The following piece was contributed by Martin del Gallego and Matthew Harris of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman. This article considers a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia, awarding damages to class action claimants on an aggregate basis.  Aggregate damages is a rare global award which covers all group members described or identified in the award.  This was the first instance of aggregate damages being awarded to a funded litigant in Australia, and may spur a trend in representative claims brought on this basis. In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Initial Trial) [2022] FCA 344, Justice Michael Lee relied on s 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) to award damages to group members in possession of certain Toyota vehicles throughout the entirety of the claim period, calculated as the percentage reduction in value of their vehicle or vehicles.  It has been estimated that Toyota’s total aggregate damages bill may exceed AU$2 billion. Key Takeaways

• For an order of aggregate damages to be made in a representative proceeding, the Court needs to be satisfied on a principled basis with which to assess and distribute the relief;
• The analysis must be informed by general principles governing the assessment of damages, and can result in an award of aggregated damages applying to a specific class of group members within a representative proceeding;
• While the judgment is liable to spur a trend in claims for aggregate damages, precisely how such an award will impact the approval of legal costs and a funder’s commission remains to be seen.

Background to the proceedings The case before the Court concerned claims relating to Toyota’s supply of 264,170 defective diesel vehicles to Australian consumers between 1 October 2015 and 23 April 2020 (Relevant Period).  These vehicles were fitted with diesel combustion engines and a ‘diesel exhaust after treatment system’, or ‘DPF’, aimed at reducing harmful pollutants and other emissions from the engine.  The case alleged that the vehicles were defective because the DPF was not designed to function during all reasonable driving conditions, and even if driven normally, there was a propensity for the car’s exhaust to emit excessive white smoke and malodour, and cause reduced fuel efficiency and trigger ‘excessive’ notifications prompting the need for service or repair. In alleging that the vehicles were not of ‘acceptable quality’ in breach of the statutory guarantee under s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and that Toyota’s conduct had been misleading and deceptive in contravention of ss 18, 29(1)(a) and (g), and 33 of the ACL, the lead applicant sought two types of damages under s 272 of the ACL:

• Under s 272(1)(a), damages for the reduction in value of each relevant vehicle resulting from the failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL; and
• Under 272(1)(b), other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage incurred as a result of the defect and failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL, including excess taxes, fuel consumption, financing costs, servicing costs and lost income.

Of these heads of damage, only two were suitable for determination at the initial trial of the lead applicant’s claim:  the ‘reduction in value’ damages under s 272(1)(a) and damages for excess GST paid by group members in connection with acquiring the relevant vehicles under s 272(1)(b).  (A separate question had been asked and answered in an earlier interlocutory application in the case, clearing the way for a potential aggregate damages award, in respect of only part of the lead applicant and group members’ claims.[1]) Aggregate Damages Having found in favour of the lead applicant, on among other things, their ‘acceptable quality’ cases, Justice Lee also found that the same determinations could be made on a common basis for the remainder of group members.  His Honour found that the lead applicant and group members were entitled to damages for the reduction in value of their vehicles, and for excess GST paid in connection with that reduction.  Accordingly, it was necessary for his Honour to determine a principled basis for arriving at a quantum of the reduced value which could be applied on an aggregate basis to all relevant group members. The Federal Court’s power to award damages on an aggregate basis is found in s 33Z of the Act. This section provides, among other things, that the Court may, in determining a matter in a representative proceeding, make an award of damages for group members, sub‑group members or individual group members, being damages consisting of specified amounts or amounts worked out in such manner as the Court specifies,[2] or award damages in an aggregate amount without specifying amounts awarded in respect of individual group members.[3]  Further, subject to section 33V of the Act, the Court is not to make an award of damages under s 33Z(1)(f) unless a reasonably accurate assessment can be made of the total amount to which group members will be entitled under the judgment.[4] Noting that class actions were not the ‘Galapagos islands’ of litigation, Justice Lee observed that an award of damages, even on an aggregate basis, was subject to two overarching principles as to the award of compensatory damages.[5]  His Honour observed that an award of compensatory damages must be considered in the light of the overriding compensatory principle, and that even where the process of estimating damages is difficult, the Court ‘must do what it can’, this principle equally applying to an assessment of ‘reduction in value’ damages. Justice Lee found that the Court is not permitted, by s 33Z of the Act, to take an approach of awarding aggregate damages on a per vehicle basis and determining the separate question of distribution at a later stage. Because of this, his Honour was faced with a challenge of how to distribute relief to group members who had possessed the relevant vehicles for only part of the Relevant Period.  His Honour termed these group members as ‘Partial Period Group Members’ and concluded at [432]: The bottom line is that without knowing the price at which, or the time at which, the Partial Period Group Members bought and sold Relevant Vehicles on the secondary market, one cannot determine on a principled basis how the compensation for the owners of those Relevant Vehicles ought to be assessed or distributed. One must always bear in mind the whole object of any award of damages is to put the claimant in the position the claimant would have been in but for the contravening conduct. Ultimately, the Partial Period Group Members will be required to undertake an individualised assessment of their loss. For the ‘Entire Period Group Members’, that is, people who possessed the relevant vehicles throughout the entirety of the Relevant Period, the Court awarded aggregate damages under s 33Z(1)(e) of the Act.  The award of aggregate damages for the Entire Period Group Members was calculated on the basis of a 17.5% reduction in value of the average retail price of the particular type of vehicle at the particular time it was purchased.  In circumstances where the group member paid a price lower than the average retail price for their vehicle, the lower of the two prices was said to be the applicable comparator from which the 17.5% reduction in value is to be calculated.[6]  In being satisfied there was a reduction in value of the relevant vehicles of 17.5% resulting from the failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL, Lee J also found that Entire Period Group Members were also entitled to recover the excess GST they paid on that reduction in value, calculated as 10% of the reduction in value.[7] Regarding the claim for damages under s 33Z(1)(f) of the Act, the Court declined to award aggregate damages on this basis, because his Honour was not satisfied that a reasonably accurate estimate could be made of the total amount owing to group members as required by s 33Z(3). Conclusion Williams is the first instance of a Court awarding aggregate damages in a funded representative proceeding, and provides helpful guidance on how the Court will approach such claims, particularly where only part of the claim is suitable for determination on an aggregate basis.  That said, while Justice Lee found in favour of the class on the issue, it is plain that such an assessment will need to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. About the Authors Martin del Gallego, Partner Martin is Chambers & Partners recognised commercial litigator with 15 years’ experience in high stakes, high value litigation. Martin specialises in class action and funded litigation, with expertise across a broad range of sectors including financial services, energy & resources, construction and insolvency. Matthew Harris, Lawyer Matthew is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Matthew is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. -- For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Kat Gieras, Litigation Group Project Coordinator | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  kgieras@piperalderman.com.au [1] Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2021] FCA 1425. [2] Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 33Z(1)(e). [3] Ibid s 33Z(1)(f). [4] Ibid s 33Z(3). [5] Williams [421]-[423]. [6] Williams [446]. [7] Williams [492].

Bloomberg Law profiles Ashley Keller and Adam Gerchen as serial law entrepreneurs who have now raised $750M to fund the first secondary transaction litigation fund. Six years ago, Mr. Keller and Mr. Gerchen made headlines by selling their litigation finance firm for upwards of $160M to Burford Capital. Bloomberg Law reports that the secondary deal landscape for litigation finance is in its infancy. News of Keller and Gerchen’s new secondary market fund (under the banner of Gerchen Capital Partners) is being viewed as a signal of the maturing nature of litigation investment broadly.  According to Bloomberg Law, $225M of proceeds from the fund have been dispatched. In one instance, funds were disbursed to purchase a 30% stake from Omni Bridgeway’s investment in an Australian class action. Sources say Omni was overweight with ‘combustible cladding’ claims in Australia and decided to offload some of the risk to the secondary market.  Bloomberg reports that Gerchen Capital Partners submitted $19.5M to Omni for the stake. A regulatory filing discloses Omni banking a $16M profit for the transaction. Bloomberg’s insights suggest that Mr. Keller and Mr. Gerchen are looking to usher in a robust secondary marketplace for litigation investors. Active debate around a robust secondary market for litigation finance is ongoing. Many suggest that savvy litigation funders would only offload assets if concerned about losing the claim, or not being able to enforce a successful outcome. However, others suggest the needs of litigation franchises change over time, as claims can often take years to reach resolution. Hence there may be a need for a secondary market in Litigation Finance.

The American Bar Association’s Commercial and Business Litigation Committee recently conducted a podcast interview featuring former federal prosecutor Kenneth Harmon and former litigation attorney Giugi Carminati, who discussed litigation finance and the wide range of benefits associated.  During the podcast, Mr. Harmon and Dr. Carminati touch on various third party investment topics including educational barriers currently affecting global litigation funding. According to the American Bar Association, the podcast is aimed at providing sound advice to those looking to expand their knowledge of the growing litigation finance ecosystem, and how investment in the space can be leveraged as a tool to access the civil judicial system.  Click here to listen to the podcast’s insights.

The Litigation Finance Podcast features guests from across the global commercial and consumer litigation funding landscapes. With over 60 podcasts spanning five years of archives, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at the five top podcasts in terms of viewer traffic. It should be noted that the Litigation Finance industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and as new entrants emerge into the space, many come to our site and listen to recent episodes of the LFJ Podcast, hence there is a recency bias in the traffic numbers (the earliest episode on our list comes from March of 2020). That said, below are some key takeaways from our five most popular episodes: #5) Dan Bush, CIO and Director of Innovation, Law Finance Group As CIO and Director of Innovation, Dan Bush wears many hats. He has been with Law Finance for more than a decade, and helped develop one of its most popular products: AR Now. AR Now was created to solve a specific and widespread problem for law firms—clients who won’t, or can’t, pay their bills. Increasingly, clients are approaching law firms demanding steep discounts on legal bills they can’t make good on. Law Finance Group (LFG) offers firms the ability to establish payment plans with clients without impacting the firm’s bottom line. Law firm invoices can be monetized, avoiding sending clients to collections. After all, non-paying clients can impact more than operating budgets. Lines of credit, bonuses, recruitment, even firm salaries may be affected. Perhaps best of all, LFG’s involvement in the creation of payment plans remains clandestine. While this plan was developed due to COVID-related circumstances, Bush sees it outliving the impending return to normalcy. “Everybody was presented with kind of a dire situation, right? With the pandemic, the shutdown, all the economic fallout from that really provided the impetus to get this going. We really see how the product works beyond the COVID pandemic to help law firms help their clients while still bringing money into the firm.” LFG works with firms of all sizes from boutique to leading law firms. It will look at cases in any stage of the litigation process, to see how funding can help. LFG has the equity needed to invest in a wide array of cases and portfolios. It may even offer terms with partial recourse to keep fees down and percentages low. As Bush explains, flexibility is key. “A lot of firms are taking more risks than they would in the past--taking some contingent upside risk, if not a full contingency. They’re coming up with hybrid arrangements, taking some percentages of the hourly fees, which has some contingent upside.” Firms can apply to the AR Now program with a short application that is followed by due diligence and the signing of an NDA. AR Now agreements may cover a single client, small groups, or other arrangements as needed. The bottom line is that firms can take more risks when facilitating payments. It’s a ‘better late than never’ philosophy that works for firms and their clients alike. #4) Elena Rey, Partner, Brown Rudnick In addition to being a Partner at Brown Rudnick, Elena Rey is a member of the Litigation Funding Working Group—which, at the time of this interview, was in the process of creating standardized documentation for funding contracts. Why focus on standardized documentation? Rey explains: “We’ve been seeing a number of trends in the Litigation Finance market in Europe recently. This includes the diversification for funders. So, besides the core of traditional litigation funders, more and more lenders are coming into the space.” Standardizing funding documentation promises many benefits, including shortening the onboarding process and allowing firms to services a wider range of case types. It increases the level of protection for all parties, and speeds the development of secondary markets. Standardized documentation can also be used as part of the negotiation process, as a viable starting point when hammering out details. The current working group has grown into 80 members, including major funders, family offices, insurers, leading law firms and barristers, and private funders. Essentially, professionals from all over the industry are making their voices heard—with the unexpected advantage of encouraging cross-disciplinary discussion on major industry issues. And there is certainly a need for flexibility. As Rey details, all funding is bespoke at its core. Client needs are unique to each case. Commercial funders may be most impacted by standardized documentation, which promises to improve transparency and the quality of terms overall. The first set of documentation from the Working Group is set to be released as early as June of this year. It will focus on insurance, and will serve to demonstrate how impactful this advancement can be on the overall industry.  #3) Christopher DeLise, Chief Executive Officer, Delta Capital Partners  Having been founded in 2011, Delta was an early entrant into the funding industry. Delta sets itself apart by getting term sheets to potential clients with blazing speed after a very short vetting process. Many cases at Delta are vetted and have funding deployed within 48-hours—an extremely fast turnaround in the Commercial Litigation Finance space. The use of standardized documentation also leads to greater clarity and speed—helping clients make more informed decisions about their options. DeLise explains that when it comes to funding, the speed of the process can have a huge impact on origination and client satisfaction. Because Delta has been in the funding game for so long, the company has been at the forefront of the industry’s development since its inception. DeLise explains, “Part of the excitement of this industry, for me personally, is having been an early pioneer and seeing all the changes that have occurred.” In the beginning, much time was spent educating law firms and investors about the benefits of funding—now, that’s less necessary, as funding has grown increasingly popular. Some of the more sweeping changes in the funding industry include an increased number of products available, as well as the trend of personalizing funding terms to better meet client needs. Because more recent graduates and old-school industry pros are becoming more aware of the benefits of working in Litigation Finance, sourcing new talent is easier than it’s ever been. COVID has impacted all aspects of Litigation Finance. As DeLise says, “liquidity is tightening up globally.” This increases the need for funding—particularly commercial funding. This, in turn, leads to commercial entities eschewing traditional lines of credit in favor of non-recourse funding. DeLise expects that trend to continue into the future.

#2) Ben Moss, Asset Manager and Portfolio Advisor, Orchard Global Asset Management

Orchard Global is, as the name implies, a global finance entity with operating centers in the US, UK, and Singapore. Currently, Orchard Global has about 6.5 billion in assets under management. In this interview, Moss explained Orchard Global’s basic investing philosophy and ideal investment size. Expounding on this, Moss detailed Orchard’s commitment to diverse portfolios, and a commitment to making room for non-traditional funding offerings. In Europe, increased demand for litigation funding, particularly in the EU, Germany, and the Netherlands, as well as US markets, has flourished through the rise of collective actions and insolvency matters. As Moss explains, “In Europe, we see an increased awareness, appetite, and adoption of Litigation Finance.” As the legal stage is set for a post-COVID return to normalcy (hopefully), backlogs are slowly being resolved. Class actions in particular were stymied by delays and closures—though some of this was mitigated through remote working and advancements in legal and financial tech. Moss opines that COVID has actually been helpful in terms of advancing Litigation Finance, particularly commercial funding. “In terms of opportunity going forward, we see a high demand for Litigation Finance for two reasons: There will be more claims generally, and also the increased use of Litigation Finance as a tool to fund claims.” Orchard Global sets itself apart from competitors with a small team and clearly defined roles. Team members often take cases from origination through to completion—rather than handing off clients to different departments at different stages of the case. This, in turn, promotes client confidence and improves the experience of investors and clients alike. The industry is buzzing with news of upcoming attempts at standardized documentation, which promises to increase transparency and worker efficiency. Arriving as quickly as Q2, these standardized documents will outline terms for a number of types of funding. This brings about concerns regarding bespoke agreements, and the overall need for flexibility. Ultimately, Moss is expecting great things for the future of Litigation Finance, as it flourishes and develops in exciting new ways.

#1) Cesar Bello, Partner in charge of alternative asset and portfolio management, Corbin Capital Partners

Corbin Capital specializes in commercial multi-strategy and bespoke global portfolio investing. Currently, Corbin has nearly nine billion in assets under management. In this interview, Bello summarizes the appeal of Litigation Finance as an investment, saying, “It’s particularly attractive in times of market volatility, where you expect more fat tails. We think there’s a good change that type of environment will persist in the near term.” The potential for outside returns and the sought-after nature of uncorrelated assets only enhances its appeal. Describing what fund managers look at in terms of vital metrics, he explains that methodology, track record, and valuation are at the forefront. Knowing one’s place in the industry is an essential part of finding your market and sourcing cases. Risk assessment is also important, especially how risk is structured and whether or not it’s seen as completely binary, or more nuanced. On the subject of ESG investing, Bello is clear that tackling environmental, social, and governmental issues through funding is an important factor in increasing access to justice. This can include mass torts, though the Volkswagen emission case was a very public miss. Still, the thoughtful application of funds toward ESG issues is vital for clients—and for investors looking toward lucrative investments that also support the public good. Looking ahead, the industry can expect growth and price compression in the near future. Bello predicts that secondary markets will become increasingly important going forward.