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

Zurich’s Quarterly U.S. Lobbying Spend Climbs to $660,000 With Funding Disclosure Bill Pending

Zurich American Insurance Company increased its federal lobbying expenditure in the third quarter of 2026, with the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 among the measures listed in its disclosures.

As reported by Legis1, Zurich reported $550,000 in in-house lobbying expenses for the quarter, supplemented by $60,000 paid to Invariant LLC and $50,000 to Tiber Creek Group Inc. The combined total of $660,000 is $70,000 above the insurer's second-quarter figure of $590,000.

H.R.1109 would require parties in a civil action to disclose any person, other than counsel, holding a contingent right to receive payment based on the outcome of the case, and to produce the underlying funding agreement. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee in February 2025 and its most recent recorded action remains the committee consideration and markup sessions held in November 2025. Its cosponsor count has grown from two at introduction to 28 as of June 2026.

The measure has drawn broad support from the property and casualty sector. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce coalition letter backing the bill was signed by Zurich North America alongside Allstate, Chubb, Liberty Mutual, State Farm and Travelers, as well as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

Opposition has come from an unexpected direction. Tea Party Patriots Action has urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject the bill, and a donor-privacy coalition including PDE Action has argued it would compel disclosure of private financial arrangements outside the ordinary discovery process without any judicial finding of relevance.

Commercial

ATE Insurers Expected to Await Manchester City Appeal Before Backing Compensation Claims

Rival clubs, players and agents weighing compensation claims against Manchester City may struggle to secure after-the-event insurance until the club's appeal is resolved, according to a specialist litigation insurance underwriter.

As reported by Insurance Business, Rocco Pirozzolo, managing director and underwriting director at Harbour Underwriting, said the live appeal creates uncertainty that underwriters are unlikely to price. "With a live appeal, this creates uncertainty, and so I expect underwriters would want to wait for the outcome of the appeal," he said.

The Premier League announced on 29 September that an independent commission had found the club in breach of more than 100 of its rules, upholding 114 of the 115 charges brought in 2023 following an investigation that began in 2018. Manchester City lodged an appeal on 1 October and denies wrongdoing.

Pirozzolo noted that Burnley's earlier award against Everton gives underwriters a roadmap for this type of claim, but that tying a rule breach to lost results and lost revenue remains the difficult part. Causation and quantum are the key tests for ATE underwriters assessing whether a claim is insurable.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham are reported to have lodged notices in 2024 reserving the right to claim compensation, while players and agents are said to be exploring loss-of-earnings claims tied to bonus payments.

A three-member appeal board will hear the case and may dismiss or allow the appeal, remit it to the commission, or alter any sanction. Under Premier League rules the hearing should be held within 12 weeks of being lodged, with a decision due within 30 days of its conclusion.

Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Reports 3.9x MOIC on A$135.8m of First-Quarter Completions

Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX: OBL) has reported that it is tracking at or above all of its FY27 operational targets, with first-quarter completions returning well above the funder's recent historical average.

As reported by GlobeNewswire, the alternative asset manager's Investment Portfolio Report as at 30 September 2026 records 20 full and partial completions generating A$135.8m in investment proceeds at a 3.9x multiple on invested capital. That compares with a two-year trailing average of 2.5x, and the completions converted at 102% of carrying fair value.

Management fees rose 24% year-on-year to A$10.7m, and the group received A$9.4m in cash carried interest, with a further A$8.6m accrued on Series II funds but not yet distributed. Omni Bridgeway also completed the final close of its Funds 4 and 5 Series II at the full US$1 billion target during the quarter, which it expects to push management fee growth towards the higher end of its indicated FY27 range.

New commitments totalled A$87.1m across nine new investments, up 23% on the prior corresponding quarter, adding A$81.2m in new fair value. The pipeline comprised 46 agreed exclusive term sheets representing an estimated A$416.6m in potential new commitments, up from A$317.8m a year earlier.

Cash operating expenses of A$15.7m tracked below the FY27 budget range of A$72.5m to A$75.0m, with a cost coverage ratio of 68% for the quarter. Chief Executive Officer Raymond van Hulst pointed to the 46 exclusive term sheets and a significant number of late-stage investments in the portfolio.