Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Cesar Bello of Corbin Capital Discusses Litigation Funding as an Investment

On the most recent episode of the Litigation Finance Podcast, Cesar Bello, Partner and Deputy General Counsel of Corbin Capital, explained how he evaluates litigation finance investments, what his ROI expectations are, and how funders can mitigate risk. Below are some key takeaways from the discussion.

What about the funding industry drew your attention and your interest? The stock answer here is that it’s non-correlated compared to a lot of other alternative assets. What else can you say about this asset class that really draws your interest—especially when compared to other alternative assets.

Obviously that’s a big part of it. It’s differentiated—it’s particularly attractive in times of market volatility. When you expect more fat tails, we think there’s a good chance that that type of environment will persist in the near term. We’ve seen over the last year those kinds of spikes with meme stocks, heightened government intervention, obviously the pandemic, political climate, etc. So it was nice for us, we had some good outcomes last March and April when everything else was not working so great. So it really helps the portfolio.

Beyond the uncorrelated nature of it, obviously the opportunity to earn outsized returns. Single case risk is generally structured to make a 3-5x return—so you’re getting paid well for the risk. Private lending for the more credit-oriented type of LitFin plays—you’re still getting paid, or overpaid since the sector is still largely underbanked—although increasingly less so. The underlying collateral is not well understood by traditional lenders.

Back to the market as a whole, it’s still, I think, growing. The legal services industry is a $1 trillion industry worldwide. Litigation Finance has grown a lot. There’s a growing awareness among mainstream corporates, if they have assets on their balance sheets that they can monetize, Fortune 500 companies are awakening to this possibility of using Litigation Finance to bring cases without sucking up the budget or disrupting their cashflows. 

How important is ESG to investors such as Corbin, and also to your LP investors? 

Obviously, we do a lot more than just Litigation Finance, but with respect to Litigation Finance in particular, the easiest way to think about it is not necessarily equal access to justice in our legal system. Right? Litigation Finance helps level the playing field, so David can go after Goliath. That’s obvious and simple to understand. But it kind of flows through and manifests itself in different ways. Take mass torts—environmental cases, for example—there’s a long history of poor minority communities being used as toxic dumping grounds. We have opioids, we have sexual abuse cases, etc, so from an environmental, socioeconomic, social justice perspective—there’s a clear angle there.

But back to how we think about it more broadly, our approach to ESG is focused on the thoughtful application of ESG factors to enhance our business and it takes a lot of work. We’ve been working on it over the last 2-3 years. With the help of leading experts in the space and consultants to help us navigate what remains of a pretty fragmented information environment.

We believe in meaningful integration of material ESG factors that can lead to a more complete picture of risk and opportunity, driving more informed decision-making with the opportunity to get better risk-adjusted returns. 

Let’s say I’m a commercial litigation funding manager. I approach you for an investment opportunity. Is there anything you wish these fund managers did more of or less of? Any advice you can give to them?

I think it’s important to have a real understanding and self-awareness of where you sit in the marketplace and to be commercial—it’s hard to raise money. The safe thing to do is to give money to the bigger players, particularly if you’re just starting out. We’ve seen a lot of people try to raise funds with unrealistic expectations, and refusing to partner with people in creative ways because they want a fund and don’t want to do co-investments—not thinking about the long game, and not realizing the best path to unlock capital may not be the one that they came into the meeting with. So really listening and trying to figure out where that happy medium is, to find a way to work together.

Back to the point about most of the money coming in is going to established players, that’s the nature of the asset management industry as a whole. So we also like people who can talk through a bad outcome—lessons learned—that buys some goodwill. … Find a way to get in the door, build trust, and hopefully everybody gets more comfortable and it becomes easier to build a relationship. 

When you look at this industry, what opportunities are you seeing down the road for the funding industry? How do you see this industry developing in the coming years?

Good question. I think everybody would tell you it’s probably going to grow and there’s probably going to be some price compression as the asset class matures. Maybe something you won’t hear as much—I really would like it to evolve into having a more active secondary market, which would help with the duration issue. As anything that helps generate liquidity, we would view as a positive. And obviously, it would help with valuation price discovery as well.

So there’s a lot of activity now in private equity funds and private credit funds in terms of secondaries and continuation funds, as some of the older vintages are getting long in the tooth. It would be interesting to have some growth there, and I think similarly there’s a good amount of the bigger funds that are running up against the end of their fund life and they’re going to be motivated to sort of solve for that.

I think there are some characteristics here that are going to make it harder for secondary markets to flourish in the marketplace. This stuff is idiosyncratic and hard to underwrite. You’re not buying IBM bonds. But it’s doable, and I think it’ll happen eventually. When it does I think it will be a very positive signal for the asset class.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.