Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

LegalPay, India, and the Promise of Litigation Finance in Emerging Markets

LegalPay is a Litigation Finance startup founded in India, an emerging market for third-party legal funding. Until recently, investing in legal cases was reserved for high-end investors. The advent of LegalPay allows retail investors—those of average means–to take advantage of the potentially large uncorrelated returns that have attracted savvy investors for years.

According to founder Kundan Shahi, LegalPay is the only formal player that offers third-party litigation funding for late-stage cases in India. One can’t help but wonder how this will influence the development of global Litigation Finance? Does LegalPay’s success foretell the rise of litigation funding in emerging markets? 

How Does LegalPay Work?

According to founder Kundan Shahi, LegalPay is a tech-focused, data-driven litigation funder which leverages a 15-point checklist proprietary algorithm in its underwriting process. The use of AI in diligencing cases is nothing new, however, LegalPay differentiates itself by enabling retail investors to commit modest amounts of capital as a means of participating in this uncorrelated asset class. Interest rates are competitive and offer high returns—plus investor and creditor interests are secured by the IBC.

There are other such “crowdfunding for Litigation Finance” platforms on the market, though LegalPay seems to be performing a balancing act between being a tech platform for the masses, and a large-scale commercial funder that invests in mega cap cases (at least, as far as the Indian legal market is concerned). In 2021, for example, LegalPay offered interim financing to Yashomati Hospitals, a private medical entity in insolvency. This is in addition to more than a dozen short-term secured loans to hospitals undergoing insolvency. The funds go toward operating costs and payroll to keep the hospital running from six months up to a year. Ravindra Beleyur explains that the term sheet was finalized in fewer than two weeks from initial contact.

LegalPay’s platform has worked out well for insolvent firms, and perhaps even better for the company’s spate of retail investors. A case involving Brain Logistics demonstrates the difference that backing from LegalPay can make. A bevy of delays and appeals by delinquent debtor Hero MotoCorp necessitated increased funding for Brain Logistics to continue fighting. This was provided by LegalPay, and allowed Brain Logistics to proceed with its claim against Hero MotoCorp. While the case has yet not resolved, it demonstrates how legal funding can expedite proceedings and allow for a more timely application of justice.

In addition to its funding platform, LegalPay aims to create specialized products in insolvency and interim business financing, as well as carve out a piece of the legal funding market in India for itself. For insolvent companies, LegalPay offers short-term lending products that are asset-backed and secured. 

Why is This Especially Important in India?

Though the Indian legal system has been refined in recent years, it is still lacking when compared to that of developed nations. The Supreme Court of India is the de facto head of its unified legal system. Its purpose is to interpret laws and defend the constitution, resolve disputes, and affirm basic rights for citizens.

Today, certain drawbacks of the Indian legal system make justice more difficult to achieve in a timely way. For example:

As far back as 2016, the Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court implored the Prime Minister to appoint more judges. Government inaction over judicial delays has caused significant hardships in all case types. Bloomberg Businessweek has affirmed that if India’s judges closed 100 cases every hour, 24-hours a day, it would take more than 30 years to clear the current backlog of pending cases. Ironically, there are pending cases from 30 years ago that are still unresolved.

Given the dearth of judges and astronomical wait times, many companies–and even wronged individuals or businesses–are reticent to sue in India’s courts. New cases must work their way up from lower courts, which means they often take years to reach completion. Given all of this, it’s clear that in India today, finding innovative solutions to the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied,” is more important than ever.

Who is Partnering with LegalPay?

The well-documented challenges in India’s legal market may dis-incentivize investors from getting involved in TPLF in India. At the same time, LegalPay is amassing impressive partnerships that will enable it to make offers to companies undergoing insolvency. LegalPay’s Series A funding, a special purpose vehicle, found itself oversubscribed in a short amount of time—demonstrating consumer confidence in the concept and in its implementation.

This first SPV was intended to diversify capital with a portfolio of 8-12 cases, and allowed retail investors to commit as little as Rs 25,000 in a single case. A second SPV will emphasize commercial disputes. These SPVs help investors diversify by investing in a basket of commercial cases that typically generate a pre-tax IRR of over 20 per cent. Incidentally, the entire investment process is digital and seamless, including signing investor documents, KYC, tracking of the basket of claims, and portfolio monitoring and analytics.

Among those partnering with LegalPay is Jumbo Finance, which provides secured interim financing. Managing director Smriti Ranka explained that there are many benefits to investing in distressed debt assets. US hedge fund Hedonova is another LegalPay partner that, according to Shahi, will enhance LegalPay’s plan to aggressively grow its Indian market.

Naples Global is also onboard with LegalPay, launching a $5MM fund that’s expected to protect the interests of founders in the event of disputes among the board. With disputes between founders and investors on the rise, this development may be crucial in attracting new investors and adding a sense of security to the opportunities LegalPay provides.

The current $20 billion legal expense market in India has enabled seed funding led by 9Unicorns and Accelerator VC, along with LetsVenture, and angel investor Ambarish Gupta. Much of these funds will be deployed toward late-stage litigation—currently plentiful given that delays are rampant due to COVID. Also among LegalPay’s list of partners are Amity Technology Incubator and Venture Catalysts.

What’s the Next Step?

How will innovators like LegalPay alter the Litigation Finance landscape? 

The complexities of global litigation funding make predictions like this difficult. As noted earlier, the Indian legal market is full of challenges, as are all emerging markets (heck, even most mature legal markets can be labyrinthine at times). But those challenges keep competitors out of the fray, which means funders willing to take the plunge typically have their pick of the litter in terms of cases. Lack of competition can present itself as a blue ocean of opportunity, as early entrants into the US and UK litigation funding markets can attest. And India certainly has a lot of untapped potential. The prospect of getting in on the ground floor of a maturing legal market that is home to over 1 billion people may be too enticing for some funders to pass up. 

While LegalPay’s emergence may encourage more partnerships between larger funders and retail investor platforms, it’s unlikely we will see funders dive head-first into emerging markets like India any time soon (for example, opening an office in Bangalore). That type of commitment will take time, as there are less risky jurisdictions out there where the TAM has yet to be saturated (like Japan, South Korea and Israel–where Woodsford maintains an office and Validity Finance recently opened shop). 

Yet established funders in Australia, the US and UK would do well to keep an eye on Shahi’s startup, given how its numerous strategic partnerships and technological capabilities enable both large-scale case investment, and promising returns for retail investors. Any company leveraging AI to effectively source and/or diligence cases deserves a second look, and one doing that in an emerging market like India deserves extra consideration. 

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.