Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Eric Schurke, CEO, North America, Moneypenny
Commercial Legal Innovation

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

September 19, 2023

Embracing Sustainability in Litigation Finance

Gian Marco Solas, Ph.D.2, is a qualified lawyer and academic, and currently serves as the Lead Expert at the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre and in private practice, where he advises on the application of physics models in (antitrust) litigation and market & investment modeling worldwide. With over a decade’s experience working with law firms and litigation funders, where he has inter alia built and managed the (then) largest European collective redress initiative (the Italian truck cartel initiative), Dr. Solas has published a number of papers on litigation funding and is the author of Third Party Funding: Law, Economics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and the forthcoming ‘De Lege et Amore – Theory of Interrelation & Sustainability (Escargot, 2023) about the interrelation of the laws of physics and human laws in the economy. In his latest analysis about the litigation funding market, Dr. Solas looks at three previous historical litigation funding cycles that have similarly and quickly appeared and disappeared in specific spatio-temporal dimensions (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Middle-Ages England), to then conclude – on the basis of recent and publicly available evidence – that the same ‘destiny’ appears to be repeating in the modern global cycle. This analysis on the one hand suggests to reject the non realistic view that litigation funding would be an uncorrelated asset class, which view ultimately is backfiring and making capital raises more difficult. While, on the other, to learn from its cyclicality and correlation to the economy to understand how and where to evolve. That is a fund individual choice that can be summed up, as matter of principle, to either transform into (or merge with) a proper asset manager (managing litigious and not litigious assets and / or classes thereof) or into a law firm (or special type thereof, with funds, technology, etc.) making profit both upfront and on a contingency / conditional or other basis. Such move would also potentially remove the need for discussions and implementation of sector-specific regulation of litigation funding while, from a more economic point of view, potentially allow to mitigate the risks physiologically linked to portfolios of unsecured debt in an economic downturn. In Dr. Solas’ view, it is therefore pivotal for the specialist litigation funding industry to embrace legal science and work on their “legal finance ‘beta’ strategy” to potentially move from the tail of the ending “debt cycle” to the head of the new “codified cycle”. This move should be designed to allow litigation funders to reach a realistic equilibrium between high-risk-high-reward investments with lower but steady and more secure income streams. Thus, freeing them from the evidently too tight and inefficient financial model that – together with regulatory pressure and other challenges – appear to be strangling the industry at this stage. In fact, many litigation funders are already part of larger and / or balanced conglomerates, while many others are not. All or most of them, however, seem to be still attached to the now surpassed view of a commoditized economy, that not only fails to capture the real value of legal claims, but also ‘weighs’ heavily on all asset managers in terms of compliance and legal costs. Most modern technology and legal science allows not just to analyze and factor the weight of the law in rational decision making, but also to enlarge the scope of viable legal claims and to codify any legal asset, therefore making them more economically valuable. Litigation funders’ higher familiarity and experience with the law compared to other asset managers could prove to be the distinguishing skill and make them not just sustainable – but also thrive – in the “new” codified economic reality. In addition to the books and articles mentioned above, further data for the above analysis can be found in the following forthcoming publications:
  • Physics as model for the law? Sustainability of the litigation finance business model (Journal of Law, Market and Innovation, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU. Regulatory challenges (Theoretical Inquiries on Law, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding in the EU (E. Elgar, co-ed. C. Poncibo’, E. D’Alessandro, 2024)
  • Third Party Funding and Sustainability considerations (E. Elgar, Research Handbook on Investment and Sustainable Development, 2024, co-ed Annie Lesperance and Dana McGrath)

Commercial

View All
Commercial

LITFINCON Europe Sets Amsterdam Agenda With Burford, Therium, WTW and Susman Godfrey on the Bill

Siltstone Capital has released the full programme for the first European edition of LITFINCON, which opens in Amsterdam on 7 October with eleven panels and a speaker roster drawn from funders, brokers, insurers and the plaintiff bar.

As reported by PR Newswire, the two-day conference runs 7 and 8 October at the Rosewood Amsterdam, the former Palace of Justice on the Herengracht, with VIP programming including a dinner and canal cruise the evening before. This is the seventh LITFINCON edition and the first held in Europe, following events in Houston, Beverly Hills and Singapore that have drawn more than a thousand attendees between them.

The theme is "The Claim Is the Asset: IP, Arbitration, Class Actions & the Investors Who Know It." Confirmed speakers include Philipp Leibfried, Managing Director and Head of Europe at Burford Capital; Neil Purslow, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Therium Capital Advisors; Max Tribble of Susman Godfrey; Dan Kesack of WTW; Nick Moore of CAC Specialty; Jamie Molloy of Ignite Specialty Risk; Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Capital; and Till Schreiber of Cartel Damage Claims.

Panels cover pricing in European collective actions, enforcement of arbitration awards, Unified Patent Court strategy, artificial intelligence in litigation finance, insurance structures for legal assets, and the divergent regulatory positions taking shape in the UK, EU and United States. The programme closes with a 75-minute unscripted session billed as "Candid Conversations."

Jim Batson, Chief Investment Officer of Legal Finance at Siltstone Capital, said: "Every deal in this industry starts with a conversation between people who trust each other."

Commercial

Padronus Funds Three German Collective Actions Over Streaming Price Rises, Capping Its Fee at 9.9%

Austrian funder Padronus is financing three new German collective redress actions against Netflix, Apple TV and WOW, structuring its return just below the statutory ceiling that governs funder participation in the country's collective redress regime.

As reported by Digital Fernsehen, the Verbraucherschutzverein filed the three Abhilfeklagen on 15 September, two before the Kammergericht Berlin and one before the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht. The claims allege that the providers raised subscription prices unilaterally on the basis of clauses that do not meet German standards for consumer contracts. Cited increases include WOW from €35.99 to €44.99, Apple TV+ from €4.99 to €9.99, and Netflix from €11.99 to €19.99.

The funding terms are the notable feature for the market. Padronus, operating through Vienna-based Prozessfinanzallianz GmbH, carries the entire cost risk and takes 9.9% of any proceeds, deliberately set beneath the 10% cap imposed on funder remuneration by the German legislation implementing the EU Representative Actions Directive. Where a participant holds legal expenses insurance that responds, Padronus waives its share altogether. Consumers pay nothing regardless of outcome.

Expected individual refunds run from roughly €200 to €700 per provider, and Padronus chief executive Richard Eibl has said a subscriber to all four services could recover close to €800. At the participation levels the funder is targeting, aggregate exposure would reach nine figures.

The German courts have not settled the question. The Kammergericht Berlin held comparable Netflix and Spotify clauses invalid in 2023, and the Bundesgerichtshof declined to disturb that outcome. But the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht dismissed a parallel claim over Prime Video in July, and an appeal is pending.

Commercial

CAT Approves £260M Google Settlement, the Largest Class Payout in the Regime’s History

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the £260 million settlement of the opt-out collective action brought against Google on behalf of thousands of UK app developers, clearing the way for the largest distribution to class members the Tribunal has sanctioned since the UK's collective proceedings regime began in 2015.

Of the total, £160 million is earmarked for eligible developers, including sole traders and small businesses that sold apps or digital content through the Play Store from August 2018 onwards. The remaining £100 million covers the funding, insurance and legal costs of running the case. Individual payouts will be calculated on each developer's qualifying Play Store sales during the relevant period, and eligible businesses are being directed to the claim website to register ahead of the claims process opening.

As reported by City AM, the claim alleged that Google abused a dominant position by imposing unfair and excessive commissions on developers distributing through the Play Store. Google settled without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, saying it was pleased to reach agreement subject to court approval.

For the funding market, the approval resolves the question hanging over the case since August. Bench Walk Advisors financed the proceedings, and the professional parties agreed to forgo £34 million of their contractual entitlement, bringing their combined return down to the £100 million the Tribunal has now approved. The Tribunal's willingness to sanction a settlement of this size, with costs and funder returns disclosed and reduced in advance, gives funders a concrete benchmark for what the CAT will treat as just and reasonable.

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said: “This landmark settlement vindicates the opt-out collective actions regime at an important moment for its future. Thanks to the regime and the litigation funders who underpin it, thousands of small businesses with no realistic alternative to take on a corporate wrongdoer will now be awarded compensation they could never have won on their own.”

“As the Government considers the future of the regime, this case is proof the system can deliver. This is a young regime that should be nurtured and expanded, not constrained, so more consumers and small businesses can hold powerful defendants to account.”