Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event on The Evolution of Corporate Portfolio Funding

October 12, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event on The Evolution of Corporate Portfolio Funding

Last week, Litigation Finance Journal held a special digital event on the evolution of corporate portfolio funding. How has portfolio funding evolved over the years? Why have corporates been slow to adopt the practice? How is COVID impacting that adoption rate? And what can funders do to convince corporates that the benefits of portfolio funding outweigh any perceived drawbacks? A panel discussion led by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, addressed these and other questions. The panel consisted of Neil Purslow, Co-Founder of Therium Capital Management, Greg McPolin, Managing Director of Burford Capital, Patrick Molony, CEO of Litigation Capital Management, and Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. Below are some key takeaways from the discussion: Ed: Patrick, can you provide a brief description of the corporate portfolio financing market? Patrick: Sure. This is a part of the market where the litigation financier approaches a large sophisticated and potentially well-capitalized corporate entity, either directly or through another channel—and provides to that corporate a facility in relation to a number of disputes that corporate might have. The capital that’s applied to funding that portfolio of disputes is typically collaterally secured against the outcome of a number of disputes. And through that process, it’s provided to that corporate at a reduced price reflecting the reduced risk of capital. And as you say, it is a part of the market that hasn’t seen a lot of attention from litigation finance, and is something I think the industry is starting to have a close look at now. It’s certainly one of the investment strategy that LCM—the company that I manage—is looking at and focusing on very closely. Greg: The two things I’ll add are that Patrick was right in that the market for corporate portfolio financing is certainly a newer evolution of the Litigation Finance market. For Burford it’s really come into focus over the past 18 months or so. For fiscal year 2020, we noted that about 57% of the capital we committed across our portfolio went to corporations. Not that that all happened in the context of portfolios, but certainly corporates were the majority recipients of the capital that Burford committed in 2020. That’s consistent with what I see in the market, certainly here in the US. That is an increased uptake by corporates of litigation finance, and corporate legal departments and finance professionals coming to realize, after people like Rebecca and Patrick and Neil and I have been out in the market explaining that litigation finance is just another form of corporate finance. Corporates should be looking at their legal assets, those affirmative arbitration and litigation claims as having value—as assets that can be monetized and financed. Ed: Rebecca, through your advisory business you must come across corporations all the time who are looking for some perspective on the litigation finance market. Why do you think corporations haven’t adopted litigation finance sooner? Rebecca: It’s a good question. I think it follows along what Greg said which is—first of all, this market in general, litigation finance, remains relatively new as compared to other types of corporate finance in the world. So I think everybody in this industry recognizes that it’s not a new industry, but still becoming more well-known. I think a large part of it is just education, right? I think a large part of it is that corporates are just beginning to recognize that this type of financing is available to them. So there is a big hurdle in terms of education, but as Greg said, Burford for sure is funding a lot of corporates. I think and expect that that trend will probably continue as more and more corporates become more and more comfortable with the idea of Litigation Finance. Ed: Greg, in terms of those corporates who are looking at litigation funding, what are some typical objections you might hear from corporates? Greg: I think Rebecca made this point, which I think is massively important and that is—this is so much about education, and a mind-shift within corporate legal departments and the CFO suite to think about Litigation Finance as just another form of corporate finance. The number one objection is sort of an unseen one, just lack of awareness…status quo. Treating legal assets the way they were treated years and years ago without thinking about how to bring in Litigation Finance to begin to shift the legal department from a cost center to a profit center. Once you get past that…you come up with the typical objections like…some companies believe, wrongly, that commercial litigation funders are behind many of the litigations that they have to defend. So they don’t feel about using capital from a litigation funder on the affirmative side. Rebecca: I think Greg covered the bulk of what I’ve seen—the emphasis being on ‘we don’t like litigation funders because they fund the people who sue us.’ So I do think there’s a bit of a PR campaign that we as an industry should be working on. That this money is legitimate money that is compliant with all types of rules and regulations. We need to bolster the opinion of what Litigation Finance is, and the legitimacy of what it is. We in the industry know that it’s legitimate, and it’s very real and there are a lot of lawyers now who practice specifically in Litigation Finance law. I also see one thing Greg may have alluded to, it’s hard still to learn about Litigation Funding unless you dig deep and listen to panels like this one. It’s not as mainstream as other types of financing are. So while of course we all know there’s a lot about Litigation Finance in the NYT or Wall Street Journal, it’s definitely not front page news consistently. Ed: Neil, can you comment on the role that law firms play in the decision-making process for corporates. Are they absent or behind the scenes or front and center? Neil: They’ll essentially play the same role litigators would in in originating single case fundings, that’s certainly true. But we’ve certainly seen law firms play a very substantial role in some of these deals. But they won’t necessary litigate because it may well be the corporate folks and the key is going to be people with senior contacts in companies that want to deliver a sort of commercial benefit to the company, and go beyond narrow legal advice. Certainly law firms do play roles, and they can play an important role in bridging the gap between the GC and CFO. Ed: In terms of how corporates approach finding the right litigation funder, Rebecca what’s your experience—are they hiring advisors? Or relying on their law firms to run a process? Can you give us some perspective? Rebecca: I will tell you that I think the way that I’ve heard from corporates historically have been through law firms or people reaching out to me because they are interested in taking on Litigation Finance. But just as a corporate wouldn’t make a big investment in something without having some expertise in house or going outside to find it. I find this is the same thing. I’ve been talking to people who find me to learn how the industry works—‘who do I talk to,’ ‘how do I learn about this.’ On a less frequent basis I get calls from corporates that say ‘I’ve been approached by a funder, what do I do? Is this a good deal? What do these deals look like?’ Sometimes it’s a proactive thing, or they get approached.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.