Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Covid-19 and Defendant Collectability Risk

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

  • Covid-19 will likely lead to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
  • The crisis has affected the solvency and viability of corporations and sovereigns
  • Litigation managers need to re-assess collectability risk, immediately and regularly, of each defendant in their portfolio

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • Diligencing litigation managers should involve a deep understanding of how they assess defendant collectability risk
  • Defendant collectability risk is an ongoing risk that changes over time, therefore managers need a continuous risk assessment methodology
  • Investors looking to invest in litigation finance secondaries to take advantage of the current dislocation should avoid single case risk and look to portfolio acquisitions, but must assess collectability risk across the portfolio being acquired

As Covid-19 has taken the planet and the legal community by surprise, I think there are some lessons learned from private equity that can be applied to litigation finance.  In short, focus on cash – its collection, generation, distribution and availability.

So, how does this relate to Litigation Finance?

This novel Coronavirus-driven healthcare crisis which has spiralled into a broad-based economic crisis, the likes of which the modern global economy hasn’t seen since the Great Depression, has had the effect of taking otherwise viable, profitable and cashflow positive businesses and stopping them in their tracks.  Overnight, certain businesses and industries have performed a complete one-eighty, whereby they went from solvent to being on the precipice of insolvency.  For many litigation finance firms, their immediate reaction has and should be to undertake an immediate and urgent review of the defendants involved in each and every case in which their portfolios have an investment, in order to re-assess collectability risk, one of the key areas of litigation finance underwriting.

When an economy, especially a consumer driven economy like the US, effectively shuts down overnight, there are few industries and companies that will be spared from a diminution in their value and blockage from access to capital.  Former “recession-resistant” and “necessity” businesses have just experienced a new reality, which is that necessity is determined by context.  The current context states that the only necessity is feeding, hand washing, shelter and healthcare, and this has had a massive impact on the economy. While this too shall pass, the economic impacts will likely linger for a number of months and years.  The hope for a “V” shaped recovery has been dashed, as the crisis has extended beyond initial duration estimates.  My personal opinion is that it will at best look like a “U” shaped recovery with the possibility of a double “W”, meaning there will likely be some ups and downs along the way, should the dreaded “C-19” rear its ugly head again going into the next flu season, or should it fail to be contained due to premature ‘return to daily activity’ policy.  My hope is that the massive amounts of stimulus that are being pumped into the global economy actually make their way to the most hard-hit regions of the economy, namely ‘Mainstreet’, and thereby mitigate the damage that would otherwise be experienced for many small and medium-sized businesses on which most economies rely.

While we tend to focus on home first, litigation funders should also be mindful that the economy is global.  As bad as developed countries think they may have it, fund managers who participate in the international arbitration market, which by definition, involve developing countries and corporations therein, need to be mindful that those defendants in developing countries will likely be even more greatly affected. Yes, even sovereigns.

Those managers that are focused on patent litigation involving start-up technology companies should also ensure the plaintiff is solvent through the end of the litigation, not to mention the collectability risk of the defendant, which may have been negatively impacted.

All of this is to say, that it is in the best interests of litigation finance managers to undertake a re-assessment of collectability risk of each and every defendant in their portfolio, and to do so on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.  Managers will need to assess (i) the degree to which the defendant’s industry has been impacted, (ii) the strength of each defendant’s business and balance sheet, (iii) the ability for the defendant (business or sovereign) to access sufficient capital to maintain solvency, (iv) the degree to which the value of such business has declined, (v) a study of the defendants’ behaviour during the last economic crisis, as it relates to litigation ongoing at that time, if any, (vi) determine the extent to which other parties have security and seniority ahead of the plaintiff’s claims and (vii) assess the defendants’ ability to raise capital outside of financing (i.e. asset sales, equity raises, etc.).

Once a determination has been made as to the relative collectability risk, managers will then need to determine next steps with respect to protecting themselves from those cases where the defendant collectability risk has materially changed.  This may involve the withdrawal of any further financing provisions (to the extent the financing was milestone-based), partnering with other parties to share the increased risk of the case, or selling all or a portion of a case or a portfolio (although the manager would be selling into a weak secondary market with relatively few participants, which will be reflected in the valuation, if they can secure bids).  While the options may not be great, they may be better than investing ‘good money after bad’.

Investor Insights

For investors that are invested in the sector or considering making an investment in the litigation finance market, now is a good time to diligence how and the extent to which managers were on top of their portfolio in assessing collectability risk.  For those investors interested in secondary market opportunities, caveat emptor.  The risk profile for a single case secondary is much higher given the high level of uncertainty in today’s market so a portfolio of secondaries may be a better risk-adjusted avenue to pursue but the portfolio’s diversification benefits would not negate the need to reassess the collectability risk of each defendant in the portfolio.

 Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

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.