Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event on The Evolution of Corporate Portfolio Funding

Last week, Litigation Finance Journal held a special digital event on the evolution of corporate portfolio funding. How has portfolio funding evolved over the years? Why have corporates been slow to adopt the practice? How is COVID impacting that adoption rate? And what can funders do to convince corporates that the benefits of portfolio funding outweigh any perceived drawbacks?

A panel discussion led by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, addressed these and other questions. The panel consisted of Neil Purslow, Co-Founder of Therium Capital Management, Greg McPolin, Managing Director of Burford Capital, Patrick Molony, CEO of Litigation Capital Management, and Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC.

Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:

Ed: Patrick, can you provide a brief description of the corporate portfolio financing market?

Patrick: Sure. This is a part of the market where the litigation financier approaches a large sophisticated and potentially well-capitalized corporate entity, either directly or through another channel—and provides to that corporate a facility in relation to a number of disputes that corporate might have. The capital that’s applied to funding that portfolio of disputes is typically collaterally secured against the outcome of a number of disputes. And through that process, it’s provided to that corporate at a reduced price reflecting the reduced risk of capital.

And as you say, it is a part of the market that hasn’t seen a lot of attention from litigation finance, and is something I think the industry is starting to have a close look at now. It’s certainly one of the investment strategy that LCM—the company that I manage—is looking at and focusing on very closely.

Greg: The two things I’ll add are that Patrick was right in that the market for corporate portfolio financing is certainly a newer evolution of the Litigation Finance market. For Burford it’s really come into focus over the past 18 months or so. For fiscal year 2020, we noted that about 57% of the capital we committed across our portfolio went to corporations. Not that that all happened in the context of portfolios, but certainly corporates were the majority recipients of the capital that Burford committed in 2020.

That’s consistent with what I see in the market, certainly here in the US. That is an increased uptake by corporates of litigation finance, and corporate legal departments and finance professionals coming to realize, after people like Rebecca and Patrick and Neil and I have been out in the market explaining that litigation finance is just another form of corporate finance. Corporates should be looking at their legal assets, those affirmative arbitration and litigation claims as having value—as assets that can be monetized and financed.

Ed: Rebecca, through your advisory business you must come across corporations all the time who are looking for some perspective on the litigation finance market. Why do you think corporations haven’t adopted litigation finance sooner?

Rebecca: It’s a good question. I think it follows along what Greg said which is—first of all, this market in general, litigation finance, remains relatively new as compared to other types of corporate finance in the world. So I think everybody in this industry recognizes that it’s not a new industry, but still becoming more well-known. I think a large part of it is just education, right? I think a large part of it is that corporates are just beginning to recognize that this type of financing is available to them.

So there is a big hurdle in terms of education, but as Greg said, Burford for sure is funding a lot of corporates. I think and expect that that trend will probably continue as more and more corporates become more and more comfortable with the idea of Litigation Finance.

Ed: Greg, in terms of those corporates who are looking at litigation funding, what are some typical objections you might hear from corporates?

Greg: I think Rebecca made this point, which I think is massively important and that is—this is so much about education, and a mind-shift within corporate legal departments and the CFO suite to think about Litigation Finance as just another form of corporate finance. The number one objection is sort of an unseen one, just lack of awareness…status quo. Treating legal assets the way they were treated years and years ago without thinking about how to bring in Litigation Finance to begin to shift the legal department from a cost center to a profit center.

Once you get past that…you come up with the typical objections like…some companies believe, wrongly, that commercial litigation funders are behind many of the litigations that they have to defend. So they don’t feel about using capital from a litigation funder on the affirmative side.

Rebecca: I think Greg covered the bulk of what I’ve seen—the emphasis being on ‘we don’t like litigation funders because they fund the people who sue us.’ So I do think there’s a bit of a PR campaign that we as an industry should be working on. That this money is legitimate money that is compliant with all types of rules and regulations. We need to bolster the opinion of what Litigation Finance is, and the legitimacy of what it is. We in the industry know that it’s legitimate, and it’s very real and there are a lot of lawyers now who practice specifically in Litigation Finance law.

I also see one thing Greg may have alluded to, it’s hard still to learn about Litigation Funding unless you dig deep and listen to panels like this one. It’s not as mainstream as other types of financing are. So while of course we all know there’s a lot about Litigation Finance in the NYT or Wall Street Journal, it’s definitely not front page news consistently.

Ed: Neil, can you comment on the role that law firms play in the decision-making process for corporates. Are they absent or behind the scenes or front and center?

Neil: They’ll essentially play the same role litigators would in in originating single case fundings, that’s certainly true. But we’ve certainly seen law firms play a very substantial role in some of these deals. But they won’t necessary litigate because it may well be the corporate folks and the key is going to be people with senior contacts in companies that want to deliver a sort of commercial benefit to the company, and go beyond narrow legal advice. Certainly law firms do play roles, and they can play an important role in bridging the gap between the GC and CFO.

Ed: In terms of how corporates approach finding the right litigation funder, Rebecca what’s your experience—are they hiring advisors? Or relying on their law firms to run a process? Can you give us some perspective?

Rebecca: I will tell you that I think the way that I’ve heard from corporates historically have been through law firms or people reaching out to me because they are interested in taking on Litigation Finance. But just as a corporate wouldn’t make a big investment in something without having some expertise in house or going outside to find it. I find this is the same thing.

I’ve been talking to people who find me to learn how the industry works—‘who do I talk to,’ ‘how do I learn about this.’ On a less frequent basis I get calls from corporates that say ‘I’ve been approached by a funder, what do I do? Is this a good deal? What do these deals look like?’ Sometimes it’s a proactive thing, or they get approached.

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.