Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Highlights from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Investor Perspectives

By John Freund |

On March 27th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key industry stakeholders giving their perspectives on investment within the legal funding sector. Our esteemed panelists included Chris Capitanelli (CC), Partner at Winston and Strawn, LLP, Joel Magerman (JM), CEO of Bryant Park Capital, Joe Siprut (JSi), Founder and CEO of Kerberos Capital, and Jaime Sneider (JSn), Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group. The panel was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Below are highlights from the discussion:

One thing that piqued my interest recently was the recent Georgia jury that awareded a single plaintiff $2.1 billion in one of 177 lawsuits against Monsanto. What is your perspective on the health of the mass tort litigation market in general?

JSn: Well, I think nuclear verdicts get way more attention than they probably deserve. That verdict is going to end up getting reduced significantly because the punitive damages that were awarded were unconstitutionally excessive. I think it was a 30 to 1 ratio. I suspect that will just easily be reduced, and there will probably be very little attention associated with that reduction, even though that’s a check that’s already in place to try to prevent outsized judgments that aren’t tied as much to compensatory damages. I expect Monsanto will also likely challenge the verdict on other grounds as well, which is its right to do.

The fact is, there are a whole number of checks that are in place to ensure the integrity of our verdicts in the US legal system, and it’s already extraordinarily costly and difficult for a person that files a case who has to subject himself to discovery, prevail on motions to dismiss, prevail on motions for summary judgment, win various expert rulings related to the expert evidence. And even if a plaintiff does prevail like this one has before a jury, they face all sorts of post-trial briefing remedies that could result in a reduction or setting aside the verdict, and then they face appeals. The fact is, I think corporate defendants have a lot of ways of protecting themselves if they choose to go to trial or if they choose to litigate the case.

And I think, oftentimes when people talk about the mass tort space, their disagreement really isn’t with a specific case, but with the US Constitution itself, which protects the right to juries, even in civil litigation in this country. The fact is that there is a rich tradition in the United States that recognizes tort is essential to deterring wrongdoing. And ensuring people are fairly compensated for the injuries that they sustained due to unsafe products or other situations. So, broadly speaking, we don’t think in any systematic a way that reform is required, although I suspect around the margins there could be modest changes that might make sense.

Omni has made a number of recent moves involving secondary sales and private credit to improve their earnings and cash flow. What is your sense of how much pressure the industry is under to produce cash flow for its investors?

JSi: I think there is some pressure for sure, but more than pressure, I think it’s a natural thing for self-interested managers to want to give their investors realizations so that they can raise more capital, right?

So, even if no one had ever told me, boy, it would be nice to get money back at some point in the future, that would obviously still be what I’m incentivized to do because the sooner I can get realizations and get cash back, the sooner people can have confidence that, wow, this actually really works, and then they give you 2x the investment for the next vehicle.

So the pressure is, I think, part of it. But for a relatively new asset class like litigation finance, which is still in middle innings, I think, at most, you want realizations. You want to turn things over as quickly as you can, and you want to get capital back.

In terms of what ILFA is doing, do you feel like they’re doing enough for the industry to counter some of the attacks that are coming from the US Chamber of Commerce and others?

CC: I think there has been a focus from ILFA on trying to prevent some of the state court legislation from kind of acting as a test case, so to speak, for additional litigation. So there’s been, you know, they’ve been involved in the big stuff, but also the little stuff, so it’s not used against us, so to speak.

So I think in that regard, it’s good. I wonder at what point is there some sort of proposal, as to if there’s something that’s amenable, is there something that we can all get behind, if that’s what’s needed in order to kind of stop these broad bills coming into both state legislatures and Congress. But I think overall, the messaging has been clear that this is not acceptable and is not addressing the issue.

Pretium, a relative newcomer to the market, just announced a $500 million raise. At the same time, it’s been rumored that Harvard Endowment, which has traditionally been a significant investor in the commercial litigation finance market, is no longer allocating capital to the Litfin space. What is your sense of where this industry continues to be in favor with investors, and what are some of the challenges?

JSi: On the whole, I think the answer is yes, it continues to be in favor with investors, probably increasing favor with investors. From our own experience, we talk to LPs or new LPs quite frequently where we are told that just recently that institution has internally decided that they are now green lighting initiatives in litigation finance or doing a manager search. Whereas for the past three or four years, they’ve held off and it’s just kind of been in the queue. So the fact that that is happening seems to me that investors are increasingly interested.

Probably part of the reason for that is that as the asset class on the whole matures, individual managers have longer track records. Maybe certain managers are on their third or fourth vintage. And there are realized results that can be put up and analyzed that give investors comfort. It’s very hard to do that on day one. But when you’re several years into it, or at this point longer for many people, it becomes a lot easier. And so I think we are seeing some of that.

One of the inherent challenge to raising capital in the litigation finance asset class is that even just the term litigation finance itself is sort of shrouded in mystery. I mean, it’s very unclear what that even means and it turns out that it means many different things. The media on the whole, not including LFJ obviously, but the media on the whole has not done us many favors in that regard because they often use the term litigation finance to mean one specific thing, oftentimes case finance, specific equity type risk on a single case, when in fact, there are many of us who do all kinds of different things: law firm lending, the credit stuff, the portfolio finance stuff. There’s all kinds of different slivers. And so the effect of that is that an LP or factions within an LP may have a preconceived notion about what litigation finance is, which is completely wrong. And they may have a preconceived notion of what a particular manager’s strategy is. That’s completely wrong.

I also think that litigation finance provokes an almost emotional reaction sometimes. It’s often the case that investments get shot down because someone on the IC says that they hate lawyers, or they got sued once, and so they hate lawyers. And so they want nothing to do with litigation finance. And so whether that’s fair or unfair is irrelevant. I think it is something that is a factor and that doesn’t help. But I’d like to think that on the whole, the good strategies and the good track records will win the day in the end.

The discussion can be viewed in its entirety here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.