Trending Now
Commercial Deals Special Features

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities.

The initial panel discussion was titled “State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook.” The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:

  • Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
  • Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
  • Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
  • Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital

The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in:

Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before.

Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential.

Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before.

The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table.

In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here.

At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims.

The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here.

Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow.

The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on “How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey,” featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs.

Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value.

MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services.

All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jeffrey Stern, Partner, Reed Smith

By John Freund |

Jeffrey Stern plays a leading role as partner in the Financial Industry Group resident in Reed Smith's New York office. With more than 30 years’ experience in structured finance and derivatives, Jeffrey brings a deep commercial sensibility to his practice.

He has completed securitizations, structured credit facilities, and derivatives/structured products transactions involving an exceptionally wide range of esoteric (and mature) asset types. His practice includes CLOs (including private CLOs), CFOs, and rated feeders, litigation pre-settlement funding, consumer loan finance, equipment lease finance, music royalty finance, financing and securitization of insurance-related assets (including life settlements and broker commissions), and specialty finance. Additionally, Jeffrey has worked in Latin America and the Caribbean for nearly 20 years, focusing on cross-border assets and cash flow financings.

Company Name and Description: Reed Smith is a dynamic international law firm dedicated to helping clients move their businesses forward. With an inclusive culture and innovative mindset, they deliver smarter, more creative legal services that drive better outcomes for clients. Their deep industry knowledge, long-standing relationships and collaborative structure make them the go-to partner for complex disputes, transactions, and regulatory matters.

Company Website:  https://www.reedsmith.com/en

Founded: Pittsburgh in 1877

Headquarters: New York

Areas of Focus: Finance, Structured Finance, Financial Services, Collateralized Loan Obligations, Latin America

Member Quote: “The field of litigation pre-settlement funding (and litigation funding generally) is an increasingly important category, and a particular area of innovation in documentation and structuring, within the esoteric structured finance market. As a result, it has become an area of real focus for the Reed Smith structured finance team.”

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Industry Leaders Share Views on the State of Third-Party Funding

By Harry Moran |

Legal funding has never before achieved such widespread adoption and acceptance within the legal industry, whilst simultaneously attracting increasingly vociferous opposition from those who wish to see limitations on its influence enforced. 

In its latest Quarterly Focus, Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) looks at the prospects for the third-party litigation funding market in the year ahead, highlighting both the tremendous progress the industry has made and the persistent critics who continue to call for enhanced regulations. In the article, CDR garners insights into what the coming year may hold from senior executives at some of the largest litigation funders, as well as those working with funders at law firms and consultancies.

The established and accepted position of legal funding is a key talking point with funders, as Burford Capital’s David Perla emphatically states that “legal finance is mainstream”, whilst William Marra from Certum Group points out that after many years of educating and raising awareness, “litigation funding is integral to the business models of many and maybe even most law firms.”

Despite the achievement of becoming a mainstream feature of the legal services industry, critics of third-party funding have not relented in their vocal opposition to its use, and if anything, have turning up the heat on lawmakers to introduce restrictions. Boris Ziser, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, offers the straightforward rebuttal to these critics that he doesn’t “see how anyone can argue with the fact that litigation funding increases access to justice.”

Similarly, Avenue 33’s CEO, Rebecca Berrebi points out that the most prominent critique of third-party funding, the US Chamber of Commerce cannot be considered an unbiased observer as it “is funded by the big defendants in many of the cases that are funded”.Additional analysis from these top executives on the various legislative efforts to restrict legal funding, and the role of the courts, can be found in the CDR article.

Commercial Legal Innovation

A Funder’s Top Tips on Litigation Valuation for GCs

By Harry Moran |

As litigation funders strive to forge closer relationships with lawyers, one benefit for all participants in the legal industry is the opportunity to share best practices.

In an article for Today’s General Counsel, Jeffery Lula, principal at litigation funder GLS Capital, suggests that in-house legal departments and GCs should adopt the litigation valuation approach used by litigation funders. Lula argues that in-house counsel “often take an ad hoc approach to valuation—which can lead to biased or imprecise evaluations”, whilst funders’ very longevity is tied to their ability to repeatedly evaluate lawsuits accurately. As a broad framework for litigation valuation, Lula highlights four key components that should be assessed: legal merits, damages, duration and collectability.

On the legal merits of any individual case, Lula suggests adding a level of ‘qualitative rigor’ by evaluating the probability of success for each significant milestone of the litigation, such as the probability of losing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. When it comes to assessing the scale of possible damages, Lula emphasizes that ‘damages are not created equal’, and that ‘this nuance regarding the certainty of damages is key to valuing a case.’

Whilst Lula acknowledges that the duration of a lawsuit is often hard to predict, he does point a particular spotlight on the scheduling order for courts, and the importance of understanding ‘whether the current scheduling order is likely to change.’ Lula closes his piece by noting that of all these components, collectability often receives less focus than others, and that it is of utmost importance for ‘in-house counsel to inquire whether the defendant entity is expendable.’