Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Covid-19 and Defendant Collectability Risk

April 15, 2020

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
Commercial

Family Offices Turn to Litigation Finance as a Portfolio Diversifier

Family offices are increasingly treating litigation finance as a diversification tool, drawn by returns that are largely uncorrelated with public markets at a time of rising inflation and interest rates.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appeal rests on three characteristics: appetite for risk, patience for investments of uncertain duration, and the absence of correlation to other holdings. Kelly Daley, founder of Celsia Capital, described family offices as a "uniquely good fit" for the asset class, noting that most operate on evergreen horizons with few external constraints — unlike LP-backed funds, pension plans and endowments working to fixed terms.

Thomas Mellor, a partner at Morgan Lewis, said insurance-backed structures, in which an asset is insured and then borrowed against, have widened the pool of capital available to the market. Over the past seven to eight years the ecosystem has expanded to the point where family offices are "just one of the many other market participants who became part of" it.

The scale of that capital is substantial. More than half of the 351 respondents to Citi Wealth's Global Family Office Report 2026/2027 manage over $500 million, and Deloitte projects roughly 75% growth in the number of family offices between 2019 and 2030, against $9.5 trillion in family wealth.

The interest arrives as institutional fundraising remains slow. Corbin Capital's $342 million litigation finance fund took nearly two years to close, underscoring why funders are looking to capital sources that can commit without a fixed exit date.

Commercial

Federal Court Appoints Contradictors to Test Funder’s $244M Cut of Toyota Settlement

Justice Michael Lee has appointed two barristers as contradictors to scrutinise the commission a litigation funder is seeking from a record A$750 million settlement of two Toyota class actions — the largest funder commission ever sought in an Australian class action.

As reported by Lawyerly, the appointment marks a change of heart by the judge, who will now have independent counsel test Balance Legal Capital's proposed A$244 million share before deciding whether to approve it. Contradictors are appointed precisely because a commission application would otherwise go unopposed, with both the applicants and the respondent supporting approval.

The proceedings concern allegedly defective diesel particulate filters and have already produced significant precedent. In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344, the Federal Court made the first aggregate damages award under section 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act in favour of a funded litigant, with roughly 260,000 vehicle owners in the class. At that stage the funder had sought a commission of up to 25%.

The contradictor mechanism has materially reduced funder returns before. In the Robodebt class action, a contradictor argued that A$23 million was the appropriate commission against the funder's A$71 million request from a A$548.5 million settlement — a reduction of close to two-thirds.

The outcome will be closely watched by funders active in the Australian market, where commission approval has become the principal point at which courts exercise control over the economics of funded class actions.

Commercial

Litigation Lending Services Funds Landmark Australian Class Action Against Meta

A funded class action filed in Australia's Federal Court alleges that Meta Platforms exposed children to harmful content on Facebook and Instagram and kept them engaged through addictive design features. It is understood to be the first Australian case to attribute harm to social media platforms.

As reported by Al Jazeera, the action is funded by Litigation Lending Services and was filed by MinterEllison on behalf of eight plaintiffs who say they were harmed while under the age of 18. The funder said it was backing the claim for Australian families who "would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant."

The Federal Court in Sydney has issued a suppression order restricting publication of the statement of claim and the identities of the applicants. A Meta spokesperson said the company is "aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously," with HSF Kramer acting for the defence. MinterEllison partner William Nolan said the proceeding "raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia."

The funding structure reflects standard Australian practice, where class actions are typically backed by third-party funders taking a percentage of any recovery rather than run on contingency by the firm itself. The case follows Australia's December 2025 minimum-age rules, which require platforms including Facebook and Instagram to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts, and Meta's agreement in August to pay up to $17.1 billion to resolve claims brought by a coalition of US state attorneys-general.

The matter returns to court on November 3.