Trending Now

All Articles

3313 Articles

Understanding Pricing in Litigation Funding

The idea that clients may be able to pursue a claim without a large initial investment may seem too good to be true. The reality is that litigation funding exists for just that reason—so ordinary people have the means to seek justice when they are wronged. Above the Law details that while lit fin can be incredibly helpful, it is vital that clients understand the finer points. Informed decision making is central to third-party-funding working in the best interests of clients. Understanding “fixed multiple” loan structure versus “percentage of proceeds” is important for all involved. In a fixed multiple agreement, the funder gets all of its investment back in the event of a win—plus a multiple of its investment amount. Alternatively, a percentage of proceeds arrangement means the funder will recoup its investment after a win, plus a percentage of the award. Often in this model, there may be a cap on how much the funder can take or the percentage may go down as the size of the award gets larger. Making the choice to go with one model or the other is often based on an assessment of risk, how long the case is expected to take, and what the anticipated award may be. Within the model of the fixed multiple, there’s also a distinction between the amount disbursed versus the “reserved facility.” The reserved facility is the total amount a funder expects to apply to the case. Disbursed funds represent the money actually given—as such monies are generally not paid all at once. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay a percentage of funds that were never delivered. The last thing to consider is the “waterfall,” which is the legal term for the order in which parties will get their funds. There will be a specific pecking order, and clients will want to understand it before committing.

Litigation Finance is a Bridge Between Client and Law Firm

The legal field experienced record-setting business in 2019. Alas, this year much has changed. Despite many firms seeing a large influx of cases and inquiries, financial tensions loom. COVID-19 has led to worry, late payments, furloughs, court delays, and even outright insolvency for some.   Burford Capital explains that Litigation Finance is poised to serve a vital role in the coming months. By helping fund meritorious cases and large class actions, law firms are able to take on more and bigger cases with less financial risk. Clients also benefit, receiving access to better counsel than they could normally afford. Currently, clients are asking for rate reductions due to an inability to pay standard rates. Understandable, but this can be crushing for firms who may have already had to lay off workers. Budgets at law firms are shrinking, and partner payouts have shrunk or been put on hiatus for now. Everyone seems to be feeling the pressure—except funders—who have been preparing for this moment. Legal financing on a non-recourse basis gives lawyers and clients much-needed financial space while they await adjudication. Portfolio-based funding is even more helpful for firms since it reduces risk across the board on current and even future cases. The economy may not improve any time soon, but access to justice will not wane thanks to the growing body of litigation funders.

Will Relaxed Disclosure Rules Impact Investor Confidence?  

Unrest in the world of investment is nothing new. But current pandemic conditions have led to a wave of class-action lawsuits, many of which come from investors who feel that they were misled on relevant issues. In response, the Australian federal government has announced a rolling back of disclosure rules to protect large companies from class-action suits. Brisbane Times explains that this rollback, though temporary, could harm investor confidence irreparably. If companies aren’t required to keep investors informed, how can anyone invest with confidence? Moreover, if one invests based on current disclosure rules—changing the rules later doesn’t negate the reasonable belief that proper disclosure would be made. Australia’s business market currently enjoys a reputation for widespread transparency and rules that encourage informed investing. That reputation can also be damaged by the month-long hiatus from proper disclosure of risks. Will the overall cost of capital be impacted? Dean Paatsch of Ownership Matters believes so. He asserts that lax disclosure rules can lead to a so-called ‘honest idiot defense,’ meaning that company reps are relieved from the responsibility of being informed on investment matters. If they can plausibly pretend their information was correct, without disclosure, it’s difficult to argue that any misinformation given was intentional. Paatsch feels strongly that the government is favoring business directors over shareholders and their interests. It is feared that this move will set back investor confidence for years to come.

Commercial Litigation Finance Covid Survey Results

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 SUMARY
  • Survey suggests the litigation finance industry has experienced an increase in demand due to the Covid-related financial crisis
  • Law firm portfolio financings are a particular active sector of the market
  • Defendant collectability risk is top of mind for most respondents
  • Covid-19 related cases are predominant in the contract and insurance case types
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • 2020 should be a good vintage for new litigation finance opportunities
  • Generally, there is a feeling that the current economic crisis will put some pressure on IRRs or MOICs of existing portfolios
  • Additional diligence on unrealized portions of litigation finance portfolios is warranted in the current environment when assessing fund manager performance
Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal recently undertook a survey of commercial litigation finance participants to obtain a deeper understanding of the extent to which demand for financing had changed as a result of the current Covid-related financial crisis. Editor’s note– the following contribution appears with illustrative graphs and charts here Demand for Litigation Finance during Economic Crises It has been thought that crises breed litigation, and while that appears to be the case in the current crisis, that may not have been the case in the Great Financial Crisis of 2008/9, as pointed out by Eric Blinderman in an article he contributed to Law360 in 2019, also referenced in a recent article in Litigation Finance Journal.  The reason for the ultimate lack of litigation, Eric argued, was fear. In the current environment it appears as though people are less fearful (of litigation, that is) as the number of Covid-specific cases is clearly on the rise, and I suspect that will continue for the foreseeable future as the crisis increases its impact on businesses and forces business owners to react in ways previously thought unthinkable, but in the current context are deemed necessary. When the data is analyzed with respect to case type, it is evident that the volume of cases is focused on contract and insurance claims, which should come as no surprise. Issues of Force Majeure and breaches of contract are likely the majority of the volume of contract claims.  Business owners have been placed in an unprecedented position in that they are likely being forced to breach contracts to save their businesses.  While business owners and executives may regret their actions and would not have acted in a similar way under normal circumstances, they are no doubt acting in the best interests of the business to avoid insolvency and will deal with the repercussions (litigation) once they have ‘righted the ship’.  The insurance sector has also been particularly negatively impacted, and much of this likely stems from denial of payouts under policies, with business interruption insurance being particularly active. In fact, the UK insurer, Hiscox, is being sued in a class action-style litigation in the UK with Harbour Litigation Funding providing the litigation finance to pursue the case.  Accordingly, litigation finance has and will continue to be a beneficiary of this activity. Covid Survey Results Let’s now take a look at the Covid Survey results to see how the broader commercial litigation finance industry has been impacted by the Covid-induced financial crisis. The survey was distributed globally.  Of the respondents, the vast majority were funders with dedicated litigation finance funds. Overall, the industry has been positively impacted by the financial effects of Covid-19 with 64% of respondents experiencing an increase in origination activity. In some cases, the increase in origination activity has been dramatic, with originations in excess of 25% being experienced by approximately half of respondents. The largest impact in terms of the type of activity is equally split between law firm portfolio financings and single case financings.  However, since portfolio financings are inherently larger, it stands to reason that a much larger dollar volume of financing will be required for these financing types. In terms of the source of originations, it appears to be a combination of existing relationships, mainly from law firms, and new relationships, mainly from law firms and directly from plaintiffs. It is encouraging to see new relationships continuing to be formed at this stage of the evolution of the industry. A natural consequence of demand for litigation finance is a demand for capital commitments by the litigation funders.  Accordingly, it appears that the demand impact of Covid will have the effect of accelerating plans for new fundraisings, with about half of respondents indicating their fundraising plans have been accelerated.  Accordingly, investors in search of good risk-adjusted and non-correlated returns should expect to see more opportunities in the marketplace.  As always, diversification is critical to successful and prudent investing in the litigation finance marketplace. As it relates to the impact that the current financial crisis will have on the expected return profile, almost 50% of respondents suggested it is too early to tell.  However, for those who did have some visibility or were confident in making an estimate, it appears that the expectation is that their existing portfolios may be negatively impacted, which is consistent with what I would have expected given the extent of this economic crisis. I was personally forecasting that durations would be longer, simply due to the effect that court closures would have on existing cases, where the timing of settlement discussions are ultimately impacted by the timing of the court process.  In this light, I would expect to see portfolios maintain longer durations which may equate to lower internal rates of return, but this depends on the escalator clauses within their funding agreements, which may see funders obtain larger multiples of invested capital if the delay breaks through timing thresholds.  I would also expect that the threat of collectability risk might put pressure on plaintiffs to accept lower settlement amounts, and defendants will use liquidity concerns to their advantage by low-balling settlement offers. However, this phenomenon could be situation-specific, and more prevalent in certain industries.  As previously stated, one of the reasons I would have expected return expectations to be increasingly negative is due to defendant collectability risk.  In this vein, it seems that most managers are focused on the impact this risk will have on their portfolios, with most managers indicating that collection risk has increased, which is expected given the impact the crisis has had on certain industries, and the impact it has had on corporate liquidity.  Looking forward, managers are focusing on credit risk more than they have in the past, and this is mirrored in their focus on the industries in which their defendants operate.  Interestingly, despite the significant impact the crisis has had on the demand for legal services, few managers are concerned about the impact on the solvency of the plaintiff law firm.  This may be explained by the fact that the law firm can be substituted by the plaintiff should it run into solvency issues, and so managers may view this as an acceptable risk. The Bonus Question  And now the moment you’ve all been waiting for…. When asked whether Covid-induced isolation has caused respondents to think about the benefits of boarding school, the majority confirmed that their children are angels and that they would like to spend as much time with them as possible.  Although, there were a few who noted an interest in boarding schools, and one did attempt to sell his child to the highest bidder. This brings to a close the results of our second commercial litigation finance survey.  Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal would like to thank those that participated in the survey for their time and feedback. Our next survey will cover fundraising initiatives by fund managers in the commercial litigation finance sector. We anticipate making the fundraising survey an annual survey, so we can track fundraising activities over time. If you would like to participate in future surveys, please contact Ed Truant here to register your interest.

Litigation Finance Brings Hope to Those Hurt by COVID-19 Fallout

COVID-19 does more than sicken people. It’s brought with it a recession that may take years to mitigate. Businesses across the board are enduring hiring and wage freezes, furloughs, layoffs, and even outright closures. Even the legal community is not safe from the financial ravages of the pandemic. Bloomberg Law details how Litigation Finance can actually help prop up the legal industry, allowing it to do what it’s meant to do—increase access to justice for ordinary citizens. The challenges of remote working, court delays, and lack of liquid capital are already taking a toll on law firms. It is not an understatement to claim that Litigation Finance can keep the legal field afloat. Investing in meritorious cases can help small firms stay afloat, and lets larger firms take on more cases that may take longer to resolve. Short term funding that is case or portfolio-specific helps free up working capital for firms until cases are resolved. Consider Heller Ehrman, a firm that employed over 700 attorneys, closed after the 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers left them without working capital. A shame, and one that could have been mitigated by third-party funding at the right time. While it may seem reasonable for more established firms to take out standard bank loans, this is unlikely to happen on a large scale. Banks are often reticent to lend in the midst of a recession. Compiled with ongoing court delays and a dearth of in-person meetings—it’s a recipe for stress and financial instability. As with the financial unrest of 2001 and 2008, it will be far more difficult than usual to secure a bank loan. With all that in mind, lit fin is an ideal way for firms to free up capital and relieve financial pressure. The non-recourse nature of third-party funding makes it an excellent choice for firms and cash-strapped clients alike.

Parabellum Capital Preps for Lawsuit Boom with $450MM War Chest

It’s no secret that lawyers and firms anticipate a slew of new cases as a result of COVID-19. The Litigation Finance industry in particular is preparing for a future full of contract breaches, insolvency, and failed insurance payouts. This leads some to suspect that betting on court cases will be popular among investors in the coming months. Bloomberg Law details that litigation funding by third parties has grown dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis, and continues to expand. Parabellum Capital, which specializes in Litigation Finance, has raised over $450 million in new capital with which to fund cases. This comes from under 100 investors, though the final numbers will not be released for several weeks. Parabellum anticipates that number to exceed $450 million. Howard Shams, CEO of Parabellum, explains that the company expects many meritorious claims, some very significant, that would benefit from third-party litigation funding. Other firms no doubt agree. A 2019 survey of funders reports that almost $10 billion in capital has been raised by lit fin firms for US litigation. From mid 2018-mid 2019, funders invested over $2 billion in cases.   Shams went on to say that hedge funds were a source of stress for them, which may not be a good fit for the lit fin game. While Litigation Finance is an investment, its main goal is to increase access to justice. Returns are merely an additional benefit. Shams explains that hedge funds invading the lit fin landscape would be less than ideal.

Australian Regulation of Litigation Funders

AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management Limited (LCM), a leading international provider of disputes financing solutions, notes the announcement on 22 May 2020 by the Federal Treasurer of Australia, Josh Frydenberg, that litigation funders operating in Australia will be subject to new regulation requiring them to obtain and maintain an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). LCM believes it is the only litigation financier in Australia that currently holds and maintains an AFSL. Currently the supply of litigation finance is exempt from the requirement to hold an AFSL and such exemption is likely to be removed by August 2020. This places LCM in an advantageous position against its peers operating in Australia. As part of the new regulatory process, LCM has been asked by the Australian Federal Government to assist in a parliamentary inquiry into whether any further regulation of litigation finance is required in the context of class actions, the findings and recommendations of which will be made public. LCM has anticipated for some time that class actions in Australia would be the subject of further regulation and expressed its support for such an initiative while assisting in two prior inquiries, one by the Australian Federal Government and one by a State Government. LCM actively manages its portfolio of investments with its objective of spreading investment risk to ensure that no industry sector or type of claim dominates its portfolio. Specifically, LCM limits the number of class actions that it is prepared to invest in depending upon the size of its overall portfolio. LCM remains firmly focused on the provision of disputes financing solutions in the areas of insolvency, commercial disputes, arbitration and corporate portfolio funding. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, comments: “LCM anticipated changes to regulation and as a result already holds an Australian Financial Services Licence. LCM fully supports the move to increase regulation in our industry. Regulation of litigation funding insofar as it concerns class actions is something that is not only welcomed by LCM but could provide it with a strategic advantage as the cost and compliance issues are likely to create further barriers to entry and restrict the numbers of financiers that can fund class actions.” In April, LCM appointed Mary Gangemi as its new Chief Financial Officer and James Foster as an Investment Manager, both based in London. Their appointments follow the March close of a new US$150m third-party fund backed by significant global blue-chip investors. The fund marks LCM’s return to managing third-party funds, following its building of a permanent source of balance sheet capital through the equity markets. Contact:\ Angela Bilbow Global Head of Communications abilbow@lcmfinace.com +44 (0)20 3955 5271 About LCM Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across; class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By Christopher DeLise |
In this episode, we spoke with Christopher DeLise, Founder & CEO of Delta Capital Partners. Delta was founded in 2011, and Chris explains both his company and the industry have evolved over that time. He also goes into detail about 'the Delta difference,' and highlights some unique product launches that are expected to rollout soon. [podcast_episode episode="5574" content="title,player,details"]

Community Justice Fund Established by Therium Access & Partners

Therium is a household name in the world of Litigation Finance, and with good reason. As a prominent funder, they’ve expanded access to justice for countless ordinary citizens. Now, Therium has teamed up with five foundations to establish the Community Justice Fund. Its purpose is to provide grants in support of social welfare during and after the Coronavirus pandemic. As Therium explains on their website, these grants will offer access to specialized legal advice and long term support where needed. The idea is for the grants to be flexible and expedient so that the money goes to the people and causes most in need.  A total of six foundations are providing financial grants, along with additional support for social welfare agencies to help those impacted by the pandemic. Participating groups include: Therium Access, Access to Justice Foundation, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Indigo Trust, Legal Education Foundation and AB Charitable Trust. Other groups will also be making contributions, including Law Society, Linklaters, London Legal Support Trust, and Allen & Overy. This type of giving is more vital now than ever, as ongoing cuts to social safety nets have decimated the social justice sector. Extra pressure from business closures, insurance or landlord disputes, furloughed employees, and other results of Coronavirus could stress these protections to the breaking point. There has already been a massive uptick in requests for legal advice or representation. Hopefully, some of these grants will find their way to organizations whose tech is still ill-equipped to mitigate Coronavirus precautions. Lacking internet access or updated computers can prevent teleconferencing or meetings via Zoom. Because these grants are flexible, money can be used to upgrade equipment, cover adaptive services, or cover costs of working remotely.