Trending Now

All Articles

3317 Articles
Commercial

Institutional Investors in Omni Bridgeway

Omni Bridgeway is considered a smallish company, despite a market capitalization of nearly a billion AU dollars. Still, institutional investors are buying in. To some minds, institutional buy-ins validate a stock’s overall value. Others caution against putting too much faith in how institutions invest. A recent analysis looks at investor data for the previous 12-month period. Simply Wall Street details that Perpetual Investments Management Limited is the largest Omni Bridgeway shareholder, at 8.8%. Greencape Capital (6.5%) and Eley Griffiths Group (5.2%) are next. Collectively, nearly 50% of the company is owned by the top 25 shareholders—indicating that no individual investor has a majority interest. But what about insiders? Roughly AU $37MM worth of Omni Bridgeway shares is owned by insiders. Generally speaking, insider ownership is a sign of a strong company and a prediction of future growth. These numbers seem reasonable and do not indicate an over-concentration of power—which can sometimes present itself with too much insider stock ownership. Most interestingly, retail investors own a 49% stake in Omni Bridgeway, which gives them a great deal of influence even if they can’t outright control company policy. Shareholder groups are a vital influence, especially in smaller companies because of their collective impact.
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Operating Costs inherent in the Commercial Litigation Finance Asset Class (Part 1 of 2)

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • Article draws comparisons between commercial litigation finance and private equity (leverage buy-out) asset classes
  • Similarities and differences exist between private equity and litigation finance operating costs, but there are some significant jurisdictional differences to consider
  • Value creation is front-end loaded in litigation finance vs. back-end loaded in private equity
  • Litigation finance can be a difficult investment to scale while ensuring the benefits of portfolio theory
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • The ‘2 and 20’ model is an appropriate baseline to apply to litigation finance, but investors need to understand the potential for misalignment of interests
  • As with most asset classes, scale plays an important role in fund operating costs
  • Deployment risk and tail risk are not insignificant in this asset class
  • Investor should be aware of potential differences in the reconciliation of gross case returns to net fund returns
  • Up-front management fees may have implications for long-term manager solvency
My overarching objective for Slingshot is to educate potential investors about the litigation finance asset class and to improve industry transparency, as I believe increased transparency will ultimately lead to increased investor interest and increased access to capital for fund managers.  In this light, I was asked to write an article a few months back about management fees in the commercial litigation finance sector, and my immediate reaction was that it would be a controversial topic that may not even be in my own best interests—and so I parked the idea.  However, the seed was germinating and I began to think about an interesting discussion of the various operating costs, including management fees, inherent in and specific to the asset class, including geographic differences therein. While I always attempt to provide a balanced point of view in my articles, I should first point out my conflict of interest as it relates to this article.  As a general partner of a commercial litigation finance fund-of-funds, and being in the design stages of my next fund offering, my compensation model is based on a combination of management fees and performance fees no different than litigation finance fund managers.  Accordingly, my personal bias is to ensure that I structure my own compensation to strike a balance between investor and manager so that each feels they are deriving value from the relationship.  If I overstep my bounds by charging excessive fees, I believe that a competitive market will recognize the issue and prevent me from raising sufficient capital to make my fund proposition viable.  I am also kept in check by a variety of other managers in the same and similar asset classes who are also out raising money which help to establish the “market” for compensation. I further believe a smart allocator, of which there are many, will know what fee levels are acceptable and appropriate based on the strategy being employed and the resources required to deploy capital into acceptable investments (they see hundreds, if not thousands, of proposals every year, and are focused on the compensation issue).  On the other hand, the litigation finance market is a nascent and evolving market with many different economic models, specific requirements and unique participants, and so a ‘market standard’ does not exist, therefore it is common to look at similar asset classes (leveraged buy-out, private credit, etc.) to triangulate an appropriate operating cost model. At the end of the day, the most compelling philosophy of compensation is rooted in fairness.  If a manager charges excessive fees and their returns suffer as a result, that manager will likely not live to see another fund. However, if  a manager takes a fair approach that is more “LP favourable” in the short-term (as long as the compensation doesn’t impair its ability to invest appropriately), it can move its fees upward over time in lock-step with its performance as there will always be adequate demand to get into a strong-performing fund.  There are many examples in the private equity industry of managers who have been able to demand higher performance fees based on their prior performance.  So, if you have a long-term view of the asset class and your fund management business, there really is no upside in charging excessive fees relative to performance, but there is clear downside. With my conflict disclosed, let’s move on to the issues at hand which are more encompassing than just fees. Litigation Finance as a Private Equity Asset Class For fund managers operating in the commercial litigation finance asset class, many view themselves as a form of private equity manager, and for the most part, the analogy is accurate.  Litigation finance managers are compensated for finding attractive opportunities (known as “origination”), undertaking due diligence on the opportunities (or “underwriting”, to use credit terminology) and then stewarding their investments to a successful resolution over a period of time while ensuring collection of proceeds. Similarly, Private Equity (“PE”) investors (for purposes of this article I refer to “Private Equity” as being synonymous with “leveraged buy-outs”, although use of the term has been broadened over the years to encompass many private asset classes) spend most of their time on origination and diligence on the front-end of a transaction, and increasingly, on value creation and the exit plan during the hold period and back-end of the transaction, respectively. In the early days of the PE industry, the value creation plan was more front-end loaded and centered around buying at X and selling at a multiple of X (known as “multiple arbitrage”), usually by taking advantage of market inefficiency, and accentuated through the use of financial leverage and organic growth in the business.  Over time, the multiple arbitrage strategy disappeared as competitors entered the market and squeezed out the ‘easy money’ by bidding up prices of private businesses.  Today, PE firms are more focused on operational excellence and business strategy than ever before (during the hold period of the transaction).  Having been a private equity investor for two decades I have seen a significant change in the PE value creation strategy.  While organic and acquisition growth still feature prominently in PE portfolio company growth strategies, the extent to which PE managers will go to uncover value opportunities is unprecedented. This highlights a key difference between private equity and litigation finance.  In PE, the majority of the value creation happens after the acquisition starts, and ends when a realization event takes place.  In litigation finance, the fund manager, in most jurisdictions, is limited from “intermeddling” in the case once an investment has been made, so as to ensure the plaintiff remains in control of the outcome of the case and that the funder does not place undue influence on the outcome of the case.  Nonetheless, some litigation funders add value during their hold period by providing ongoing perspectives based on decades of experience, participating in mock trials, reviewing and commenting on proceedings to provide valuable insight, reviewing precedent transactions during the hold period to determine their impact on the value of their case, case management cost/budget reviews, etc. Accordingly, it is easy to see that relative to private equity, the litigation finance manager’s ability to add value during the hold period is somewhat limited, legally and otherwise.  One could use this differential in “value add” to justify a difference in management fees, but a counter-argument would be that in contrast to private equity, litigation finance adds value at the front-end of the investment process by weeding out the less desirable prospects and focusing their time and attention on the ‘diamonds in the rough’.  Of course, private equity would make the same argument, the key difference being that in private equity there is much more transparency in pricing through market back-channeling (many of the same lenders, management consultants and industry experts know the status and proposed valuations of a given private equity deal) than what is found in the litigation finance industry. An argument can be made that inherent in litigation finance is a market inefficiency that is predicated on confidentiality, although I don’t believe that has been tested yet. The other issue that differentiates litigation finance from PE is the scale of investing.  PE scales quite nicely in that you can have a team of 10 professionals investing in a $500 million niche fund and the same-sized firm investing $2B in larger transactions, while your operating cost base does not change much, which is what allows PE operations to achieve “economies of scale”.  In litigation finance, the number of very large investments is limited, and those investments typically have a different set of return characteristics (duration, return volatility, multiples of invested capital, IRR, etc.), so even if you could fund a large number of large cases, you may not want to construct such a portfolio, as large case financings will likely have a more volatile set of outcomes, so the fund would have to be large enough to allow diversification in the large end of the financing market during the fund’s investment period.  Accordingly, litigation finance firms typically have to invest in a larger number of transactions in order to scale their business, and doing so requires technology, people or both.  At this stage of the evolution of the litigation finance market, scale has been achieved mainly by adding people.  Accordingly, as the PE industry has been able to achieve economies of scale through growth, it is reasonable for investors to benefit from those economies of scale by expecting to be charged less in management fees per dollar invested.  The same may not hold true for litigation finance due to its scaling challenges, although there are niches within litigation finance that can achieve scale (i.e. portfolio financings & mass tort cases, as two examples) for which the investor should benefit. The Deployment Problem A third significant issue that litigation finance and investors therein have to contend with is deployment risk.  In private equity, managers typically deploy most of their capital in the investment on ‘day one’ when they make the investment.  They may increase or decrease their investment over time depending on the strategy and the needs of the business and the shareholders, but they generally deploy a large percentage of their investment the day they close on their portfolio acquisition.  Further, it is not uncommon for a PE fund manager to deploy between 85% and 100% of their overall fund commitments through the course of the fund. Litigation Finance on the other hand rarely deploys 100% of its case commitment at the beginning of the investment, as it would not be prudent or value maximizing to do so.  Accordingly, it is not uncommon for litigation finance managers to ‘drip’ their investment in over time (funding agreements typically provide the manager with the ability to cease funding in certain circumstances in order to react to the litigation process and ‘cut their losses’).  The problem with this approach is that investors are being charged management fees based on committed capital, while the underlying investment is being funded on a deployed capital basis, which has the effect of multiplying the effective management fee, as I will describe in the following example.  This, of course, is in addition to the common issue of committing to a draw down type fund that has an investment period of between 2-3 (for litigation finance) and 5 (for private equity) years, for which an investor is paying management fees on committed capital even though capital isn’t expected to be deployed immediately.  Litigation finance adds a strategy-specific layer of deployment risk. For purposes of this simplistic example, let’s contrast the situation of a private equity firm that invests $10 million on the basis of a 2% management fee model with that of a litigation finance manager that also invests $10 million, but does so in equal increments over a 3-year period.   Private Equity (PE) Model (based on a $10 million investment)
 Year 1Year 2Year 3
Capital Deployed1$10,000,000$10,000,000$10,000,000
2% Management Fee$200,000$200,000$200,000
Expressed as % of deployed capital (B)2%2%2%
  Litigation Finance Model (based on a $10 million investment evenly over 3 years)
 Year 1Year 2Year 3
Capital Deployed1$3,333,333$6,666,666$10,000,000
2% Management Fee$200,000$200,000$200,000
Expressed as %1 of deployed capital (A)6%3%2%
  Differences in Fees in relation to Capital Deployed
Absolute Difference(A-B)4%1%0%
Difference as a multiple of fees in PE ((A-B)/2%)2X0.5X0X
1 Calculated assuming the capital is deployed at the beginning of the year. The difference highlighted above can be taken to extremes when you have a relatively quick litigation finance resolution shortly after making a commitment.  In this situation, you have deployed a relatively small amount of capital that hasn’t been invested for long, but has produced a strong return – this typically results in large gross IRRs, but a relatively low multiple of capital (although the outcome very much depends on the terms of the funding agreement).  While this phenomenon produces very strong gross IRRs, when the investor factors in the total operating costs of the fund, the negative impact of those costs can significantly affect net IRRs.  Accordingly, investors should be aware that this asset class may have significant ‘gross to net’ IRR differentials (as well as multiples of invested capital), and one could conclude erroneously that strong gross IRRs will contribute directly to strong Net IRRs, but the ultimate net returns will vary with capital deployment, case duration. extent of operating costs and timing thereof. I wouldn’t want this observation to discourage anyone from investing in litigation finance, but awareness of this phenomenon is important and very much dependent on the strategy of the manager, the sizes and types of cases in which they invest, and of course, is in part a consequence of the uncertain nature of litigation.  As an investor, I do think it is appropriate and fair where a fund manager obtains a quick resolution, that the commitment underlying the resolution be recycled to allow the Investor a chance to re-deploy the capital into another opportunity and achieve its original portfolio construction objectives  - recycling is beneficial to all involved. However, I would argue that it is not necessarily fair to charge the investor twice for the same capital, as that capital has already attracted and earned a management fee. Stage of Lifecycle of Litigation Finance Perhaps litigation finance is at the same stage of development as private equity experienced 20 years ago in terms of finding the “multiple arbitrage” opportunities, but a key difference is that the success rates in litigation finance are lower and the downside is typically a complete write-off of the investment, whereas private equity has many potential outcomes between zero and a multiple of their initial investment.  Of course, the home runs in litigation finance can be quite spectacular.  The quasi-binary nature of the asset class does present a dilemma in terms of compensation for managers and the costs inherent in running the strategy. The scale and deployment issues raised above are other issues that need to be addressed by fund managers and their compensation systems. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, it takes highly competent and well-compensated people to execute on this particular strategy which sets a floor on management fee levels. A well-run and diversified litigation finance fund should win about 70% of their cases, and if they underwrite to a 3X multiple for pre-settlement single cases, then they should produce gross MOICs of about 2X (i.e. ~70% of 3X) and net about 1.75X (after performance fees and costs).  This would be the type of performance that is deserving of a ‘2 and 20’ model as long as those returns are delivered in a reasonable time period.  Conversely, if the majority of a manager’s portfolio is focused on portfolio finance investing, there may have to be a different compensation scheme to reflect the different risk/reward characteristics inherent in the diversification, scale and cross-collateralized nature of this segment of the market. One size does not fit all. Let’s also not forget that litigation finance is delivering non-correlated returns, and one could easily assess a significant premium to non-correlation, especially in today’s market. In Part 2 of this two-part series, I will explore the application of the ‘2 and 20’ model to litigation finance in comparison to private equity, the implication of the private partnership terms of some of the publicly-listed fund managers, and other operating costs specific to litigation finance. Investor Insights Any fund operating model needs to be designed taking into consideration all of the operating costs inherent in the manager’s operational model in the context of expected returns and timing thereof.  Investors care about being treated fairly, sharing risk and sharing the upside performance in order to foster long-term relationships that reflect positively on their organizations’ ability to perpetuate returns.  Professional investors rely on data to make decisions, and in the absence of data which might get them comfortable with a manager’s performance, they will default to mitigating risk. Tail risk in this asset class is not insignificant, which makes investing that much more difficult.  A performing manager that does a good job of sharing risk and reward with investors will have created a sustainable fund management business that will ultimately create equity value for its shareholders beyond the gains inherent in its performance fees.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial).  Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class.
Commercial

Burford Capital and the Future of Legal Finance

Burford Capital’s 2020 legal finance report is teeming with useful information on the state of the industry and where litigation funding is headed. Featured are managing director Greg McPolin and CMO Liz Bingham. Some key highlights of the video below, with answers from Greg McPolin: Question: Most significant or surprising finding? “One, the notion that the pandemic that we’re dealing with globally right now and the corresponding economic contraption that we’ve all witnessed will sort of providing lasting changes…all of our respondents concluded that there are gonna be big changes that come, and those changes will be lasting. Among them are how lawyers think about litigation finance and funding matters and monetizing legal assets. The other is…the notion that they can access the value of these—what one respondent brilliantly called-- dormant legal assets…litigation and arbitration claims, judgments that are sitting on appeal, or awards that remain uncollected. These are dormant assets that corporations have not typically assigned value to and monetized in ways that are meaningful to them.” Question: Are you seeing a shift in how legal teams are using legal finance? “Absolutely we’re seeing a shift in how corporate legal departments are looking at litigation finance and legal finance. I think they’re finally understanding that litigation finance is just another flavor of corporate finance. We say that a lot at Burford and I think that notion is beginning to take hold. There are some corporate legal departments that are really harnessing that notion. And they’re doing it to do what we think of as two main things:
  1. Manage their money-out problems--the litigation budgets, the legal budgets, to assert their claims and defend themselves in litigation. They can do that by accessing our capital to fund their affirmative claims, and then on a portfolio basis to fund and finance the defense side claims.
  2. The second way corporations are looking at legal finance is to manage their money-in problems. I think corporate legal departments…are thinking about ways to be more creative in terms of budgets…if there’s a way to get closer to being budget neutral, that’s meaningful.”
Consumer

Car Accident Loans – An Option You May Not Know About

No one plans for a car accident. By definition, they come as a surprise. When they happen, the result can range from mild inconvenience to life-changing physical, emotional, and financial consequences. If you’re not already well-monied, a car accident loan might be a viable option. We-Heart explains that car accident loans are not subjected to the rules and restrictions of traditional loans. Cash advances are provided on a non-recourse basis with the expectation that the funder will receive a portion of any settlement awarded. If there is no settlement, the funding does not have to be paid back. This funding structure means that it’s the funder who takes the financial risk, not the plaintiff. That’s key for anyone who is dealing with the aftermath of an auto collision, especially if they aren’t at fault. Sometimes if a case takes an especially long time, a small interest rate is added. Accidents may keep people unable to work for months or longer, while normal expenses and medical bills can pile up. Car accident loans can be a boon to those for whom traditional bank loans are not a feasible option. Some say it’s probably better to avoid taking a loan if you can weather an accident without it. At the same time, financial wiggle room may be crucial to some families and this type of risk-free loan can be exactly what’s needed. The extra time can be used to get a full medical diagnosis of injuries sustained in the accident. That can lead to a larger award down the road. Car accident loans are technically a type of legal funding—which means you’ll need to have an attorney in order to obtain one. Your lawyer may also have resources to help you find a funder for a car accident loan.
Commercial

Nigerian Oil Skirmish Continues as Eni and Shell Ramp Up Attacks

A case between the Nigerian government and oil giants Eni And Shell is still underway. The issue is OPL245, and an allegedly corrupt deal made in 2011. While everyone involved maintains that their actions were legal, prosecutor Fabio de Pasquale and the Federal Republic of Nigeria are looking to prove otherwise. Finance Uncovered details that time is of the essence. Eni and Shell hold a prospecting license that is due to expire in May 2021. To expedite things, Eni has made an issue of Nigeria’s acceptance of funding from Drumcliffe Partners, a litigation funder based on Delaware. A leak of the funding agreement suggests that the government lacked transparency in not making the agreement public sooner—even though they are not obligated to do so. Eni has suggested that the funding agreement indicates ‘undisclosed interests’ which may be a throwback to outdated champerty laws. Eni’s tactic has been called an attempt at delegitimizing the Nigerian government’s claim. It seems unlikely that a court would conflict out a funder at such a late point in the case—some have speculated that Eni may be setting up grounds for appeal. Meanwhile, Drumcliffe has maintained that there is nothing untoward happening. Meanwhile, Eni accuses the Nigerian government of stonewalling efforts to convert OPL245 into an OML while threatening international arbitration. But is Nigeria obligated to do their bidding simply because a known money-launderer said so? Reports indicate that a dispute resolution consultant was hired in June of this year—though no one has said whether or not talks are actually underway. Should the parties manage to settle out of court, criminal sanctions could still be on the table for both energy giants. It might, however, stave off the ticking clock that threatens to lose them the rights altogether. A lot is riding on Eni’s efforts to wear down the Nigerians.
Commercial

Do Aussie Insurance Rate Increases Foretell the Same in the US?

Commercial trucking insurance rates have climbed steadily over the last decade. Despite price hikes, the industry has underperformed for the last nine straight years. The problem? According to some, Litigation Finance coupled with ‘nuclear verdicts’ is helping losses far outpace profits. Fleet Owner explains that commercial fleets are seeing rate increases as high as 300%. Ryan Erickson, EVP at insurance brokerage McGriff, Seibels & Williams, stated that the lack of profits leads to increased difficulty in any attempt to turn the market. Litigation Finance is touted as being a central reason for rising insurance rates. While it is true that third-party funding does lead to more cases—it’s not reasonable to paint the pursuit of justice as a negative. Litigation funders don’t invent cases. They empower citizens who have been wronged with an ability to have their day in court. Sometimes this leads to high awards, and sometimes it doesn’t. As litigation funding is offered on a non-recourse basis, funders are taking a substantial risk when they bankroll legal actions. In the wake of insurance industry struggles, tort reform is sometimes suggested. But will that have an impact? Tort reforms are meant to cut down on frivolous actions, which is not something funders are interested in. Funders are looking to fund cases with merit, for reasons financial and ethical. Australian government officials have been taking steps to restrict and regulate the use of Litigation Finance. Around the world, it seems like countries are taking sides on the practice. Singapore, for example, has introduced legislation more welcoming to the practice. Can the US expect similar changes in regulation? Possibly. With industry opinions forming on many sides of the issue, we would all do well to keep an eye on how increased regulation may impact Litigation Finance in the future.
Commercial

California Bar Opinion May Supersede ABA Recommendations

A recently released California State Bar opinion on ethics is likely to hold sway in the legal world despite differing markedly from the NYC Bar and ABA recommendations. The opinion covered legal finance and the ethics in utilizing it, and involved multiple rounds of public commentary—including funders like Burford Capital. Bloomberg Law details that California, as the second-largest community of legal professionals in the US, felt that the existing guidelines were lacking. But like the ABA guidelines, the California opinion is merely a suggestion and does not indicate new law. First, the opinion affirms that a lawyer’s duty is to the client, first and foremost. Funders absolutely do not control litigation, strategy, settlements, or any other decision-making. Lawyers are required to provide competent advice and are encouraged to educate themselves on litigation funding. Burford Capital has stated that nearly 80% of in-house counsel believe the firms they work with should provide basic information about legal funding. As to the champerty question, the California opinion affirms that champerty law does not apply and that Litigation Finance is a legal and ethical practice. Champerty, or funding a suit in return for financial gain from the outcome, is a medieval term that has been largely dismissed. Litigation Finance continues to grow and evolve as its popularity increases. The California opinion is one more way to add transparency and consistency to the industry.
Commercial Covid-19

Former Vannin MD Scott Mozarsky Talks Legal Tech During COVID

As the COVID pandemic continues to impact every area of business, legal professionals are finding ways to transition, diversify, and combat the challenges that face them. Legal tech in particular has had to adapt to the pandemic with lighting speed—with firms forced to discover new means of remote working, virtual meetings, and paperless filing.   ABA journal speaks with Scott Mozarsky, managing director with the Jordan, Edmiston Group Inc, about potential lasting impacts of COVID. After some remarks about his career, which included a stint in Vannin Capital's NY office, Mozarsky explains that the legal tech market has become increasingly active within the last few years. Mergers and acquisitions were up, though deals tended to take longer. There’s also been a shift in managing styles at larger law firms, which are now run according to standard business principles.   Investors are attracted by a solid business foundation and strong management teams with an eye on the future. Legal tech, Mozarsky explains, is coming into its own after spending years under the shadow of finance technology. Firms are using data and analytics to attract and grow client relationships. They’re also connecting on Zoom, sharing documents via virtual drives, and some are holding socially distanced meetings responsibly. The interview affirms that some changes adopted during COVID are likely to stay in place. These include online engagement and collaboration, virtual meetings, cutting down on office space, utilizing cloud services, and encouraging remote working. Currently, most courts are experiencing a backlog of cases and are using remote working tech to catch up. Ultimately, Mozarsky concluded that the future promises an expansion of legal tech, backed by investors and interest in the legal community. As the legal markets grow with the predicted spikes in litigation, avenues for legal and financial partnerships are on the rise.
Commercial

Australian Arbitration Week 2020

How exactly is international arbitration changing? The International Arbitration Conference set out to answer that very question. This year’s conference shined a light on how Australia became a favored destination for funded arbitrations around the globe. Omni Bridgeway participated in the event, which was held virtually. One hot topic was how third-party funding is changing international arbitration. In Australia, for example, the government has enacted legislation viewed as too restrictive by some funders. But in Singapore or Hong Kong, rules governing third-party funding have been welcoming to the practice. This lack of uniformity around the world has led to confusion, sometimes leaving meritorious cases unfunded. Other issues discussed included conflicts of interest and disclosure. Increasingly, new legislation requires disclosure of at least some aspects of litigation funding agreements. Some say that increased disclosure will reduce the appearance of conflicts of interest. ACICA Rule 53 is of particular interest because it includes the costs of obtaining legal funding as a recoverable expense. This rule would be especially impactful in Australia, where large class actions against big businesses are common. Cost was another hot topic. Specifically, how legal funding impacts security-for-cost orders. Also discussed was the changing relationships between contingency, conditional fee arrangements, and funding. This included portfolio arrangements and different ways to share risk. This led to a discussion of the newly-formed ILFA, and its push for greater transparency in the industry. Other topics included diversity in the industry, specifically the Arbitral Women diversity initiative. This Brisbane-based group publishes news, facts, and statistics, while engaging in various online diversity initiatives. The ‘Equal Representation in Arbitration’ pledge is a call-to-action and rallying cry. Soon, it will also be a set of guidelines to help corporates and firms pursue diversity in a productive way.