Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Cesar Bello of Corbin Capital Discusses Litigation Funding as an Investment

September 27, 2021

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

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.