The boom in both interest and investment in cryptocurrency over the last few years has been synonymous with extraordinary stories of massive returns on investment, as well as an equal and growing number of instances of investors falling foul of scams and fraudulent schemes. For most retail investors, there has been relatively little hope of recourse, due to the capital requirements to fund litigation against these crypto schemes. As a result, victims are now looking to funders to finance their claims.An article by Cointelegraph Magazine examines this new trend and highlights specialised funders who are emerging to meet this niche demand, including Nemesis, a new litigation funder. Founded by Jason Corbett, previously a managing partner at Silk Legal, this start-up aims to finance claims against those crypto schemes and projects in order to secure financial compensation for victims, and Corbett argues, to ensure that this niche industry becomes a more secure and trustworthy market.Bill Tilley, managing partner at LegalTech Investor, highlights that these efforts are not without their difficulties, due to the often near-impossible task of pinning down which jurisdiction these defendants can actually be taken to court in. This is reflected by Corbett, who states that the best jurisdictions to bring claims are still those which have more established and broader third-party funding industries, such as the UK, US and Australia.
Since the approval of the Voss Report by the European Parliament last month, which included more stringent regulatory reforms to third-party funding, there has been severe backlash from funders and legal professionals alike, who have argued the suggested proposals would do more harm than good. As LFJ has reported in recent weeks, these critiques have come from across multiple jurisdictions, including industry leaders in Canada who are keen to avoid any emulation in their own country.An opinion piece in The Law Society Gazette by Tets Ishikawa, managing director of LionFish, offers a detailed critique of the Voss Report and argues that it is flawed both in its central premise and the data used to support its proposals.Tackling the report’s claim that funders are frequently seeing returns of over 300% and even reaching 3,000%, Mr Ishikawa highlights that this is based on outdated and out-of-context data points. Instead, he points to the latest data from Burford Capital, which suggests such returns represent a fraction of actual investments by funders, and that a more statistically representative average would be closer to 69%.LionFish’s Ishikawa also argues that while the report’s proposals claim to be in service of protecting consumers, these measures do little to achieve that. Instead, he suggests that the European Commission consider implementing an obligation for losing defendants to pay the funder’s costs, as this would wholly protect claimants from exploitation.Finally, Mr Ishikawa notes that while the report uses Australia as an example of a jurisdiction that has implemented stricter regulation on litigation funding, we have seen in the last few months that Australian courts and now the government have actually reversed course and are implementing reforms to widen access to third-party funding.
The evolving state of litigation finance regulation continues to be a key issue for funders around the world, and while the demand for third-party funding is on the rise, certain jurisdictions are looking to tighten regulatory oversight of the industry. In an article by Canadian Lawyer, law firms and funders alike are speaking out against suggestions that their own jurisdiction would benefit from industry regulation via legislation. Omni Bridgeway’s chief investment officer in Canada, Paul Rand, argues that oversight from the courts already fulfils the function of such regulation, and that creating further restrictions does not solve any tangible problem the industry faces.Leading figures from Canadian law firms agree, with Hugh Meighen of Borden Ladner Gervais and Chenyang Li of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, both stating that litigation funding in Canada already exists within a cautious best-practice model. Li points out that it is always in the best interest of funders to maintain a reliable and trustworthy relationship with clients, as without it, they would never see returns on investments.Rand highlights that the Canadian industry is also experiencing ongoing growth, with Omni Bridgeway looking to meet demand from larger corporate clients who view third-party funding not as a necessity, but as a valuable tool to utilize.
On Wednesday October 5th, LFJ hosted a panel discussion and audience Q&A covering various aspects of ESG within a litigation funding framework, including how funders consider ESG claims, how serious LPs are when it comes to ESG-related criteria, and the backlash swirling around the topic itself. Panelists included Andrew Saker (AS), CEO of Omni Bridgeway, Neil Purslow (NP), CEO of Therium Capital Management, and Alex Garnier (AG), Founding Partner and Portfolio Manager of North Wall Capital. The event was moderated by Ana Carolina Salomao, Partner at Pogust Goodhead. Below are some key takeaways from the digital event: How do you consider ESG being relevant to litigation funding? AS: It’s a truism that litigation funding provides access to justice. By definition it’s a social benefit. Litigation acts as a deterrent, and leads to environmental, social and governance improvement. So financing that through litigation funding assists with the achievement of various ESG goals. ESG can both be a goal to be achieved through litigation funding, and also internally to be used to identify risks internally, and to inform decision-making. How do your LPs consider ESG? Is ESG part of their mandates? Is it truly something that benefits your fundraising? AG: We at North Wall are launching the third vintage of our legal assets fund, having deployed the first two vintages. There is strong investor demand for ESG-compliant and ESG-focused litigation financing. The questions asked on ESG are the same as with litigation financing – we’re asked how we screen deals, how we incentivize counter-parties to continually improve on ESG. In our partnership with Pogust Goodhead, you have given us an undertaking to pursue only ESG-compliant cases (not that that was required, because that is the whole philosophy of the firm). But we have put that in place in documents in a non-litigation financing context. For example, when investing in e-commerce businesses, we have put in place interest rate ratchets linked to measurable goals such as environmental and social factors—achieving carbon neutrality, etc. And then actively seeking cases that meet ESG criteria as well. Cases around recompense for exploited workers is an example. I think investors are also concerned about people going too far the other way—about greenwashing, tokenism, at taking positions at the expense of returns and downside protection. Do you see that because you have an ESG awareness, you are able to access different investment pools than you otherwise would? Can you use it as leverage when fundraising? NP: From Therium’s perspective, we see that some of our LPs are very focused on ESG-compliant criteria. We’ve been reporting to them for years on ESG compliance in different ways and how we think about that in our asset class. But you have to be careful here about what ESG means in the context of this particular asset class. What we’re doing is very different vs. a private equity fund or something like that. So you have to answer investor concerns very specifically for our asset class. And you also have to be careful about making ESG claims in a way that makes sure they are properly understood to our audience (particularly if you are addressing a retail audience). There is a danger there, that we all need to be very cognizant of. How do managers and investors think about supporting a case that has strong ESG components to it, but doing so for a plaintiff that is non-ESG (for example, an Oil & Gas claimant)? AS: The perception of what ESG is, needs to be taken in context of that particular case. Supporting a coal company would not be considered an ESG strategy. But if that coal is being used to provide power and heat and electricity in the middle of winter to Ukraine, then yes it could be considered a socially important strategy. So it is a challenge. In some of our funds, that decision is taken away from us – our LPs have very strict no-go zones. That does assist us in identifying those claimants we’re able to support. In other funds, we have a great degree of discretion. Generally, we try to balance what we consider to be competing ESG requirements and objectives. Will the International Legal Finance Association look to establish ESG criteria or metrics for the industry? NP: That’s a very interesting question. I am not aware of any discussion to do that yet. I think it’s extremely important how the industry engages with this topic. There is also another side to this—the greenwashing aspect. We need to be very careful that our industry is not representing itself to be something it is not. So there is a very strong case for a strong ESG narrative here. How ILFA engages with that in best practices has not yet been discussed. What are the particular challenges or hurdles which funders, law firms or claimants might face in environmental suits specifically, in addition to the usual financing criteria? AG: You tend to have very deep-pocketed defendants, which requires a level of stamina. You also tend to have a very wide group of claimants, because so many people have been affected by the environmental disasters in question. The flipside of that of course, is that the public relations impact of a defendant digging its heels in when they’ve done something of that sort means that a settlement is much more likely, as the liability and causation is much clearer than it is in other cases.
There has been a noticeable uptick in the volume of class action suits brought in the UK, spurred by commercial litigation teams eager to take on these cases and supported by third-party funding to ensure claims can be financed to their (hopefully) successful conclusion. A new case in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) underscores this pattern.Outlined by an article in LondonlovesBusiness, UK law firm, Harcus Parker, is bringing a claim against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of businesses who were allegedly hit with unlawful charges for accepting card payments from international customers. Jeremy Robinson, a partner at Harcus Parker, states that Visa and Mastercard’s use of Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs), was both unlawful and anti-competitive.The class action is being brought as an opt-out claim for businesses with under £100 million in pre-Covid turnover, whilst larger entities are being invited by Harcus Parker to opt-in. The claim itself is being funded by Bench Walk Advisers.
As demand for litigation funding has continued to grow with funders seeing increased adoption from major law firms and corporate entities, the market is also seeing a parallel increase from investors looking to funnel their capital into this alternative asset class which can offer stable returns amid economic uncertainty.Reporting by Proactive Investors highlights a recent example of this, with the announcement by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) that is has now reached over 90 per cent fulfilment of its Global Alternatives Return Fund II, with $273 million invested. The funder stated that it had seen repeat contributions from all investors in its first fund, and has additionally received investments from both a UK and a European pension fund.This announcement comes only two weeks after LCM reported that Fund II had already passed two-thirds of its target, with the company’s chief executive, Patrick Moloney, stating that this second fund will allow the funder to meet the increased market demand for third-party funding.
Omni Bridgeway is pleased to announce expansion and key promotions within its U.S. team, which has grown by over 100% in the past 12 months. In New York, Sarah Tsou has been appointed Senior Investment Manager and assumes the role of Portfolio Manager - Global Intellectual Property overseeing Omni Bridgeway’s widely recognized IP business and team of dedicated IP professionals. This portfolio role underscores Omni Bridgeway’s unique global IP capabilities and worldwide footprint spanning key IP markets.Fiona Chaney, who heads the company’s Los Angeles office, was also recently appointed to Senior Investment Manager and Legal Counsel. Fiona also serves as co-lead of the company’s insurance initiatives.We also congratulate Chris Citro (New York), who has been promoted to Investment Manager and Legal Counsel, with a focus on patents and other intellectual property matters.Further building out the company’s dynamic IP team is Phillip Goter who recently joined as Investment Manager and Legal Counsel. Phil’s arrival marks Omni Bridgeway’s continued expansion on-the-ground including new operations in the Midwest. Based in Minneapolis, Phil joins from Fish & Richardson with over a decade of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, antitrust and competition law, and FDA clearance. Phil is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and a member of the Expert Network for Lunar Startups, an incubator specializing in growth and innovation for diverse, high-potential entrepreneurs.In Washington D.C. we welcome Matt Leland as Investment Manager and Legal Counsel. Matt joins us from King & Spalding LLP where he was a commercial litigation partner and successfully litigated diverse legal issues for corporate plaintiffs and defendants in the energy, manufacturing, healthcare, pharmaceutical, and construction industries. Matt helped clients recover substantial damages in many of his cases, which often involved contract and commercial disputes, government reimbursement claims, unfair business practices, civil RICO, protection of trade secrets, and trademark infringement. Prior to this, Matt was a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP.On the business side, we welcome Joseph Cho as Corporate Counsel based in New York. Joe joins us from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP where he represented public and private companies in complex mergers and acquisitions. His previous experience includes private practice at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.The U.S. team has also grown its slate of associate investment managers, legal counsel, and business support, doubling Omni Bridgeway’s U.S. headcount to over 45 in the past year. Andrew Saker, Omni Bridgeway’s Managing Director & CEO and Chief Strategy Officer – US notes, “We are delighted to welcome Phil, Matt and Joe, and congratulate our investment team colleagues in their promotions. We are committed to attracting and retaining the top talent in the U.S. market who bring a unique combination of legal expertise and financial innovation, to result in the best outcomes for clients. Our model is more than financial – we are skills, plus capital. Companies and law firms in the U.S. are responding to our offering, and this is reflected in our continued growth.”
While the vast majority of litigation funding continues to be devoted to financing actions by plaintiffs, there has been a noticeable increase in firms discussing and actively pursuing defense-side funding. However, as a recent case in Australia is demonstrating, this kind of third-party funding is not without its challenges, and may represent a risky proposition where there is the possibility of cost orders being leveled against the funder.A piece of analysis by Corrs Chambers Westgarth examines the case of Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty v Davis Investment Group Holdings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Davis went into liquidation shortly after Sentinel sued the company for invalid contract termination, due to Davis allegedly reneging on a contract to purchase land from the plaintiff. Davis’ legal defense was funded by John Davis Motors (JDM), which had been planning to conduct business operations on the aforementioned land (JDM is not a pure funder). Sentinel’s claim was successful, and the Court issued a costs order against JDM as the funder. The analysis highlights the need for funders, even when they are not dedicated litigation funders, to be mindful of the potential financial risk should their client lose in court. The case has put a spotlight on the wide discretion at the court’s disposal to order costs against a third-party funder, particularly where they have a separate financial interest in the outcome of the claim.
For litigants concerned about financial exposure if their claim is unsuccessful, After the Event insurance represents an invaluable tool. Therefore, while litigation funding is experiencing a period of increased growth as an industry, there has also been a commensurate rise in the adoption of ATE insurance by claimants, as demonstrated by one provider’s recent announcement.As reported by Legal Futures, ATE insurance provider Litica has now reached a total of £750 million in insurance supplied to clients pursuing litigation. Despite only having been active since May 2019, Litica’s co-founder, Steve Ruffle, says that the firm is already innovating within the market and has positioned itself as an industry leader with the capacity to ensure around £23 million on any individual risk. The company has not only seen tremendous growth in the UK, but also launched a dedicated presence in Australia earlier this year, with the appointment of Phillip Lomax, as the managing director for Litica Australia.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.