Trending Now

All Articles

3396 Articles

Should Judgement Enforcement Move In-House?

According to a recent Burford Capital survey, more than half of in-house lawyers say their company has awards and judgements that have remained uncollected—often to the tune of $20 million or more. That’s a staggering number of successful cases that go unfulfilled, from a collectability standpoint. The role of a judgment enforcement team is to advise clients and funders on the feasibility of collecting an award or judgement, and overcome a variety of obstacles that stymie or prevent a successful recovery. Asset tracing, collection of evidence (digital and documents), and intelligence gathering all fall under the purview of enforcement. Lawyers and researchers leading the team seek out actionable leads on debtors, then employ a strategy (or series of strategies) for collection, often across multiple jurisdictions. Earlier this month, Litigation Finance powerhouse Omni Bridgeway announced the launch of a US Judgement Enforcement arm. Omni already had the largest global judgement enforcement team with 50+ dedicated professionals, as well as a strong track record of success in global enforcement since 1986, spanning over 100 jurisdictions. The 2019 merger with IMF Bentham, which had maintained a US-presence under the banner of Bentham IMF, solidified Omni’s foothold in the US market. And this recent announcement further cemented the funder as an attractive option for litigation funding and enforcement in the United States. Burford Capital, another leader in third-party litigation funding, has maintained its own in-house judgement enforcement team since 2015. The recent high-profile Akhmedova divorce case generated a slew of headlines for Burford’s enforcement team, which combed jurisdictions as wide-ranging as London, Turkey and Dubai, in an effort to seize assets including the Luna: a superyacht valued at over $200 million (along with its Eurocopter and torpedo speedboat). From a litigation funder’s perspective, collectability is integral to the decision of whether to fund a claim. After all, there’s no ROI in simply winning a case.  Funders must therefore consider the collectability risk in every case they finance. Given this, we at Litigation Finance Journal wondered if Burford’s success and Omni Bridgeway’s recent expansion of its Judgement Enforcement division might foretell an industry trend. Will other funders start moving enforcement teams in-house? What exactly are the advantages of doing so, as opposed to working with third party enforcement firms? We did some investigating of our own to find out the answers. May the Enforcement Be with You Enforcement is a complex, laborious process, and comes on the heels of what is often a long, drawn-out legal proceeding. This enables defendants to deploy tactics simply meant to wear a plaintiff out. Many plaintiffs are keen to focus on growing their business, as opposed to the particular minutiae of asset tracing. Thus, debtors will go to great lengths to hide assets—sometimes legally, sometimes not so much—in the hopes a creditor isn’t up for arduous task of tracing those assets. The goal of judgement enforcement is to combine data-driven analysis with human experience and intelligence, to discover actionable insights with which to locate assets and ensure funds reach the deserving parties. This is often achieved by putting pressure on defendants, essentially by making it so cumbersome to continue to hide assets (also an expensive, complex process), that they simply opt to pay the judgment or award. Essentially, the job of an enforcement team is to make a defendant feel the way defendants often try to make plaintiffs feel—weary-eyed, and ready to throw in the towel. “Judgement enforcement can be an uphill battle,” explains one Omni Bridgeway rep. “Although we prefer to solve matters quickly, we are in it for the long run.” Since every case is bespoke, there is no playbook for how enforcement plays out. Typically, however, enforcement involves several key strategies:
  • Researching the historical behavior of the defendant (What types of claims did the defendant have previously? Did those claims go paid or unpaid? How did the defendant respond to prior enforcement actions, if any?).
  • Identifying a subset of jurisdictions where the defendant’s assets are located, and where enforcement measures can be used to collect those assets.
  • Structuring a multi-district, often cross-border enforcement and collection strategy.
  • Highlighting additional pressure points, outside of litigation, that can be leveraged to impel a defendant to make good on their debts.
Of course, with the proliferation of new technologies such as crypto and other blockchain-based innovations, the game is getting trickier, as more opaque avenues for shielding assets arise. Thus, the ability for an enforcement team to be nimble, flexible and adaptive is paramount. Much like a chess player anticipating her counter-party’s next move, a solid enforcement team must have both a plan of action in place, and an eagerness to break from that plan should the process lead in an unforeseen direction. Omni Bridgeway, for example, has assembled a robust team that can comfortably navigate a multitude of scenarios, comprising lawyers from diverse legal backgrounds, and researchers from a multitude of disciplines, including banking, science and economics. Bringing it In-House Third-party funders outsource an array of legal and financial services, including research, cultivating and preparing experts, Legal Tech development, and more. For some, especially smaller funders, it makes sense to outsource judgement enforcement as well. But for larger, more established funders and their clients —an in-house judgement enforcement arm offers numerous benefits:
  • A judgement enforcement team can be as valuable at the beginning of a case as it can after the case’s conclusion. Input from enforcement professionals can help determine the defendant’s ability to pay, which can then be used as a factor in whether or not to fund a specific case. If the case gets funded, this same information can be used when estimating a budget with a clear eye of what steps need to be taken to enforce a judgement.
  • An in-house enforcement team acts as a conversation partner for claimants and attorneys. Such teams are intimately familiar with the people and processes of the funders, case types, and workplace culture. This helps establish an internal knowledge base that can provide a seamless transition from one facet of the case to the next.
  • Multidisciplinary collaboration. In-house teams have the benefit of being able to rely not just on in-house legal resources from many jurisdictions, but also a research team with additional abilities and language skills, whose members can advise continuously on assets and asset movements, and enable the enforcement team to act quickly on opportunities if and when an asset is identified.
  • Litigation funding is an increasingly competitive business. When funders compete for clients, having a judgement enforcement division helps establish a funder’s commitment not just to the case, but to the final collection. Having an in-house enforcement team shows clients that the funder is able and willing to do the hard work necessary to trace assets and collect those unpaid judgments or awards.
One of the more overlooked benefits of an in-house enforcement team is its expansion of access to justice. While the enforcement team’s assessment of a defendant’s collectability risk can be used to eschew cases classified as high risk, it can also be leveraged in the opposite direction—to help funders finance cases that might otherwise appear too risky. In-house teams are intimately familiar with their organization’s risk appetite, and therefore can make recommendations to the investment committee based on the particulars of that specific appetite. The end result being that funders with in-house teams can finance cases that would otherwise go un-funded due to a high collectability risk. Omni Bridgeway has confirmed that it does have a specific appetite for enforcement or collectability risk. Having an in-house team with a deep understanding of that risk appetite benefits prospective clients, as the in-house relationship can help get their cases funded. Omni shared this summation of the benefits of having an in-house enforcement team: “Omni is a formidable ally to everyone involved, sharing in both the recovery and risk, and only getting paid its fee if real recoveries are made. That alignment of interests with clients means that once we step in, clients know we believe in their case and will only advise a strategy that directly increases the chances of recovery. For us, [enforcement] is our core expertise.” Looking Ahead  Two of the largest litigation funders have successfully created and maintained in-house judgement enforcement teams. While it’s hard to know what the future holds for this rapidly-evolving sector, it is possible this will set off a trend among large and medium-sized third-party funders, as competition for clients is fierce, and funders must do all they can to stay apace. This, in turn, is likely to aid not just the enforcement of awards—but case selection and how funds are deployed. As a rep from Omni points out, “The judgment enforcement capabilities do not just benefit clients with an existing judgment or award, they help us fund new ‘merits’ cases that might otherwise be considered too risky (because of a perceived collection risk), with the client knowing that the case is in safe hands from start to finish, should active enforcement be required.” We’re not in the business of prognosticating, so we won’t predict what the future holds. We will, however, point out that methodologies adopted by one funder can often become industry trends (portfolio funding, secondaries investment, and the push towards defense-side funding are all examples). It's been demonstrated that in-house judgement enforcement leads to increased client satisfaction, and—as third-party legal funding has always centered on—increased access to justice. After all, a favorable judgement has very little value if it remains uncollected. As such, a proliferation of in-house enforcement teams (should that indeed come to pass) will be a boon to clients, lawyers, and the funders who utilize them.

LegalPay Funds Brain Logistics, Seeking Hero MotoCorp Asset Recovery 

Two wheeler Hero MotoCorp is an Indian cycle manufacturer whose assets may be seized by India-based litigation funder LegalPay. LegalPay has invested an undisclosed amount in the Brain Logistics claim.  BusinessToday.in has the story, sharing the cat and mouse battle of Hero MotoCorp, which hired Brain Logistics services, but did not issue due payments. Brain Logistics took to India’s arbitration system to negotiate Hero MotoCorp’s contractual cash recovery. The head of  arbitration awarded Brain Logistics the victory, but MotoCorp wheeled past payment.  LegalPay now serves as third party funder to Brain Logistics, looking to recover cash or other receivables from Hero MotoCorp.

VISA, Mastercard Face Another Funded Class Action

Bench Walk Advisers is the latest funder to take on the card issuers for their alleged malfeasance, funding a class action lawsuit for anti-competitive behavior.  CommercialCardClaim.co.uk has the scoop, detailing alleged behaviors related to card issues and “multilateral exchange” fees charged to consumers. The European Commission and the European Court of Justice looked into the matter, issuing tighter controls on the spread between fees and consumer bank charges.  The UK Supreme Court has issued further guidance stating interchange fees should be zero. This means that Visa and Mastercard have forced fees from customer banks that were above the law. Harcus Parker Limited is representing the case, with third party capital investment from Bench Walk.

Anthony Berry to Head Sales at LIT.Fund 

Anthony Berry has joined LIT.Fund as Head of Sales and Co-Founder. With over 20 years of commercial litigation consultancy, Mr. Berry is a respected expert in international ATE and litigation investment business innovation. As head of sales, Mr. Berry will lead customer acquisition for LIT.Fund’s product and service offerings. LIT.Fund is in the process of launching the LFND token as a utility supporting legal, insurance, financial and property protocols in the form of smart contracts. LIT.Fund plans to simplify systems and processes related to legal compliance, transparency and security standards.       Mr. Berry is the founder of ATE Legal Ltd., a boutique access to justice consultancy. Additionally, Mr. Berry has served as a team member of some of the United Kingdom’s top litigation agencies. 

Sophisticated Construction Claim Portfolio Design  

The maturity of international litigation finance investment as a serious asset class, combined with new and innovative insurance solutions, is prompting the design of sophisticated litigation asset portfolio architectures. Construction companies are discovering symbiotic advantages by partnering with litigation financiers to aggregate multiple claim portfolios.  Pinsent Masons LLP recently featured guidance for building construction litigation finance portfolio frameworks, engaging insights from their 26 offices spanning four continents. Pinsent Masons urges construction litigation funders to find legacy relationships. Construction customers can benefit from reduced risk by increasing available cash flow, and portfolios can include dozens of claims at mid-range value, coupled with large arbitrations.  Industry CEOs understand the nature of construction litigation pressures on working capital. Contractors are incentivized to nurture a quality relationship with a third party funding partner.

2022 Media Spotlight, Probing Financial Crimes via Litigation Investment  

Over the next decade, legal scholars expect an increase in media covering high profile claims involving civil, commercial and financial fraud. A new study shows that more than 51% of cases involving corporate fraud and financial crimes are actively covered by media organizations. Research shows that high profile cases are being funded by sophisticated third party litigation funders, with 17% of companies reporting media scrutiny is to be expected during group legal action(s).  FTI Consulting’s recent 2022 “Resilience Barometer” study includes perspectives from over 3,000 business leaders, including top G20 CEOs, CFOs, COOs, CIOs as well as leading General Counsels. Between 27%-30% of compliance and strategy leaders in business today are concerned about media attention related to a wide range of financial frauds, spanning everything from tax evasion to environmental degradation. And 22% of respondents are planning regulatory investigations over the next 12 months.   FTI Consulting notes that in 2021, 89% of those surveyed planned on receiving claims to legal proceedings that are backed by litigation funders. North America, Europe and Asia litigation investors make up the bulk of high profile cases that are covered by major media outlets.  

AI and Litigation Finance Growth Forecast

Digital Journal has released a new research report that forecasts an uptick in growth for the artificial intelligence (AI) market, specific to litigation finance. Digital Journal outlines that a worldwide exchange of business intelligence is beginning to formulate new ways to engage litigation finance tools, products and services. Meanwhile, Digital Journal floats new concepts on possible strains AI may place on litigation investors, as the dog-eat-dog battle continues for market share.  The report, titled Global Artificial Intelligence in Litigation Funding Markets, offers further insight into a multiyear span, forecasting sales volume(s) between 2020 and 2026. The report provides an in-depth outlook of historical metrics relating to the current market environment. Digital Journal notes a special caveat to the report’s nature specific to artificial intelligence and litigation finance.   Those seeking a preview of the report can find one here.

Burford Capital Promulgates New $360M Advantage Master Fund

Burford Capital proudly announced a new $360M Advantage Master Fund. A move that is expected to mitigate risk reward potential for the litigation finance juggernaut. Burford’s CEO Christopher Bogart says that the new fund will serve as a structural stopgap facility. Bogart highlights Burford’s uptick in demand for litigation facilities in the middle range.  UK Investor Magazine reports that Burford Capital plans to utilize Average Master Fund proceeds to expand investment in pre-settlement litigation products and services. Burford anticipates the new fund’s internal rate of return (IRR) to range between 12-20%.  The structure of the new fund is an advancement from previous arrangements, according to Burford. Meaning that the fund's investors will receive a flat 10% annual return, with Buford capitalizing on any additional proceeds.   Buford’s CEO says his commensurate fee structure exceeds a factor of 13%.

2021: Burford Capital Posts $72M Loss and $1.1B in Commitments

Burford Capital’s group-wide commitments scored $1.1B in 2021 allocations. Meanwhile, net losses came to $72M for the year, a rather significant drop from 2020’s profit of $165M. Burford forecasted a 2021 loss range of $70-80M. The final figures are well in-line with industry expectations. The Law Society Gazette reports that even with 2021 global pandemic disruption(s), Burford managed $152M in total turnover, while 2020 saw $359M turnover.  Meanwhile, the firm calls attention to the ultimate legacy worth of its litigation portfolio, which is expected to generate robust value and shareholder return(s).  Burford’s 2021 operational revenue was $6M. Burford Chairman Hugh Wilson says with $239M in 2020 revenue, 2021’s data may read lower. However, with over $1.1B of ligation agreements booked in 2021, the firm is bullish on a bright future. Chairman Wilson went on to say that Burford generated ample cash flow(s) that exceeded expenditures during the term.   Buford announced an annual June dividend of 12.5c a share, subject to shareholder vote.