Trending Now

Burford Capital Update On Business Performance And Potential US GAAP Conversion

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today released the following statement on its performance for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and on matters relating to its potential conversion to US GAAP. Burford is scheduled to release its interim results on September 9, 2021. All figures in this disclosure are unaudited and presented on a Burford-only basis, unless otherwise stated. Certain definitions are provided below; additional definitions, reconciliations and information are set out in Burford’s 2020 annual report, available at www.burfordcapital.com.

  • Record-breaking levels of new commitments and deployments
  • Portfolio returns rose and loss rates fell but case progress was relatively quiet with COVID delays noted
  • Considering US GAAP conversion at year-end
  • Non-cash accruals in the first half result in net accounting loss for the period; positive result on a cash basis
  • Liquidity position very strong with more than $430 million of Burford-only liquidity on hand

New business

  • $500+ million in new commitments; nearly $400 million in deployments

We saw robust levels of new business in the first half. We made new capital provision-direct commitments of over $500 million Group-wide, of which $284 million was Burford-only, more than four times higher than the first half of last year and above our prior record levels in the second half of 2019.

We deployed $399 million Group-wide, of which $215 million was Burford-only, to a combination of new and existing capital provision-direct assets, more than three times our 1H 2020 level and well in excess of our prior record deployments in 1H 2018.

Our trend towards larger and more complex new matters continued. Of our 14 new matters, none had commitment levels under $5 million while six were $20 million or above, including a new matter to which we committed and deployed $138 million on balance sheet and $139 million for our SWF partner between BOF-C and a new sidecar. This matter revolves around a number of antitrust claims against a large, financially strong multinational.

This level of activity suggests that the slowdown in new business in early 2020 from COVID has moderated and that we are finding considerable opportunities to deploy capital.

COVID delays and portfolio progress

  • Returns rose to 95% ROIC and realized losses fell to 0.5%
  • 43% of matters have seen COVID delays
  • Realized gains of $77 million in the period

We saw some strong portfolio successes in the first half – including achieving our full $103 million entitlement in the Akhmedov judgment enforcement matter (in addition to more than $5 million received in prior periods), validating our decision to fund matters like that despite their noise. Our returns increased somewhat, to 95% ROIC on concluded capital provision-direct assets since inception, driven by the 216% ROIC (and 67% IRR) on the Akhmedov matter on a GBP basis. On a USD basis, the Akhmedov matter generated a 233% ROIC (and a 71% IRR). We also had a remarkably low realized loss rate for the period of 0.5% of average portfolio at cost.

However, as we have previously discussed, multiple waves of COVID have continued to have an impact on the pace and progression of matters in our portfolio. These issues are only a matter of timing; no clients have discontinued cases because of COVID delays and, indeed, as a result of how we often price our deals, our ultimate returns may increase because of the passage of time. We believe that 43% of our matters have incurred COVID-related delays, ranging from court date postponements to delays in the provision of discovery to slower settlement activity given the absence of a looming trial date to engender settlement.

As a result (and perhaps due also just to normal volatility in portfolio activity), the portfolio as a whole was quiet in the period and generated lower levels of capital provision income than comparative periods. In short, almost nothing bad happened – just less happened than in some other periods. We had capital provision-direct realizations of $142 million during 1H 2021, on which we will see realized gains of approximately $77 million for the period.

US GAAP conversion

  • Consideration of converting to US GAAP for December 31, 2021 reporting
  • Some balance sheet adjustments expected

We expect to remain a foreign private issuer for US purposes in 2022; our 2020 annual report discusses that status in depth. However, notwithstanding retaining foreign private issuer status for another year, we may well nonetheless proceed with our conversion to US GAAP; the Board will make a decision on that issue at its October meeting. If we do convert to US GAAP, our first half 2021 interim report will be our last report under IFRS, and beginning with our financial statements as of December 31, 2021, we would begin reporting under US GAAP. While most elements of our financial reporting would remain the same under both IFRS and US GAAP, including with respect to fair value, we expect to see an increase in both assets and liabilities due to changes in the approach to consolidation of subsidiaries. We will provide more details of these and any other adjustments in due course.

Our consideration of converting to US GAAP has also caused us to examine the accounting practices of comparable US finance firms to identify certain common practices adopted by US GAAP issuers as we discuss below.

Burford’s compensation practices

Burford’s compensation practices are relevant to the accounting discussion that follows, so we provide detail here about our approach to incentive compensation.

Burford uses four compensation components: base salary, annual bonus, stock grants and participation in the actual cash performance of litigation matters (which we call “carry” even though it is not technically participation in carried interest). We discuss our compensation practices in greater detail in our annual reports.

Burford does not pay any incentive compensation – carry or bonus – based on non-cash fair value changes in our assets.

We award carry on a vintage year basis. Thus, each year, we award eligible employees the right to receive a portion of the realized gains generated over time by the matters we originate financing for in that year. Then, in each following year, we look at the realized performance of all of the matters in a vintage in that year and make carry payments based on their collective performance in that year, so that realized losses reduce realized gains. So, for example, an eligible employee who joined Burford in 2017 will have received awards for each of the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 vintages, and we will test the performance of each of those vintages in each succeeding year and make carry payments accordingly. Those payments continue until each vintage is fully resolved.

We set out below the percentage of realized gains in each vintage that has been awarded as carry.

Vintage year

% of realized gains awarded

2015

4

2016

4

2017

4

2018

6

2019

6

2020

8

2021

9

No carry applies to vintages prior to 2015.

Change in compensation expense accruals

  • Move to non-cash accrual of compensation expense on fair value
  • One-time non-cash accrual of $45 million, driven by YPF-related asset carrying value

Given that we do not pay employee carry on the basis of unrealized fair value gains, pursuant to IAS 19 we have historically recognized compensation expense only upon realizations from our assets, without regard to fair value movements.

However, as more cases have concluded and we have further validation of our predictive models in general and across asset types, our confidence in our modeling and valuation methodology has continued to increase and we believe it is appropriate to change our accounting estimate of compensation expense under IFRS and accrue compensation expense related to our carry plan as we make fair value adjustments. Moreover, we note that this is also the practice of a number of comparable US GAAP issuers, and we also believe that matching potential future gains with potential future expenses is desirable. Given our generally moderate levels of fair value change, these charges are not expected to be material. For each period going forward, including 1H 2021, we will accrue against new fair value gains at the rate shown for each vintage in the preceding table; for example, for 2019 vintage matters, for every $100 of net fair value increase, we will accrue $6 of compensation expense. In the event of fair value losses, the respective accrual would reverse. This accrual is an entirely non-cash event; we will still only crystallize and pay compensation upon realized gains. In the first half of 2021, based on all the fair value gains in the period, the expense accrual was less than $1 million.

The question then arises as to the existing accumulation of fair value gains, which are predominantly composed of fair value gains on our YPF-related assets. For the sake of consistency, we are going to take a one-time non-cash charge of $45 million to align with the current balance sheet assets. This is a one-time charge related to prior fair value gains; 70% of it is due to the substantial carrying value of the YPF-related assets. While this is a large number, it is entirely non-cash and simply matches a future potential gain expressed through a fair value change with a future potential expense instead of leaving the related expense until the point of realization. None of this money is being paid out, nor will it be unless and until there are realized gains in the underlying matters. For perspective, our YPF-related cases would have to generate more than $1.6 billion in cash in a litigation outcome for the present YPF-related accrual to be paid in full; we cite that number for illustrative purposes only given the current carrying value and this does not constitute a projection of any expected outcome in the matter. Moreover, we did not pay incentive compensation based on the secondary market sales of those YPF-related assets.

We believe our compensation levels are moderate and appropriate, and while this change in approach is both consistent with IFRS and will align us better with some other US GAAP issuers, it does not change our cash-focused approach to compensation and to running the business generally.

Asset recovery

  • Terminated profit-sharing arrangement except as to a small number of grandfathered cases
  • One-time non-cash accrual of £25 million ($34 million)

The division between our asset recovery and core litigation finance businesses has continued to blur as they have both evolved, and in 2019 we stopped including asset recovery in our new initiatives segment and incorporated it into our main capital provision segment.

In 2021, we have gone a step further and have fully integrated the asset recovery team into the core business. Previously, the team had operated with a separate P&L and a direct profit-sharing component dating from the acquisition of the business in 2015; at the time, we acquired the business for very little current cash and instead used a profit-sharing arrangement as the bulk of the economics. Now, the team participates in Burford’s standard compensation programs, including our carry plan. However, the historical profit-sharing approach has been grandfathered with respect to a small number of cases that are at advanced stages of activity.

The result of our change in estimating compensation expense to match accounting gains and these revised arrangements is that we will take a non-cash charge of £25 million ($34 million) relating to the carrying value of those matters. These amounts would only potentially be paid upon the receipt of substantial actual cash profits.

Financial Results

  • Anticipated net loss of approximately $70 million given one-time non-cash accruals
  • Approximately $20 million profit after tax if considered on a cash basis

As usual at this stage of our financial reporting cycle, we continue to work through a variety of accounting and tax issues, including fair values, internally and with our auditors in advance of our September 9 interim results reporting date. However, based on our current state of understanding, the combined impact of the non-cash accruals discussed above and the moderate level of asset realizations in the period suggests that we will report a net loss after tax of approximately $70 million, the bulk of which is related to those non-cash accruals. Adjusting for non-cash items (particularly fair value adjustments and the non-cash accruals), non-IFRS profit after tax would be approximately $20 million.

Liquidity

  • Strong liquidity position of over $430 million

Liquidity at June 30, 2021 was strong, with the aggregate of cash and cash management assets of over $430 million (which does not include the receipt of the $103 million in cash related to the Akhmedov matter in July).

Christopher Bogart, Burford Capital’s Chief Executive Officer, commented:
“We are very pleased with the level of new business activity we saw in the first half of 2021 and with the continuing strength of our portfolio, notwithstanding a fairly quiet period for portfolio resolutions. We believe that moving to US GAAP and positioning the business in the US capital markets mainstream will inure to the benefit of shareholders. We appreciate shareholders’ continued support on this journey, which we believe will result in a larger, stronger, more highly valued company.”

Definitions and use of alternative performance measures

We report our financial results under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). IFRS requires us to present financials that consolidate some of the limited partner interests in funds we manage as well as assets held by our balance sheet where we have a partner or minority investor. We therefore refer to various presentations of our financial results, and funding configuration, as:

  • Consolidated refers to assets, liabilities and activities that include those third-party interests, partially owned subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles that we are required to consolidate under IFRS accounting. This presentation conforms to the presentation of Burford on a consolidated basis in our financials. The major entities where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities include the Strategic Value Fund, BOF-C (our arrangement with a Sovereign Wealth Fund) and several entities in which Burford holds investments where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities. Note that in our financial statements, our consolidated presentation is referred to as Group.
  • Burford standalone, Burford-only, Burford balance sheet only, “balance sheet” or similar terms refers to assets, liabilities and activities that pertain only to Burford itself, excluding any third-party interests and the portions of jointly owned entities owned by others.
  • Group-wide refers to Burford and its managed funds taken together, including those portions of the funds owned by third parties and including funds that are not consolidated into Burford’s annual consolidated financials. In addition to the consolidated funds, Group-wide includes the Partners funds (our first three core litigation finance funds), Burford Opportunity Fund and Burford Alternative Income Fund and its predecessor.

We refer to our capital provision assets in two categories:

  • Direct, which includes all our legal finance assets (including those generated by asset recovery and legal risk management activities) that we have made directly (i.e., not through participation in a fund) from our balance sheet. We also include direct (not through a fund) complex strategies assets in this category.
  • Indirect, which includes our balance sheet’s participations in one of our funds. Currently, this category is comprised entirely of our position in the Burford Strategic Value Fund.

We also use certain Alternative Performance Measures (“APMs”), which are not presented in accordance with IFRS, to measure the performance of certain of our assets including:

  • Return on invested capital (ROIC) is a measure of financial performance calculated by comparing the absolute amount of realizations from a concluded asset relative to the amount of expenditure incurred in funding that asset, expressed as a percentage figure. In this release, when we refer to our concluded case ROIC, we are referring to the ROIC on concluded and partially concluded capital provision direct assets on Burford’s balance sheet since the inception of the company until the current date.
  • IRR is a discount rate that makes the net present value of a series of cash flows equal to zero and is expressed as a percentage figure. We compute IRR on concluded (including partially concluded) legal finance assets by treating that entire portfolio (or, when noted, a subset thereof) as one undifferentiated pool of capital and measuring actual and, if necessary, estimated inflows and outflows from that pool, allocating investment cost appropriately. IRRs do not include unrealized gains.
  • Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is the annual rate of return that would be required for a sum to grow from its beginning balance to its end balance, assuming reinvestment at the end of each year.
  • Profit after tax if considered on a cash basis is a non-IFRS measure comprising profit after tax removing all non-cash items, including but not limited to unrealized losses arising from fair value adjustments and non-cash compensation expense accruals.

Our business activities include:

  • Legal finance, which includes our traditional core litigation finance activities in which we are providing clients with financing against the future value of legal claims. It also encompasses our asset recovery and legal risk management activities, which often are provided to the same clients.
  • Complex strategies encompasses our activities providing capital as a principal in legal-related assets, often securities, loans and other financial assets where a significant portion of the expected return arises from the outcome of legal or regulatory activity. Most of our complex strategies activities over the past several years have been conducted through our Strategic Value Fund.
  • Post-settlement finance includes our financing of legal-related assets in situations where litigation has been resolved, such as financing of settlements and law firm receivables.
  • Asset management includes our activities administering the funds we manage for third-party investors.

Other terms we use include:

  • Cash receipts provide a measure of the cash that Burford’s capital provision assets generate during a given year as well as cash from certain other fees and income. In particular, cash receipts represent the cash generated from capital provision assets, including cash proceeds from realized assets and related hedging assets, plus cash income from asset management fees, services and other income, before any deployments into funding existing or new assets.
  • Commitment is the amount of financing we agree to provide for a legal finance asset. Commitments can be definitive (requiring us to provide funding on a schedule, or more often, when certain expenses are incurred) or discretionary (only requiring us to provide funding after reviewing and approving a future matter). Unless otherwise indicated, commitments include deployed cost and undrawn commitments.
  • Deployment refers to the funding provided for an asset, which adds to Burford’s invested cost in that asset. We use the term interchangeably with addition.
  • Deployed cost is the amount of funding we have provided for an asset as of the applicable point in time.
  • Liquidity refers to the amount of cash and cash management assets on our balance sheet.
  • Portfolio refers to the total amount of our capital provision and post-settlement assets, valued at deployed cost plus any fair value adjustments and any undrawn commitments.
  • Realization: A legal finance asset is realized when the asset is concluded (when litigation risk has been resolved). A realization will result in Burford receiving cash or, occasionally, some other asset or recognizing a due from settlement receivable, reflecting what Burford is owed on the asset. We use the term interchangeably with recovery.
  • Realized gain/loss refers to the total amount of gain or loss generated by a legal finance asset when it is realized, calculated simply as realized proceeds less deployed funds, without regard for any previously recognized fair value adjustment.
  • YPF-related assets refers to our Petersen and Eton Park legal finance assets, which are two claims relating to Argentina’s nationalization of YPF, the Argentine energy company.

For additional information, including reconciliations of our non-IFRS financial measures to the corresponding IFRS figures, see our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk managementasset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New YorkLondonChicagoWashingtonSingapore and Sydney.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.

This release does not constitute an offer of any Burford fund. Burford Capital Investment Management LLC (“BCIM”), which acts as the fund manager of all Burford funds, is registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The information contained herein is not, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities (including, without limitation, interests or shares in the funds). Any such offer or solicitation may be made only by means of a final confidential Private Placement Memorandum and other offering documents.

Forward-looking statements

This announcement contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events. These statements are intended as “forward-looking statements”. In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as “aim”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “forecast”, “guidance”, “intend”, “may”, “plan”, “potential”, “predict”, “projected”, “should” or “will” or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are forward-looking statements, including in our periodic reports that we file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, other information sent to our security holders, and other written materials. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on  numerous assumptions and that our actual results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from (and be more negative than) those made in, or suggested by, the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement. Significant factors that may cause actual results to differ from those we expect include those discussed under “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. In addition, even if our results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or developments in subsequent periods.

Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise.

SOURCE: Burford Capital

Announcements

View All

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

Burford Capital Marks 15-Year Anniversary with Business Data and New Legal Finance Research

By Harry Moran |

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, has grown significantly since its founding in 2009. As part of ongoing recognition of the growth in legal finance and Burford’s industry leadership as it celebrates its 15th anniversary, it today shares data from its own performance and releases new research based on one-on-one phone interviews with senior lawyers at global law firms who have a front seat to growing awareness and use of legal finance by their clients and firms.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “Jon Molot and I started Burford 15 years ago because of economic inefficiencies we saw in the business of law. We’re delighted that our business has since grown from niche to mainstream and is now truly ‘corporate finance for law.’ From day one, our priority has been to listen to clients’ needs, and as a result, we have a suite of tools that provide liquidity, de-risk contingent matters and enable more strategic affirmative recoveries. Burford has earned a reputation as the go-to firm for legal finance, and we’re excited about the road ahead. We’ll keep our focus on clients, innovation and advancing the business of law.”

Data from Burford’s business confirms its performance as a legal finance industry leader:

  • Exceptional growth in our business: Burford began in 2009 as a $130 million fund; today, Burford has a portfolio of more than $7 billion.
  • Increased demand for what we do: In 2009, Burford committed $11 million to legal finance assets; in 2023, that number was $1.2 billion on a Group-wide basis.
  • Growing relevance to sophisticated businesses, with innovation to address corporate balance sheet and P&L needs: More than half our business now comes from corporate clients. Many seek monetizations ― where Burford provides businesses immediate capital by advancing some of the expected entitlement of a pending claim, judgment or award ― and we have committed very substantial capital over the past five years to monetization deals from $10 million to $325 million.
  • Development of human capital and proprietary data: In 2009, we had five employees; today, we have seven offices and more than 150 employees. In addition, Burford has built an industry-leading proprietary database of commercial dispute outcomes and tools that harness machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence to benefit our clients and our performance.
  • NYSE-listed in 2020: We have been public since 2009 and have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2020.

Similarly, research released today by Burford reveals that legal finance has exploded in visibility and value with lawyers. Key findings include:

  • 82% of law firm lawyers surveyed claim to have used legal finance, a ninefold increase since Burford first asked law firm lawyers this question in 2012. Although confirmation bias may result in overstatement of actual use, even accounting for this, legal finance’s enormous increased stated use reflects its visibility and acceptance in the business of law.
  • Lawyers are using legal finance in more sophisticated ways: Many law firm lawyers affirm that legal finance is now used to strategically manage risk rather than because clients lack funds. Law firm lawyers and their clients see legal finance as a strategic tool across commercial litigation and arbitration as well as more complex financial structures like portfolio financing and funded patent divestitures.
  • An Am Law 50 law firm partner said: “For some of the bigger clients, you see more portfolio deals rather than single transactions. Not many companies start with a portfolio, but as they see success, both law firms and corporations are pursuing portfolio transactions.”
  • Law firms are embracing legal finance to fuel growth, as more than eight in ten of those surveyed report a more positive perception of legal finance than 15 years ago.
  • A Global 100 law firm partner said: “The client's mindset has completely changed, and they are now coming to their outside counsel and asking for litigation funding options. Offering the use of funding and using it is a validation of the merit of a claim and is a good pressure point.”
  • Law firm lawyers confirm that corporate clients are increasingly using legal finance, as 82% of those surveyed said the use of legal finance by corporations has increased over this period.
  • A litigation boutique partner said: “Litigation is a bottom-line cost. If corporations can spread that risk by sharing it with an outside capital provider, CFOs want to explore that option, especially because corporations hate litigation expenses. They are much more open to it if they can get some or all of it covered by legal finance.”

The research is based on one-on-one phone interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors with 44 senior lawyers from global law firms in August and September 2024. The participants included partners, department heads and practice group chairs. Of these respondents, 34% came from AmLaw 100 law firms and 30% from Global 100 law firms.

Read More

International Legal Finance Association Adds IVO Capital Partners as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of Paris-based legal finance provider IVO Capital Partners as its 25th member. 

“ILFA is pleased to welcome IVO Capital Partners to our growing membership ranks,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “IVO’s addition serves as the quarter century mark for ILFA’s global membership. The firm will play a crucial role in helping ILFA promote the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector around the world.” 

“We are thrilled that IVO’s team is joining ILFA’s diverse roster of commercial legal funders,” said Neil Purslow, ILFA Chairman and Co-Founder of Therium, an ILFA member. “The addition of yet another legal finance provider this year demonstrates the increasingly important role that ILFA plays as the global voice for the ever-expanding legal finance industry, particularly in Europe.” 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent asset management company specializing in corporate debt and has established itself as a leader in the European legal finance industry. The firm boasts over a decade of experience in litigation funding, investing over $166 million in 64 cases across a wide array of geographies and action types. IVO is currently deploying its third legal finance fund, IVO Legal Strategies Fund III SLP. 

“The key role being played by ILFA in working with members of the litigation funding industry, as well as all other professionals involved with this industry, has made this membership a requirement for us to be even more active in the evolution and growth of the industry,” said Paul de Servigny, the fund manager of IVO’s litigation finance activities. “With Europe as our main source of business, we are very happy to be able to contribute to growing ILFA’s reach and understanding of different jurisdictions and how litigation finance is viewed there.”

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official.

About IVO Capital Partners 

IVO Capital Partners is an independent French asset management company with more than €1.5 billion in assets under management. Founded in 2012, it invests in listed and unlisted credit on emerging market corporate bonds and litigation finance. IVO Capital Partners' expertise allows its client-investors to access new investment universes with clarity and profitability and also to provide access to financing, on the one hand, to companies established in emerging countries and, on the other hand, to litigation so that they can lead to compensation. The company employs 14 nationalities and invests in more than 50 countries. IVO is among Europe’s leaders in the legal finance industry, with more than $166 million invested and more than 64 cases financed as of 2024. For over a decade, IVO’s expert investment team has ensured asymmetric returns for investors while promoting the rights of parties involved in meritorious litigation and class-action lawsuits. For more information, visit www.ivocapital.com

Read More