Trending Now
Commercial

Cormac Leech on Litigation Funding as an Investment

AxiaFunder is a new and innovative investment platform that focuses on litigation funding as an asset class. Founded by Cormac Leech, the UK startup caters to sophisticated investors.

UK Investor Magazine explains that as an asset class, the main strength of litigation funding is its lack of correlation to the larger market. For the most part, the need for litigation is not dependent on any specific economic conditions.

The following are some key takeaways from the podcast episode with Leech:  

Q: Are there [investment] solutions for people who are looking into funding?

CL: Absolutely, there are. Litigation funding is a relatively new asset class. As an industry it’s really only been active in the UK for around 15 years or so. It’s certainly grown strongly over the last five or ten years.

Most of the providers of litigation funding are operating on a traditional model where they have a permanent pool of capital…they’re really only catering to private equity firms, which means lots of sophisticated investors cannot get access to the asset class.

Q: How are cases vetted? 

CL: So far, we’ve funded 12 cases based on having looked at over 300 cases. We have a very high rejection rate in terms of the number of cases we accept. 

We talk through the process of how we vet cases. The first thing we look at are the legal merits of the case. The way we think about legal merits—there are two parts: we want to make sure that the claimants have the high moral ground. It has to be a case where you look at the story of the case, the claimants and the defendants, and there’s a clear indication that the defendants treated the claimants badly. You know it when you see it. The second question is to make sure the legal technical merits stack up.

Other aspects include whether the defendant has money, and the ability and willingness to pay if there’s a settlement or judgement. There’s no sense winning the case if the defendant doesn’t have any money. We also look at the case economics to make sure that the value of the claim is big enough compared to what it’s going to cost to litigate.

There needs to be a solution for adverse costs risk. 

Q: Litigation funding is classed as an alternative asset class. One of the attractions typically is the low correlation with traditional assets such as stocks and bonds. How is that seen in the real world?

CL: It’s interesting in terms of investor’s perceptions. It’s a very unusual period right now because equities have had a very strong run recently, and residential properties have had a strong run. Virtually every asset class has been increasing in value. Forward looking investors will probably realize that there’s limited upside for equities, and arguably limited upsides for property, at least on a real, inflation-adjusted basis. These asset classes have already had a tremendous run. I think smarter investors will be looking around for alternatives.

It does make sense for investors to make some allocation into litigation funding—2% up to 5% of their portfolio. It is non-correlated, and the returns are very substantial.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.