Trending Now
  • Equal Justice Requires Equal Staying Power: Why Consumer Legal Funding Helps Fulfill the Promise of the American Legal System
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 1 of 2)

September 8, 2021

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 1 of 2)

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
  • Despite its size, the Intellectual property (“IP”) asset class has eluded the attention of most asset managers due to its underlying legal complexities
  • The litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but is solely focused on litigation involving IP
  • A void exists in the financing market, which IP-focused Private Credit managers have begun to fill via credit-oriented strategies designed to drive value maximization
Slingshot Insights:
  • Secular shifts in the economy have allowed IP to assume an increasing share of corporate value
  • IP is an emerging asset class that has begun to garner the attention of asset managers and insurers
  • There are various IP-centric investment strategies that do not involve litigation.
  • IP-focused Private Credit funds approach IP in a holistic fashion, leveraging numerous ways that IP creates value
  • Investors need to be aware that investing in IP presents unique risks that warrant input from operational and legal IP specialists
  • IP Credit provides a different risk/reward profile for investors as compared to commercial litigation finance, which tends to have more binary risk
When I started reviewing and assessing managers for potential investment in the commercial litigation finance asset class five years ago, there were a small number of managers that would consider the most complex area of intellectual property litigation, namely patent infringement.  Oh, how things have changed!  Today, there are many litigation finance managers who will at least consider making an investment in IP litigation, although still relatively few that will follow through on providing a commitment. One of the areas in which I am intrigued is the application of credit to intellectual property (“IP”) and using the value of patents (amongst other forms of intellectual property) as security for the loan, the so-called Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) asset class.  While this is, strictly speaking, a credit asset class (as you will see from this article), it sits adjacent to, and sometimes intersects with, commercial litigation finance.  Nevertheless, I do think it is a subset of the broader intangible finance market, and since value is inherently derived from intellectual property, and on occasion, litigation, it often gets lumped in within the legal finance category. In an effort to assess the IP Credit asset class, I reached out to an established manager, Soryn IP Capital (“Soryn”), to obtain a better understanding of how the sector operates and why investors should be interested in this asset class.  Soryn is co-founded by two well-known investors in the IP space, Michael Gulliford and Phil Hartstein, who have a combined four decades of IP experience. Background Despite a major shift in corporate balance sheet asset composition from tangible to intangible in recent decades, stemming largely from the secular shift to a knowledge based (i.e. technology) economy, there has been surprisingly little growth in the number of alternative asset managers with IP-focused investment strategies.  What growth has occurred with respect to IP-specific strategies has largely been confined to the IP litigation finance space.  There, non-recourse capital is advanced from a litigation funder to a claim holder to pursue what is often single event IP litigation, featuring a binary outcome set. The result has been an mis-allocation of risk-adjusted capital to companies and academic institutions in IP-intensive sectors that either do not plan to litigate, or that will be litigating, but only as part of a holistic and diversified business and/or IP licensing strategy.  While these IP owners may seek capital to finance objectives such as non-dilutive growth, technology licensing or royalty audits and monetization, often the IP owner must choose between a litigation funder that does not specialize in broader financial solutions, or a financing source that is not specialized in IP.  Neither option threads the needle to provide what these entities are looking for: an appropriately-structured and priced capital structure solution. Recently, IP-focused managers with credit-oriented strategies have come into focus, as they are targeting this gap in the market.  In addition to Soryn, the hedge fund manager Fortress has an existing IP Credit fund, and Aon is currently raising capital for a debut IP Credit fund (which may have ulterior motives rooted in intellectual property insurance, which is not to say the two can’t co-exist and complement one another). In many ways, these funds resemble a hybrid of private debt and specialty finance, as they have the flexibility to invest across the capital structure through highly-structured debt, preferred, equity, and other bespoke financial contracts. Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property.  Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP VALUE PROPOSITION According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985.  Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce.  The primary forms of intellectual property are:
  • Patents: protect inventions and discoveries
  • Trade Secrets: protect valuable information that is intentionally kept secret
  • Copyright: protect artistic works in a fixed medium of expression
  • Trademarks: protect “signs” associating products and services to an owner
While each form of IP offers different protections, the value of each lies in its legally proscribed, exclusionary right that prohibits third parties from practicing or “infringing” the IP without permission.  It is this exclusionary right that promotes a healthy competition and innovation ecosystem by, for instance, incentivizing R&D, encouraging investment, protecting market share, and allowing the licensing of these rights to either a) promote synergistic business relationships or b) stop unauthorized copying. Several data points highlight the value attributable to IP licenses that are struck to promote synergistic business relationships, or to resolve enforcement scenarios. The following statistics help contextualize the significance of the IP value proposition. IP VALUE CREATION IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future.  When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:
  • IP rights can be licensed to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be exploited to negotiate cross-licenses that allow IP owners access to sought-after technologies;
  • IP rights can be sold to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be enforced against third parties that are practicing the underlying IP without a license;
  • IP rights can serve as the basis for significant insurance policies;
  • IP rights can be the principal basis for an M&A transaction, and are a key driver of M&A activity;
  • IP rights can be central to value creation following a business separation or spin-off transaction;
  • IP rights can facilitate the formations of JVs for co-development of new technologies, which increase enterprise value;
  • IP rights can be monetized through the sale of all or part of contracted royalty payments associated with particular IP
In turn, IP owners and managers (e.g.  companies, academic and research institutions, and law firms), can leverage these sources of IP value to raise debt and equity capital in several ways, including: Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors.  IP CREDIT IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types.  Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund.  Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition.  Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP. Investment Types Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited. Deal Structuring The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections. The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:
  • Delayed draw funding schedules and performance-based milestone provisions
  • Events of default / material adverse event scenarios
  • Minimum cash / treasury requirements
  • Prepayment protection (make-wholes, yield maintenance, non-call provisions)
  • Structural and / or contractual seniority over IP or other assets
  • Affirmative and negative covenants / financial covenants
  • Warrants or other instruments with equity-like kickers
  • IP-backed securitizations
  • Credit enhancements via IP-related insurance policies
Industry Focus While the strategy is generally industry agnostic, investments are often placed in IP-intensive industry groups, including technology, life sciences, materials sciences, automotive, semiconductors, telecommunications, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.  The hallmark of foundational IP that may serve as the basis for an IP-focused investment are assets protecting key innovations in a field, which an entrant will need to license to practice the technology. Investment Team Managers of IP-focused funds often possess a multidisciplinary IP expertise, with additional expertise in credit or distressed strategies.  Such expertise allows management teams focused on IP-specific strategies to not only appropriately measure risk and value potential, but to appropriately structure such transactions to capture value and mitigate downside.  Management’s IP experience also serves as an advantage when sourcing deals from among counterparties seeking a value-add financial partner with a deep understanding of IP.  In Soryn’s case, for example, co-founders Michael and Phil possess investment, legal and executive experience which allows them to assist counterparties with their legal, operational, and financial strategy planning with the goal of improving the risk-reward profile of the underlying investments. Deal Sourcing Because multidisciplinary IP expertise is a prerequisite for managers in the IP space, barriers to entry remain high and competition for deals is less severe than that of other asset classes.  Typical counterparties involve operating companies (both private and public) and universities that own foundational IP or revenue streams associated with such IP, as well as law firms representing such entities. Use of Proceeds IP-focused Private Credit transaction proceeds may be used for general business purposes and IP-related expenses or investments.  This is an important distinction between IP Litigation Finance and an IP-focused Private Credit, with the latter allowing for significantly greater flexibility in terms of the use of proceeds. Insurability Demonstrating the quantifiable value of intellectual property, the insurance industry has recently introduced products aimed at insuring various aspects of intellectual property.  Such products include:
  • Collateral protection insurance for credit deals where IP serves as the collateral package;
  • Judgement preservation insurance, to insure against an adverse appellate result following an IP owner trial win; and
  • IP litigation insurance, to insure against the associated costs and expenses of being sued for patent infringement.
Not only do such products demonstrate the insurance industry’s growing comfort with IP as an asset class, they also present downside protection scenarios for a variety of IP-centric financings. In the next part of our 2-part series, we will be applying the theory above into practice by reviewing a case study of two financings by a public entity. Slingshot Insights Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways.  It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives.  While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner. The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come, and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently. I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future ahead, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile. As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors. Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets.  Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts.  The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers. INFORMATION SOURCES

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Delaware Chancery Court Dissolves Litigation Funder Amid Partner Deadlock

By John Freund |

The Delaware Court of Chancery has ordered the dissolution of a litigation funding operation after its two principals reached an irreconcilable impasse, offering a rare look at what happens when the business relationships behind funding ventures break down.

As reported by Law360, the court ruled to wind down the partnership between a hedge fund manager and a Florida-based personal injury attorney who jointly operated the funding business. The dispute involved Priority Responsible Funding and Settlement Funding LLC, entities that had been providing capital for litigation matters.

Rather than assigning fault to either party, the Chancery Court determined that the partners' falling out did not involve wrongdoing that would prevent an orderly dissolution. The ruling permits the business to be wound down under the court's supervision, a resolution that allows both sides to move forward without the protracted litigation that often accompanies contested partnership breakups.

The case highlights a less-discussed risk in the litigation funding industry: the internal dynamics between business partners and co-investors. While much of the regulatory and media attention around litigation finance focuses on funder-client relationships and disclosure requirements, the Delaware case underscores that the operational structures behind funding entities carry their own set of governance challenges.

The decision may serve as a reference point for other litigation funding ventures navigating partnership disputes, particularly as the industry continues to attract new entrants and capital from diverse financial backgrounds. The full decision is available through the Court of Chancery.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Joint ILR-LCJ Letter Calls on Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to Adopt Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule, Recommends Rule Text

By John Freund |

Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) and Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) submitted a joint comment letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts (Advisory Committee) urging the body to promulgate a uniform rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) agreements in federal courts and proposing the text of the rule. The comment letter comes ahead of the Advisory Committee’s April 14 meeting where it is expected to discuss the results of its listening tour. The comment proposes new rule text, which would amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) and require the disclosure of third-party funding contracts, in addition to basic information on funders. An original copy of the letter as submitted is available here and here.

The Advisory Committee formed a subcommittee to consider the need for a TPLF disclosure rule in October of 2024, after ILR and LCJ submitted a comment calling for the initiation of the rules process. Since that time, the TPLF subcommittee has conducted a listening tour to gather information on whether a rule is necessary and what it may require. LCJ’s analysis of actual TPLF contracts demonstrates that funders—who are nonparties to the litigation—not only share in the proceeds of litigation, but also have the ability to influence or control litigation and settlement decisions.

The joint letter argues a rule is necessary because the lack of TPLF disclosure causes a series of serious problems for America’s courts, including:

  • Conflicts of interest between funder and parties to the case and/or witnesses remain hidden
  • Time wasted in negotiations between parties who do not have the authority to make dispositive decisions about the resolution of the litigation. 
  • “Zombie” litigation in which litigation continues at the behest of funders despite the parties’ desire to settle.
  • Inability to manage settlement conferences effectively because parties are not empowered to make dispositive decisions. 

The comment letter also explains that courts face a serious rules problem because they are responding to disclosure requests on an ad hoc basis and are doing so in an inconsistent manner. Absent uniformity that only a rule can provide, some judges are rejecting disclosure requests under relevance standards governing the discovery process in Rule 26(a). Other courts are utilizing in camera or ex parte review in ways that are not in keeping with regular procedures regarding motions for protective orders. Some courts are ordering disclosure of TPLF. The comment letter concludes “This lack of uniformity is a rules problem because similarly situated parties in different geographic locations are getting starkly different interpretations of the FRCP and access to much-needed information.”

To solve the problem, ILR and LCJ offer specific language for a new rule that adds to the list of required initial disclosure[s] in Rule 26(a)(1)(A): 

(v) the name, address, and telephone number of any non-party individual or entity (other than counsel of record) that, whether directly or indirectly, is providing funding for the action and has a financial interest therein and, for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any agreements or other documentation concerning the funding for the action or the financial interest therein.

The letter draws a direct parallel between the situation facing courts today surrounding TPLF with that of insurance contract disclosure before 1970. At that time, courts were split between granting disclosure of insurance contracts and denying such requests, often on the same lack of relevance basis that some courts today are denying TPLF disclosure requests. The Advisory Committee considered courts’ patchwork of approaches and ultimately decided a rule requiring insurance contract disclosure was necessary under Rule 26 to help all parties make a “realistic appraisal of the case.” The letter argues that the Committee should require TPLF disclosure given that, similar to insurance contracts, TPLF contracts can give non-parties a stake in the litigation as well as control over its resolution.

Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) is an advocacy organization whose members support reform of procedural litigation rules to further “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Through collaborative engagement by in-house and outside counsel, LCJ develops and advocates for reform proposals that improve the efficiency and fairness of the U.S. civil litigation system, including through its AskAboutTPLF campaign, which advocates for a uniform rule requiring the disclosure of TPLF.

A program of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”), ILR’s mission is to champion a fair legal system that promotes economic growth and opportunity. The Chamber is the world’s largest business federation. It directly represents approximately 300,000 members and indirectly represents the interests of more than 3 million companies and professional organizations of every size, in every industry sector, and from every region of the country.

Commercial

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee Proposes Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule

By John Freund |

Pennsylvania could become the latest state to require transparency around third-party litigation funding arrangements, with a proposed rule that would mandate disclosure of funding documents during discovery.

As reported by the PA Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, the Civil Procedural Rules Committee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a notice of rulemaking for a new Third-Party Litigation Funding Rule. The proposal would require parties to produce documents pertaining to third-party litigation funding as part of the discovery process in civil cases.

The committee framed the initiative as a matter of parity. Under current rules, defendants are already required to disclose insurance policies that may fund verdicts or settlements, but plaintiffs backed by third-party funders face no comparable transparency obligation. The proposed rule aims to close that gap by bringing litigation funding arrangements into the same disclosure framework.

The move adds Pennsylvania to a growing list of states grappling with how to regulate the role of outside capital in civil litigation. Several states, including Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, have already enacted laws requiring some degree of funder disclosure. At the federal level, the Advisory Committee on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is separately considering potential rule amendments that would require uniform disclosure of litigation funding in federal cases.

The Civil Procedural Rules Committee is accepting public comments on the proposed rule through April 22. Comments may be submitted to Karla M. Shulz, Deputy Chief Counsel, at civilrules@pacourts.us.