Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Asset Recovery, Collectability and the Uses of Intelligence in Litigation Finance

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

  • Collectability risk has moved to the forefront of litigation finance as a result of the Covid-19 induced financial crisis
  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a niche area within litigation finance that requires a unique skill set to be successful

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a component of any piece of litigation, but certainly more prominent in certain case types and during times of financial stress
  • There are many risks associated with asset recovery and enforcement actions which give rise to different investor return characteristics – higher volatility, higher potential returns, and longer durations, to name a few.

Expanding on a recent article I wrote about defendant collectability risk in the context of the current Covid-19 induced financial crisis, I have reached out to AVVISO, a firm specialising in enforcement and collection, to discuss some of the challenges litigation finance managers may face in the current environment.

The Covid-19 pandemic is forcing many industries to adapt to new realities. The litigation finance industry is no different. As new realities emerge, so do new opportunities, and as the dust settles, we anticipate the following developments:

  • Collectability risk will be assessed as rigorously as legal risk before any commitments are made against sovereigns and commercial counterparties affected by the crisis.
  • A growth in demand for asset recovery and enforcement funding.

This article explores how to effectively assess collectability and maximise returns on asset recovery investments. Key to both is a multidisciplinary approach to supplement the traditional legal one.

COLLECTABILITY RISK

Let us take a closer look at what it means to assess collectability in the context of the broader litigation finance underwriting process. Woodsford Litigation Funding provides an overview of the assessment process it employs, which is broadly representative of the wider industry. “The funder will focus on six fundamental criteria when evaluating a claimant-side litigation funding opportunity”:[1]

  1. Merits of the claim
  2. Claimant (e.g. motivations for seeking funding and prior litigation history)
  3. Strength of claimant’s legal representation
  4. Litigation budget
  5. Expected damages
  6. Respondents and recovery

Litigation funds are well-equipped to address the first five criteria. Between the formidable in-house legal knowledge of most funds, input from external law firms which are retained to provide opinions on the merits, and input from claimant’s counsel and other experts, funders have this covered.

However, fund managers without internal expertise may be on comparatively shakier ground when it comes to that final sixth point, which is concerning at a time when the importance of effectively assessing collectability risk has perhaps never been greater. So why is this?

Assets…but not only

A sophisticated methodology to properly assess collectability is not just about assets. It is also about humanising problems which are predominantly viewed through a legal lens. Whether the opposition is a state, corporation or individual, we would explore:

Key stakeholders

  • Profile and motivations of the main decision-makers
  • What is their level of resource and resolve?
  • How entrenched is their position: are they likely to settle or fight a protracted legal battle?
  • If the former, what do they perceive to be an acceptable settlement range?
  • How politicised is the dispute and how would a change of government impact a state’s attitude towards it?

Modus operandi: disputes

  • Are they currently or have they in the past been involved in other major disputes?
  • If so, what lessons can be gleaned from the experiences of others who have faced them?
  • Do they have a history of avoiding payment of judgment/award debts?
  • Could we face a scenario where we are competing with other creditors over a limited pool of assets?

Assets

  • What assets does the defendant/respondent hold directly in jurisdictions amenable to enforcement?
  • How leveraged are these assets? How has the current financial crisis impaired asset values?
  • What is their asset profile more broadly and how is their ownership of these assets structured (if not held directly)?
  • Would these structures impede our ability to attach key assets if we needed to?
  • Are there any indications that the defendant is actively dissipating assets or otherwise making themselves ‘award proof’?
  • Has the defendant been forced to sell off assets previously thought available for collection as a result of liquidity needs stemming from the financial crisis?

Commercial activities

  • What is the nature and extent of their ongoing commercial operations?
  • How viable are these operations long-term and how concerned should we be about any commercial vulnerabilities (e.g. high customer concentration)?
  • Are there any commercial vulnerabilities which could be exploited as part of a legal or enforcement strategy (e.g. unreported allegations of bribery)?

Enforcement plan

  • What is the proposed enforcement plan if no voluntary payments are made at the conclusion of the litigation/arbitration?
  • Is the proposed enforcement budget realistic?

And so on. These kinds of questions are answered by means of specialised open source research, human intelligence gathering and other investigative means. In short, collectability is at its heart an intelligence problem – not a legal one. This explains why funds are comparatively weaker at addressing this problem – because the underwriting process they employ is mainly underpinned by legal analysis.

There are of course powerful legal tools (e.g. discovery to identify bank accounts internationally) which can and should feed into the process of assessing collectability. As long as someone then takes the time to understand the data generated by legal means, and answers the ‘so what?’ question by placing it in the context of the broader intelligence picture.

One final point on collectability: it is fluid. Once litigation finance commitments are made, funds would be well-advised to thoroughly monitor how the answers to the above questions evolve over the duration (often years) of major legal disputes. In the same way that investment banks, private equity firms, and major corporations routinely use intelligence to inform their investments and operations, so too will the litigation finance industry, as it becomes more competitive and established.

ASSET RECOVERY 

We are frequently asked why asset recovery problems are so common. One reason is the ease with which judgment and award debtors can avoid paying what they owe – if they so choose – which must represent one of the most profound shortcomings of the legal process.

And it is easy. If a sophisticated fraudster, sovereign state, or hostile corporate makes a commercial or political decision not to pay a debt, then it is fairly straightforward for them to structure their affairs in such a way that makes it difficult, time consuming and costly for creditors to pursue them. The Covid-19 pandemic will only increase the propensity of debtors to follow this path.

Another reason is the failed enforcement approach adopted by many creditors. Typically, the legal team which secured an award or judgment goes on to inherit the enforcement problem if the other side refuses to pay. Often, this team is ill-suited to tackle what is a very different problem than winning the legal argument. Indeed, it is not uncommon for legal teams to inadvertently trigger this problem by adopting a process-driven ‘get the judgment’ approach, while failing to engage sufficiently throughout the lifetime of the dispute with the question their clients care about most: how will we get paid?

This creates enormous investment potential in the asset recovery space, especially now, yet it remains on the frontier of the litigation finance industry. We anticipate an increase in opportunities to invest in asset recovery and enforcement matters, and for more funds to develop the knowhow to maximise their returns on these investments. For example:

  • Monetising awards and judgments against sovereign states and/or state-owned enterprises
  • Funding and coordinating enforcement efforts against fraudsters and other recalcitrant commercial debtors
  • Providing capital and expertise to governments to assist with their efforts to repatriate proceeds of corruption (e.g. post regime change)
  • Investing in the non-performing loan (NPL) portfolios of financial institutions in emerging markets
  • Funding cross-border insolvencies and restructurings

So, how will we get paid?

Major asset recovery situations are complex problems requiring a flexible, coordinated and multi-disciplinary approach. If funds want to play this game well and maximise their returns on investments, then they need to retire the tired lawyer-investigator trope. Below is a sample of the methods in a multidisciplinary asset recovery playbook:

Legal

  • Relevant civil legal work in appropriate jurisdictions (e.g. for the purpose of discovery and to attach assets)
  • Criminal remedies (e.g. private criminal prosecutions and confiscation orders)
  • Insolvency tools

Intelligence

  • Open source intelligence (e.g. to map complex offshore structures and identify revenue streams or personal assets)
  • Human intelligence (identifying and developing relationships with individuals who have access to information of potentially critical importance to the recovery)
  • Surveillance (e.g. to establish a debtor’s pattern of life, identify key associates, or to serve documents)
  • Financial intelligence and forensic accounting
  • Software and other tools (e.g. eDiscovery and proprietary asset tracing software)

Stakeholder engagement

  • Diplomatic approaches (e.g. working with ambassadors to facilitate negotiations with governments)
  • Backchannel negotiations with opposition decision makers
  • Well-timed media and PR strategies (e.g. prior to elections in a sovereign enforcement case)

Secondary market solutions

  • Post-settlement monetisation
  • Identifying non-traditional buyers of awards and judgments. Examples include: hedge funds with existing country exposure seeking to strengthen their hand during sovereign debt restructurings; or global commodities companies which can use a sovereign award to offset their tax liabilities in-country.

This list is not exhaustive and every bullet point merits its own separate discussion. The point is that as with collectability, asset recovery is not just about identifying (and in this case pursuing) assets. It is also about creative problem solving and recognising that there are people on the other side of the equation whose commercial or political calculus needs to change.

Asset recovery situations should be overseen by asset recovery specialists – professionals who have an awareness and understanding of the uses and limitations of all the tools in the box and are able to deploy the right ones at the right time. Their individual specialisation matters less than their ability to coordinate international teams and provide overall strategic oversight.

If funds embrace the complexities of asset recovery and the need for a multidisciplinary approach, then the new frontier will be bountiful. If they follow too narrow a path, then it may prove unforgiving.

Investor Insights

For investors in the litigation finance asset class, there should be an appreciation that enforcement and asset recovery represents a niche within a niche. Accordingly, these types of investment exposures have a different risk-reward profile than traditional litigation finance as they are much more about collection risk than litigation risk.  Consequently, proficiency in this area requires a different skill set from a fund manager perspective, and that capability can either be internalized or outsourced depending on the frequency of these opportunities. Concerns in this segment of the market are around ultimate collectability and the timelines involved with collection, both of which may be difficult to assess at the outset.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Ed is currently designing a product for institutional investors to provide unique access to the asset class.

[1] See https://woodsfordlitigationfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Practical-Guide-to-Litigation-Funding_ROW.pdf

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.