Day two of of the two-day event saw a trio of panels that covered topics such as investment strategy and risk management, the interplay between fund types, and litigation finance as a tool for ESG. The first panel of the day was titles "CIO Roundtable: Focus on Investment Strategy & Risk Management," and was moderated by Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken. Panelists included:

• Patrick Dempsey, Chief Investment Officer, US, Therium Capital
• Sarah Johnson, Co-Head Litigation Finance, The D. E. Shaw Group
• Aaron Katz, Chief Investment Officer, Parabellum Capital
• David Kerstein, Chief Risk Officer & Senior Investment Manager, Validity Finance

The conversation began with the rise of business interruption claims. Patrick Dempsey of Therium hasn’t seen much in the way of business interruption claims that have been successful yet.  There was an initial interest in this case type, but then a lot of negative decisions came out of federal courts, and so interest waned. That said, you can build a portfolio of these claims and hedge your risk going forward. Aaron Katz of Parabellum noted how his firm hasn’t been active in the business interruption space, though the pace of all other claim types is picking up, with interesting new product areas being developed, including credit-like structures, different stages of cases being presented, lower risk investment types, and even partial recourse feature investment. Sarah Johnson of D.E. Shaw commented on the emergence of new entrants into the litigation funding space. Competition does affect pricing, and this has more of an impact in creative structuring—with new tranches of risk being created. David Kerstein of Validity jumped in to parse this out. He has seen more competition in pricing in larger size deals, however not so much in the more modestly-sized deals. There is still competition there, as claimants are approaching a lot of funders, just not as much price pressure in these types of claims. The conversation then turned to bankruptcy. This was a very quick distressed cycle—given that there was a lot of sophisticated money chasing these deals, there wasn’t as much of a need for litigation funding. However, we may soon begin to see bankruptcies driven by litigation, which could prompt claimants to approach funders for partnership or monetization. And smaller cases might be a place for funders, given that these bankruptcy claims are typically underfunded. As David Kerstein of Validity noted, “When there are bankruptcies that are based on litigation assets or issues, litigation funders are well placed to come in and provide value.” And on the issue of insurance, Aaron Katz noted that judgments are being protected with insurance, products are out there to preserve capital or even back some of the profit in a deal. That said, Parabellum hasn’t seen it as part of the bread and butter of their work. Yet Katz feels it’s only a matter of time before insurance permeates the space, but we’re not there yet. Patrick Dempsey chimed in on his experience with insurance in UK-based claims. Adverse costs insurance is inherent in the jurisdiction there, and so insurance on a portfolio basis was being considered very early on. That was ultimately deemed unnecessary, but that discussion is starting to return, and will likely come back in full force. Therium only uses insurance for judgment protection in the U.S. On the issue of regrets, Sarah Johnson noted how she wishes she had been more aggressive at the outset—doing more deals, and being less price sensitive. Having worked previously in distressed investments, she was used to price sensitivity being an issue, but she found that the industry grew a lot faster and provided much better returns than perhaps even she expected. This speaks well to the industry’s continued growth potential. Later in the day, a pair of panels tackled topics such as fund types, deal structures and costs of capital, as well as ESG and impact investing. One interesting takeaway from the former discussion came from Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Finance Group at Stifel. Lieber commented on the large commercial bank syndication model that her firm is structured with. What Stifel does is essentially a merchant banking model—they use their own balance sheet and originate their own transactions. When they approach a partner, whether that is a litigation funder, insurance company, private equity or multi-strategy firm, they choose their partner based on the return profile. And they can syndicate their partnerships within a larger deal construct. Stifel generally operates in the $50MM+ range, and can take on multiple co-investors with various tranches. So Stifel operates in cooperation with many other in the space, in a syndicated investment model. Stifel's very presence in the market is emblematic of how prominent the funding industry has grown, and how much it has matured over the past few years. Doubtless there will be further maturation ahead, and likely more funding entities which enact a similar merchant banking model. As Tets Ishikawa Managing Director of LionFish noted (on the same panel discussion): “When the market started in the last 15-20 years, it really started as a litigation funding industry—as one single entity. But I believe this market will become like the commercial real estate market. There are many different types of real estate, just as there are many different types of litigation, so in the end there will be many different types of litigation finance investors.”

Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities. The initial panel discussion was titled "State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook." The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:

• Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
• Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
• Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
• Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital

The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in: Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before. Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential. Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before. The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table. In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here. At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims. The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here. Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow. The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on "How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey," featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs. Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value. MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services. All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

The LF Dealmakers conference kicked off this morning with a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The address was titled "Litigation Finance: Survey of a Shifting Landscape," and covered four main issues: ethics, fee sharing, disclosure regulations and privileged communications between funder and attorneys. Judge Scheindlin began on the topic of ethical issues, the three most common of which boil down to competence, confidentiality and truthfulness. She explained the common pitfalls that funders need to be aware of, including how different states treat confidentiality issues, for example. Scheindlin asserted that the ethical concerns most have about the industry do not pose any serious threat to its future growth potential. In terms of fee sharing, Scheindlin pointed out how bar associations play a critical role in drafting and interpreting codes of conduct, which are then adopted by the states. She noted the New York bar's opinion on Rule 5.4, which found that litigation funding violates the fee sharing restriction. This was a controversial opinion, for obvious reasons. In fact, there was such an outcry, that the city bar created a working group around litigation funding, to make recommendations around ethics and principles. The working group addressed the realities of litigation funding, and whether disclosure of funding should be required in litigation and arbitration. In the end, the working group offered two proposals. The first being that the funder can share fees with the client, provided that the funder remains independent and does not influence case decisions by participating in the claim. The second being that the funder can participate in the claim, if it benefits the client. And the client can provide informed consent to disclose confidential information to the funder (Scheindlin noted that she favors the second proposal). Neither proposal has yet been adopted, though Judge Scheindlin believes Rule 5.4 regarding fee sharing will be modified in NY, based on these recommendations. It remains to be seen which proposal will win out. On the issue of control, which is related to fee sharing, Scheindlin explained that many funding agreements give the funder the right to approve the selection of counsel.  Some may view this as control, but really the funders just want to ensure the counsel is adequate to handle the claim. In terms of disclosure, Scheindlin pointed out how 12 states have passed legislation on litigation funding, with another 11 proposing legislation. Most involve consumer funding. Only Wisconsin specifically includes financing of commercial claims. So it's clear the focus is on consumer cases, but no one knows where this will go.  There is a robust debate on the subject of disclosure, with many industry opponents pushing to reveal the identity of the funder, as well as the terms of the funding agreement. There is a lot of disagreement on the various avenues that can be taken regarding the issue of disclosure, so it will be interesting to see how this issue will develop. On privilege, Scheindlin noted the common interest exception in regard to sharing privileged information, and how courts are split as to whether this applies to litigation funders. Is a shared commercial interest the same as a common legal interest? This is the question at hand.  However, most courts have found that privileged documents are protected by work product, where a funder is concerned. Ultimately, though, an NDA or confidentiality agreement is likely needed here to ensure that work product applies. So while there are plenty of minefields, in terms of issues that could upend TPLF, Judge Scheindlin feels confident that funding will prevail in the end. To quote Judge Scheindlin: "There are always those who will oppose new ways of doing things.  Those who seek to restrict TPLF… are in my opinion, merely afraid of the level playing field that such funding creates. I don’t think they will succeed. TPLF is now an accepted part of the legal landscape, and is here to stay."