Contingency Fees vs Group Cost Orders in Victoria
The Supreme Court of Victoria declined to allow a 25% contingency fee. The decision represents the first time the court has used its power to make a Group Cost Order—which the court determined was preferable to a “no win, no fee” arrangement. Ashurst details that an exception to the prohibition against contingency fees, the power to make a Group Costs Order in class actions, was introduced in Victoria in June of 2020. Thus far, Victoria is the only jurisdiction in Australia to allow this. A Group Costs Order is a type of contingency fee that requires approval from the court. It necessitates that claimants will pay a portion of the contingency fee out of an award or settlement. This new legislation came about to allow plaintiff law firms to compete on level ground with third-party legal funders. In the first application since Group Costs Orders became law, courts had to determine whether the lawyer’s request for a 25% contingency fee was in the best interests of group members and whether it would be an improvement for claimants over the funding agreement already in place. Lawyers for the plaintiffs compared the Group Costs Order to a TPF agreement, saying it would be better for claimants. The court determined that because of the ‘no win, no fee’ agreement, the comparison should be between the agreement versus the Group Costs Order. Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiffs would not be better off with a Group Costs Order. After the decision, the court allowed the parties to take time to reconsider and reapply if desired. While it’s unclear whether courts will grow more welcoming to Group Costs Orders in the future, it seems that plaintiff law firms still find these orders attractive.
These types of situations (shown above to the right of the arrow) resemble business negotiations moreso than binary litigation, and can be modeled to resolve in a more predictable fashion. By the nature of a credit-oriented investment strategy, an IP-focused Private Credit fund targets the latter opportunity set, whereas the litigation finance market has shown a willingness to fund what we characterize as the riskier, more binary type enforcement situations. Accordingly, while litigation is not necessarily an outcome that results from such an investment, a manager that invests in the sector does need to expect, plan and prepare for litigation as a potential outcome, or at the very least as a means to an end. The idea, as with most litigation, is that ‘saner heads will prevail’ and that a commercially reasonable settlement will be achieved by both parties prior to embarking on expensive litigation. Of course, this means that the onus is on the investor to understand the merits of the case and the plaintiff’s strategic position, potential defenses, procedural activities that could frustrate or delay litigation, and the costs associated therewith. The complexities associated with understanding the value of intellectual property assets, and the complexity of the litigation process, make the sector a highly specialized area for investors who are often best served by investing with or alongside specialist managers. 
Slingshot Insights Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways. It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives. While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner. The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently. I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile. As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article. 
Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry. Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors. 
Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets. Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts. The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers.
Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property. Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP VALUE PROPOSITION According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985. Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies. 
Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce. The primary forms of intellectual property are:
IP VALUE CREATION IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future. When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:
Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP CREDIT IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types. Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund. Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition. Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP. Investment Types Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited. Deal Structuring The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections. The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:
