Trending Now
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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.