Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 2 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
  • Litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but it 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 made IP 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 quasi-binary risk

In the part 1 of this two-part series, the relatively nascent asset class of Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) was introduced.  That article explored the basic premise of the asset class, discussed some of the financiers in the space and reviewed some of the nuances inherent in the asset class.  In part two, we take all of the knowledge gained in part one and apply it to a specific example by exploring a publicly traded company, which used IP Credit on a couple of different occasions with great success.

Case Study

The details of most IP Private Credit transactions remain private.  An illustrative exception involves two prior financings of the once publicly traded cybersecurity company Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN) (“Finjan”), known for its technologies related to proactive cybersecurity.  At the time of the financings in 2016 and 2017, Finjan had focused significant effort on the licensing of its patent portfolio — to significant monetary success — in addition to other aspects of its business.  But because the licensing of intellectual property often requires costly litigation to complement the negotiation process, Finjan, through its bankers, ran a process to identify a strategic capital partner.  Potential proceed uses included litigation and general operating expenses, as well as stock repurchases.

Series A Financing (May 20, 2016)

InvestmentSeries A Preferred StockInvestorsHalcyon/Soryn
Amount$10.2 millionTerms
  • Optional and mandatory redemptive provisions
  • Carry participation rights in revenue streams
  • Negative Events – Litigation and Treasury events
  • Consent to declare dividends
Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001366340/000136634016000051/0001366340-16-000051-index.htm

Series A1 Financing (June 19, 2017)

InvestmentSeries A Preferred StockInvestorsHalcyon/Soryn
Amount$15.3 millionTerms
  • Optional and mandatory redemptive provisions
  • Carry participation rights in revenue streams
  • Negative Events – Litigation and Treasury events
  • Consent to declare dividends
Redemption RightsCompany option to redeem at lesser of:

1.     2.8 X Original Purchase Price
2.     Purchase prices ranging from 1.2375X to 1.575+ times based on time elapsed from date of issuance
3.     Receipt of share of proceeds from litigation or licensing which varies based on time elapsed from date of issuance

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001366340/000136634017000059/0001366340-17-000059-index.htm

Based on its prior patent licensing success, Finjan likely had numerous traditional, non-recourse litigation financing offers to choose from. But instead of pursuing the litigation finance route, Finjan pursued the IP Credit path.  Finjan secured almost $26mm in financing, via two highly-structured preferred equity transactions.  These transactions featured share redemptions tied to litigation and/or patent licensing revenue events, and also contained “Negative Event” features that entitled the capital partner to recover all of their shares upon the occurrence of certain, pre-agreed negative events.  As illustrated in the chart above, the capital partner’s potential returns were capped at multiples ranging from 1.25 to almost 3x the original purchase price of the shares, with the range depending mainly on the length of time the capital was outstanding.

Finjan ultimately exited both deals.  While the exact motivations behind the deal cannot be known, it is easily theorized that the highly-structured and downside protected nature of the IP Credit Deal the company ultimately entered into was favorable in a number of respects compared to the higher cost of capital seen in traditional litigation finance arrangements.  Finjan was ultimately acquired by Fortress Investment Group in 2020.

Interplay with IP litigation

Of note, and particularly with respect to patents, enforcement litigation is often a necessary tool to resolve licensing disputes or negotiations between IP owners and potential licensees.   The reason is that without litigation, a patent owner has no means to force a party that it believes is infringing its IP to the negotiating table.

Litigation scenarios thus remain part of the broader IP Private Credit strategy.  But such litigations can take different shapes and risk profiles.  On one end of the risk spectrum are single event litigations, involving a small number of patents, that represent unattractive and binary risk profiles.  On the other end of the spectrum are multi-venue disputes, involving a significant number of patents, brought by entities owning much larger patent portfolios than what is asserted in litigation.

These types of situations (shown above to the right of the arrow) resemble business negotiations moreso than binary litigation, and can be modeled to resolve in a more predictable fashion.  By the nature of a credit-oriented investment strategy, an IP-focused Private Credit fund targets the latter opportunity set, whereas the litigation finance market has shown a willingness to fund what we characterize as the riskier, more binary type enforcement situations.

Accordingly, while litigation is not necessarily an outcome that results from such an investment, a manager that invests in the sector does need to expect, plan and prepare for litigation as a potential outcome, or at the very least as a means to an end. The idea, as with most litigation, is that ‘saner heads will prevail’ and that a commercially reasonable settlement will be achieved by both parties prior to embarking on expensive litigation.  Of course, this means that the onus is on the investor to understand the merits of the case and the plaintiff’s strategic position, potential defenses, procedural activities that could frustrate or delay litigation, and the costs associated therewith.  The complexities associated with understanding the value of intellectual property assets, and the complexity of the litigation process, make the sector a highly specialized area for investors who are often best served by investing with or alongside specialist managers.

 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, 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.

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.