADS-B) data, and using the right online databases and sources, the aircraft can be tracked and historical manifests can be discovered. We were able to conclusively prove that the private jets belonging to three members of the secret meetings were all on the same runways at multiple times and locations, giving our client a route to a potentially multi-billion dollar litigation. It is difficult to imagine a single law firm on the planet that would have these capabilities in-house, or even understand the ‘art of the possible’ when it comes to open data. Today, litigation financiers allow law firms to manage the research and investigation sides of a case, hoping that either the law firms’ in-house research teams or external corporate intel firms might yield further intelligence to tip the outcome in their favour. Law firms are not known for their technological prowess or understanding of the internet, generally, and therefore the litigation finance world may be missing real value in allowing law firms to manage the technical and cyber side of a case on their behalf. …the “Edge” If investors can accept that game-changing intelligence for any litigation is out there in the public domain, they may be better-prepared to commission this research directly with corporate investigations firms *before* any litigation is even considered. Investors would then be forearmed with a much stronger hand when they engage both law firms and claimants. This approach would greatly improve the ROI of litigation finance, and is analogous with the world of hedge funds and short-sellers. Many of these firms spend months or years investigating a company, searching for hidden value or opportunity. In the case of Wirecard, hedge funds discovered evidence of fraud just by conducting deep online investigations of Wirecard’s clients. Some walked away with billions in returns on this research. There is no reason why the same approach cannot be applied to the world of litigation finance: forward-thinking investors, who understand the power of corporate intelligence and the scale of the internet, can partner with world class investigators, and take these results to the right law firms to alter the course of multimillion and multibillion-dollar litigations. Investor Insights As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be a significant increase in managers who are attracted by the returns inherent in the industry, and the intellectual challenge of applying their litigation craft in another application.  The industry will scale, fragment and specialize.  This will make it more difficult for fund managers to differentiate their approach and value.  Forward-thinking managers should be looking at ways to create “edge” for themselves to attract institutional capital and generate superior risk-adjusted returns.  An informational advantage is one such way to create “edge”. As always, I am open to criticism and other points of view, so feel free to contact me to exchange ideas.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial) and a former partner in a private equity.  Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class.  Cameron Colquhoun is the founder of Neon Century, a former UK intelligence officer and winner of the Fulbright Award for Cyber Security. Neon Century is an elite corporate intelligence firm based in London, providing clients in the hedge fund, equity and litigation sectors with decisive advantage.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.