Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

July 22, 2020

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

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 SUMMARY
  • As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be more competition, more fragmentation and more specialization
  • Competitive advantages will be necessary for managers to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and produce strong risk-adjusted returns
  • Managers should institutionalize their “edge” to create equity value for themselves, and separate the value of their organizations from the principals running it
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Investors should be looking for managers that have some advantage, or “edge” vis-à-vis their competition; an informational advantage is one approach
  • Funders should be open-minded about their diligence process, and experiment with non-conventional approaches to add value to the case
  • Informational advantages may be particularly beneficial in collections and enforcements
In the capital markets industry, there is a concept referred to as “edge”, which can be defined as any legal form of information, insight or proprietary process or knowledge which an investor possesses that allows him or her to outperform peers and generate alpha.  Investors look for managers with “edge” as a point of differentiation, and as a means to lower risk and enhance returns in a given investment strategy. In thinking about how a litigation funder can develop ‘edge’, one option is to acquire an informational advantage that enables the funder to invest where others do not dare to tread, or avoid investing where the path is well worn.  One way to obtain an informational advantage is to look where others are not looking.  Today, we have at our disposal the world’s largest accessible database free for anyone to access – the worldwide web.  We also have the so-called “dark web”, where fewer dare to participate, but which may possess insights nonetheless. In order to get a better perspective on the nuggets of gold that lie within the web, I decided to reach out to Cameron Colquhoun of NEONCentury, a UK-based intelligence firm, to better understand how the litigation finance community may be able to generate edge. The Web…. In some ways, little has changed about our use of the internet in 30 years: we all still use screens, keyboards and mice to open windows and browser pages. What has changed, without exception, is the size of the world behind our screens – which is far bigger than our brains and imaginations can appreciate. As of 2016, Google revealed it knew of 130 trillion web pages, and the real number today is likely to exceed 200 or 300 trillion. To put it another way; as the Head of Security at Twitter pointed out back in 2011, one-in-a-million events happen on the internet every second, and one in a billion events happen almost as frequently. It is a mathematical near-certainty that within all of this data, game-changing intelligence is sitting there, waiting to be found – vital to the success of any litigation. The truth is, very few law firms or investors understand this reality, and therefore rarely ever engage or commission the type of intensive, detailed online investigations that are required to push the confidence intervals of success up by 1, 2, 5, 10 or even 20%. In the biggest cases, this can mean tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of difference in settlement. …and the Dark Web The dark and unindexed web is another part of the web that is as yet untouched by both law firms and litigation finance. In particular, leaked data and data ‘dump’ sites hold huge amounts of pivotal intelligence. The most prominent case of leaked data to date is of course the Panama Papers, where millions of files belonging to a single Panamanian law firm were leaked online and led to over $1.2bn in recoveries (the real figure is likely to be far higher, as most countries do not make settlement data public). Dozens of prominent individuals had their assets exposed, and with millions of documents available to research – many more hidden assets and frauds are likely to be revealed amongst the 11.5 million files. Every time a new major leak is released online, (more recently BlueLeaks and 29Leaks), law firms or litigation financiers should be feverishly combing through its contents looking for angles. Case Study At NEONCentury, we are often tasked with conducting investigations prior to a potential litigation. In one case, a hedge fund asked for our help as they believed a group of CEOs were meeting in secret, and were considering a litigation. This global company, they suspected, was going to be sold for several billion below market value in some kind of backroom boys club deal. Using our data capabilities, we tracked the private jets owned by those who attended these meetings, but the planes were delisted from public view (this is known as a BARR / LADD request and often used by CEOs and Ultra High Net Worth investors for anonymity). BARR-listed jets do not appear on sites like FlightRadar and FlightAware. However, these aircraft, by law, must emit radio signals (ADS-B) data, and using the right online databases and sources, the aircraft can be tracked and historical manifests can be discovered. We were able to conclusively prove that the private jets belonging to three members of the secret meetings were all on the same runways at multiple times and locations, giving our client a route to a potentially multi-billion dollar litigation. It is difficult to imagine a single law firm on the planet that would have these capabilities in-house, or even understand the ‘art of the possible’ when it comes to open data. Today, litigation financiers allow law firms to manage the research and investigation sides of a case, hoping that either the law firms’ in-house research teams or external corporate intel firms might yield further intelligence to tip the outcome in their favour. Law firms are not known for their technological prowess or understanding of the internet, generally, and therefore the litigation finance world may be missing real value in allowing law firms to manage the technical and cyber side of a case on their behalf. …the “Edge” If investors can accept that game-changing intelligence for any litigation is out there in the public domain, they may be better-prepared to commission this research directly with corporate investigations firms *before* any litigation is even considered. Investors would then be forearmed with a much stronger hand when they engage both law firms and claimants. This approach would greatly improve the ROI of litigation finance, and is analogous with the world of hedge funds and short-sellers. Many of these firms spend months or years investigating a company, searching for hidden value or opportunity. In the case of Wirecard, hedge funds discovered evidence of fraud just by conducting deep online investigations of Wirecard’s clients. Some walked away with billions in returns on this research. There is no reason why the same approach cannot be applied to the world of litigation finance: forward-thinking investors, who understand the power of corporate intelligence and the scale of the internet, can partner with world class investigators, and take these results to the right law firms to alter the course of multimillion and multibillion-dollar litigations. Investor Insights As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be a significant increase in managers who are attracted by the returns inherent in the industry, and the intellectual challenge of applying their litigation craft in another application.  The industry will scale, fragment and specialize.  This will make it more difficult for fund managers to differentiate their approach and value.  Forward-thinking managers should be looking at ways to create “edge” for themselves to attract institutional capital and generate superior risk-adjusted returns.  An informational advantage is one such way to create “edge”. As always, I am open to criticism and other points of view, so feel free to contact me to exchange ideas.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial) and a former partner in a private equity.  Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class.  Cameron Colquhoun is the founder of Neon Century, a former UK intelligence officer and winner of the Fulbright Award for Cyber Security. Neon Century is an elite corporate intelligence firm based in London, providing clients in the hedge fund, equity and litigation sectors with decisive advantage.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.