Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Implications of Portfolio Financings on Litigation Finance Returns

January 15, 2020

Implications of Portfolio Financings on Litigation Finance Returns

The following article is the first in 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
  • Portfolio financings represent as much as 62% of all US commercial litigation finance investments
  • Strong growth trend for Law Firm and Corporate portfolios
  • Law firms recognize the inherent value in incubating portfolios
  • Not prevalent in non-contingent fee jurisdictions
Investor Insights
  • Potential effect of reducing overall investor returns relative to a portfolio of single case risks
  • Investors benefit from better risk-adjusted returns than single case investing
  • Cross-collateralized nature significantly reduces risk & shifts value to law firm
  • Portfolio financings may limit upside potential for investors
  • Review the portfolio composition (single vs. portfolio), past and future, to set return expectations.
One of the most significant trends in litigation finance for fund managers over the last few years has been the strong trend toward “portfolio financings”. Litigation finance can be broadly segmented between single case investments and portfolio financing investments. Single case is a reference to the provision of litigation finance to a single litigation, the outcome of which is completely dependent on the idiosyncratic case risk and binary litigation process risk.  Portfolio financing is a reference to the aggregation and cross-collateralization (typically) of a portfolio of cases, whether Law Firm or Corporate, whereby the results are determined by the performance of the portfolio as opposed to a single case. The trend has been so significant, that according to WestFleet’s 2019 Buyer’s Guide, Law Firm portfolio financings now account for 47% of capital commitments and Corporate portfolios account for 15% of commitments, for an aggregate of 62% of the commitments of the US industry. Why is Portfolio Financing Growing So Quickly? 
  1. The primary growth driver of portfolio financings is that the industry, arguably, started in the area of single case financings and is now evolving its offerings into a more complex and larger area of litigation finance. It is typical for an industry to begin with the financings of single exposures, and then as the industry gets more comfortable and gains deeper experience, it evolves into other larger applications like portfolio financing.
  2. The second driver is that as litigation funders have expanded their capital base, they have had to look further afield in terms of where they can effectively invest their capital at scale. To this end, portfolio financings are an ideal way for litigation funders to put large amounts of capital to work quickly and in a better risk-adjusted way than undertaking the laborious task of assembling a series of single case investments into a portfolio.
  3. One of the knocks against litigation finance is a low degree of capital deployment. Managers are motivated to reduce risk by slowly investing capital into the case in a measured way so as to mitigate loss of capital. Unfortunately, this negatively impacts the amount of capital they deploy and is inversely proportional to the effect their management fees have on returns. Portfolio financings, on the other hand, allow litigation funders to commit large amounts of capital and also expedite the deployment of capital, as they typically replace dollars that have been deployed (actual or notional) previously by the law firm. One could view a portfolio as a series of cases that have been ‘incubated’ by the law firm, and are now ready to be invested in by a litigation funder.
  4. Law firms have, astutely, come to realize there is value in (i) originating cases, arguably one of the most difficult and expensive services litigation funders provide, and (ii) applying modern portfolio theory to a series of cases and cross-collateralizing the pool, both to the benefit of the law firm. Progressive law firms married the new availability of large amounts of capital with the value inherent in their incubated portfolios and parlayed that into significant portfolio financings at a reasonable cost of capital, thereby capturing some of the economics for themselves.
  5. As awareness for litigation finance has grown throughout the legal community, awareness has also grown for plaintiff bar firms with large portfolios of cases. This market has also evolved and extended into corporate portfolios (LCM, an Australian litigation finance manager, is actively pursuing corporate portfolios). Accordingly, the increased awareness of the industry in general has also increased awareness for portfolio financing opportunities.
What Does it All Mean for Investors in the Asset Class? The following quote from Burford’s 2018 capital markets event sums it up nicely: “When we moved from single cases to portfolio investments, people wondered whether returns would decline, but they went up” This statement suggests that on a risk-adjusted basis, portfolio financings deliver superior outcomes. However, when you look at Burford’s return profile over a long period of time, you will see that relatively few single case investments contributed to their overall multiple of capital, with the Pedersen & Teinver claims being considerable contributors. In fact, the size of the gross dollar returns of these single case investments dwarfs the rest of the portfolio and skews the overall results. Burford makes the point in their disclosures that removing these outliers disrupts the core of their strategy, which is more akin to venture capital. As with all portfolios, one needs to assess the outliers. Yet having witnessed a large number of portfolio results, I would suggest the return profile of a portfolio is more aligned to the approach, strategy, size and nature of cases in which the manager has chosen to invest, as opposed to the notion that portfolio financings produce inherently superior results than investing in a cross-section of single cases. Some funders produce very consistent results in terms of returns and duration, whereas other strategies are more volatile; it just depends on what risk profile you are willing to accept (i.e. are you looking for venture capital or leveraged buy-out type returns). I think it is fair to say that the public domain lacks enough data to determine whether portfolio financings are better risk-adjusted returns than a diversified portfolio of single cases. However, when you consider that most portfolio financings are cross-collateralized, this single feature does have a significant impact on risk. The question then becomes how much return does the Law Firm or Corporation extract for delivering a fully originated portfolio with cross-collateralization features. I would expect that over a large portfolio of transactions, portfolio financings will outperform in terms of returns in relation to volatility, and that single cases will outperform in terms of returns, but at the expense of higher volatility. The other aspect that is difficult to control in comparing results of two sets of portfolios is whether the nature of the cases (case type, life cycle, jurisdiction, size, etc.) are common across the single case control group and the portfolio financings group. We may never know the answer, but logic dictates that portfolio financings should be lower returning, lower volatility investments, as compared to a portfolio of single cases – the key difference being the cross-collateralization feature. Investor Insights When reviewing fund manager results one should look closely at the composition of the portfolio to understand what portion is being derived from portfolios compared to single cases.  It will also be important to note the trending in these case types.  If the manager is scaling its operations, as many currently are, their motivations are to deploy large amounts of capital quickly in large portfolios with lower risk.  While this is a prudent approach for the manager, one then has to determine whether the historic return profile based on a portfolio of single case exposures is indicative of a future portfolio which will be mainly comprised of portfolio financings.  The portfolio financings will have a different risk-reward dynamic and so investors will need to model their return expectations accordingly.  Either way, I expect the return profile for litigation finance to remain robust both in the areas of single cases and portfolios and continue to believe that diversification is a key success factor to prudent investing in the commercial litigation finance asset class. Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Malaysia Launches Modern Third-Party Funding Regime for Arbitration

By John Freund |

Malaysia has officially overhauled its legal framework for third-party funding in arbitration, marking a significant development in the country’s dispute finance landscape. Effective 1 January 2026, two key instruments, the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act A1737) and the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026, came into force with the aim of modernising regulation and improving access to justice.

An article in ICLG explains that the amended Arbitration Act introduces a dedicated chapter on third-party funding, creating Malaysia’s first comprehensive statutory foundation for funding arrangements in arbitration. The reforms abolish the long-standing common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty in the arbitration context, removing a historical barrier that could render funding agreements unenforceable on public policy grounds.

The legislation also introduces mandatory disclosure requirements, obliging parties to reveal the existence of funding arrangements and the identity of funders in both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Malaysia. These changes bring Malaysia closer to established regional arbitration hubs that already recognise and regulate third-party funding.

Alongside the legislative amendments, the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding sets out ethical standards and best practices for funders operating in Malaysia. The Code addresses issues such as marketing conduct, the need for funded parties to receive independent legal advice, capital adequacy expectations, the management of conflicts of interest, and rules around termination of funding arrangements. While the Code is not directly enforceable, arbitral tribunals and courts may take a funder’s compliance into account when relevant issues arise during proceedings.

The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department has indicated that this combined framework is intended to strike a balance between encouraging responsible third-party funding and improving transparency in arbitration. The reforms also respond to concerns raised by high-profile disputes where funding arrangements were not disclosed, highlighting the perceived need for clearer rules.

Commercial

ProLegal Unveils Full-Stack Legal Support Beyond Traditional Funding

By John Freund |

ProLegal, formerly operating as Pro Legal Funding, has announced a strategic rebrand and expansion that reflects a broader vision for its role in the legal services ecosystem. After nearly a decade in the legal finance market, the company is repositioning itself not simply as a litigation funder, but as a comprehensive legal support platform designed to address persistent structural challenges facing plaintiffs and law firms.

The announcement outlines ProLegal’s evolution beyond traditional pre-settlement funding into a suite of integrated services intended to support cases from intake through resolution. Company leadership points to longstanding industry issues such as opaque pricing, misaligned incentives, and overly transactional relationships between funders, attorneys, and clients. ProLegal’s response has been to rethink its operating model with a focus on collaboration, transparency, and practical support that extends beyond capital alone.

Under the new structure, ProLegal now offers a range of complementary services. These include ProLegal AI, which provides attorneys with artificial intelligence tools for document preparation and case support, and ProLegal Live, a virtual staffing solution designed to assist law firms with intake, onboarding, and administrative workflows.

The company has also launched ProLegal Rides, a transportation coordination service aimed at helping plaintiffs attend medical appointments that are critical to both recovery and case valuation. Additional offerings include a law firm design studio, a healthcare provider network focused on ethical referrals, and a centralized funding dashboard that allows for real-time case visibility.

Central to the rebrand is what ProLegal describes as an “Integrity Trifecta,” an internal framework requiring that funding advances meet standards of necessity, merit, and alignment with litigation strategy. The company emphasizes deeper engagement with attorneys, positioning them as strategic partners rather than intermediaries.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Funder Sues Client for $1M Settlement Proceeds

By John Freund |

A Croton-on-Hudson-based litigation financier has filed suit against a former client following a roughly $1 million settlement, alleging the funded party failed to honor the repayment terms of their litigation funding agreement. The dispute highlights the contractual and enforcement challenges that can arise once a funded matter reaches resolution.

According to Westfair Online, the financier provided capital to support a plaintiff’s legal claim in exchange for a defined share of any recovery. After the underlying litigation concluded with a significant settlement, the funder alleges that the plaintiff refused to authorize payment of the agreed-upon amount. The lawsuit claims breach of contract and seeks to recover the funder’s share of the settlement proceeds, along with any additional relief available under the agreement.

The case underscores a recurring tension within the litigation funding ecosystem. While funders assume substantial risk by advancing capital on a non-recourse basis, they remain dependent on clear contractual rights and post-settlement cooperation from funded parties. When those relationships break down, enforcement actions against clients, though relatively uncommon, become a necessary tool to protect funders’ investments.

For industry participants, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that even straightforward single-case funding arrangements can result in contentious disputes after a successful outcome. It also illustrates why funders increasingly emphasize robust contractual language, transparency around settlement mechanics, and direct involvement in distribution processes to reduce the risk of non-payment.