Trending Now
  • Invenio Partner Warns Automation Bias Is the Real AI Risk in Funding Underwriting
  • New York Times Investigation Examines Securitization of Consumer Legal Funding Advances
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Q4 2020 Commercial Litigation Funding Roundup

Litigation Finance News
December 21, 2020

Key Takeaways from LFJs Q4 2020 Commercial Litigation Funding Roundup

Litigation Finance News
On Thursday December 17th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special 1-hour panel discussion on the major events impacting the commercial litigation funding industry. Panelists included Omni Bridgeway CEO Andrew Saker (AS), Therium Co-Founder and CIO Neil Purslow (NP), and LCM CEO Patrick Moloney (PM). The panel was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), founder of Slingshot Capital. Below are some highlights from the discussion. ET: Why did each of you decide to pursue a global growth strategy as opposed to solely focusing on domestic markets? PM: We looked at things from a very practical perspective at LCM, we looked at where the most economic activity was happening. Where there’s more economic activity there’s more disputes. Therefore, we looked around the globe toward the larger economies than where we started back here in Australia. We were cautious and disciplined about moving into new jurisdictions. So very much driven economically and by opportunity. NP: When we started Therium about 12 years ago, we recognized the potential then that the industry would become a global industry. And from an early stage, we were seeing funding opportunities coming from other jurisdictions as well as the UK. Our global footprint reflects a view of the market that there are benefits to being bigger in funding. From a case point of view, it’s better to have more depth of financial resources. From an investor point of view, greater diversification is better. From an underwriting point of view, being able to draw on expertise across jurisdictions and to have the benefits of a global perspective is also helpful.  ET: What were some of the business challenges you faced when you entered new markets? AS: Most of our expansion was done through organic growth. It was where we perceived first-mover advantage. That required us to address a number of key risks, market awareness of the industry was perhaps first and foremost. There were some jurisdictionally specific issues in Canada where we needed to seek some insurance regulatory approvals. But otherwise, it was all about establishing boots on the ground, finding the right people which is more than half the problem. And ensuring that you’ve got access to the local contacts and networks that you need for establishing a successful business. ET: Other than lack of sleep, what are some of the other negative aspects of going global? AS: Lack of sleep is perhaps the biggest issue, but the benefits far outweigh any of the costs. Having such a global team, a global approach, different cultures that are being fully integrated, compensate for any of those downsides. But it’s an interesting dynamic market that’s continuing to grow. PM: I think that’s right. I think…there’s a necessity to become global. In the respect of at least publicly listed and traded. NP: The thing that’s interesting is, relatively speaking, how easy it is to operate across jurisdictions in this industry, and I think it’s because–to a very large extent–the skillset that you need is so transferrable. So it’s actually been very positive. ET: What’s the implication given COVID? Are you thinking differently about your organizations going forward in terms of travel and face-to-face meetings and that type of thing? AS: I think it’s an evolving thought process. Initially, at the front end of this crisis, we all saw the benefits of staying at home and working remotely and using technology to compensate. There was a great deal of enthusiasm and everyone bought in. As this has dragged on, there’s been different views about the merits of that and the efficacy of it all. To some extent, it does vary depending on your location. We’ve been very fortunate here in Australia to have a slightly different experience from our colleagues in Europe and the US.  ET: The next major topic I want to tackle was this concept of corporate social responsibility and litigation finance in environmental social governance, or ESG. CSR is becoming a pretty powerful trend in global investing, so I wanted to explore the implications for the litigation finance asset class. What are you hearing from your shareholder base about CSR and ESG in terms of their importance, and what pressures are those shareholders putting on public companies these days? PM: From LCM’s perspective, I suppose we have had two experiences. One, the public markets through the securities exchange here in Australia, and then more recently the London stock exchange, are probably two quite different experiences. So I think investors out of the UK and Europe have been far more focused and have an expectation far more than I recollect that we’ve had here in Australia, and that’s not to say that these issues are not present in Australia. It’s probably more of a timing thing, but we’re very conscious of it. What we need to wrestle with is, as a relatively small listed entity, is what capacity we have to wade into this. So we’re very conscious of it and we do have principles associated with that. AS: Definitely, it’s an increasingly important area of relevance to all our shareholders. What we have found as we’ve shifted from the ASX300 to ASX200 is that there are more ESG-specific type funds that are interested in a stock that’s compliant with ESG obligations, and as a consequence of that, we initiated our own process to have a formal ESG policy. It’s a work in progress and something that we’re developing with internal stakeholders and well as external stakeholders. It’s a value that resonates throughout the whole company. NP: ESG and CSR considerations are becoming increasingly important for privately funded investors as well. And we get quite a lot of questions from them about how we’re thinking about this. On the CSR side, the way we’re approaching it—we tend to think of litigation finance as ultimately about investing to facilitate access to justice. And for the most part, obviously, we’re doing that as an investment in the expectation of a return. But there is a wider need in society for access to justice and legal advice where those situations can’t be funded on a commercial basis. And we have felt that it’s important as an investor in the legal world that we play our part in that area too. It’s for that reason that we set up Therium Access 18 months ago. ET: Let’s move on to the third topic, industry growth, and implications for innovation. At a macro level, the industry arguably is growing in three main ways: growth in the number of jurisdictions allowing litigation finance, increasing penetration within existing markets, and then growth through product innovation. So let’s take a closer look at product innovation as a growth factor. Perhaps each of you can comment on what your business has done to innovate in the litigation finance market within the last 2-3 years.   PM: At LCM, we’ve tried to look at business development in a very different way to how the industry might have looked at this previously, so we look at the available market in two ways. One is those who use litigation finance for necessity, and those through choice, so I think the larger part of the market which remains sort of un-penetrated and unaddressed by our industry globally is providing it to large sophisticated well-capitalized corporates. And I think that’s a very interesting part of the market for us, I think it’s an interesting part of the market for the industry as a whole. I think that’s where a lot of our focus has been in the last 2-3 years. ET: Neil, how about you in terms of innovation at Therium? NP: Certainly we’ve seen a lot of innovation in the development of product. Or perhaps to put in another way, in deployment techniques. Our core business is built around an ability to assess and to price litigation risk. But the way in which that investment has been delivered and the way it’s been structured has become a lot more varied in recent years. We put a great deal of resources into developing those techniques, whether it’s portfolio funding of different types, corporate portfolios, law firm funding, or claim monetization. These aren’t new areas, we’ve been at this for a long time. But certainly, our level of sophistication in how we do them has increased dramatically in the last few years. I think also in terms of sophistication, we’re working with an AI firm called Solomonic, to bring a more data-driven approach to our investment process as well. I think that’s another theme. The last point on this: I think the market is in an interesting point now where funders are starting to drive certain parts of the litigation landscape. So instead of being passive recipients of cases from law firms, funders are now playing an important role in shaping litigation trends and what case types do and don’t develop.  AS: From a non-product perspective, I think the evolution of the fund management model is growing, it’s something that has had roots in the last five years, but is now being more warmly embraced by the litigation funders as well as PE investors.  Looking forward, as Neil mentioned, a more active role for litigation funders in the investments is something that I think will grow. We are looking to try to shift our focus from being an agent to being a principal and actually owning claims, judgments, and awards. There are various other strategies we’re looking at, including downside risk management, cracking the holy grail we all talk about of defense-side funding. And then potentially even moving into law firm ownership, to take advantage of this shift that seems to be evolving around the world.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Invenio Partner Warns Automation Bias Is the Real AI Risk in Funding Underwriting

An Invenio LLP partner has published a detailed argument that the principal danger of artificial intelligence in litigation finance underwriting is not fabricated citations but the quiet erosion of the human judgment that underwriting depends on.

According to Real Talk About AI in Litigation Finance Underwriting, written by Brenna Legaard, large language models perform reliably on well-defined, data-rich tasks such as analyzing prior art and preparing claim charts, and they work without fatigue or anchoring bias. What they cannot do is predict case outcomes, because the training data does not contain them. Models learn from published opinions, while the vast majority of disputes end in confidential settlements that are never mapped. Legaard writes that models "have known knowns, perhaps known unknowns, and no unknown unknowns whatsoever."

The piece cites a 2024 study finding hallucination rates between 58% and 88% on factual legal questions, with the weakest performance on less prominent cases, and notes that model accuracy degrades as input length grows. Its sharper concern is automation bias: decision-makers deferring to polished output under time pressure, so that "the model's confident framing then becomes an unwary underwriter's confident framing."

Legaard draws a parallel to McKinsey research on insurance underwriting, where firms that mandated black-box models over human judgment found that staff lost faith in the models and underwriting skills atrophied. The recommended response is cultural rather than technical: open discussion of where AI use introduces confirmation bias, and hiring underwriters who interrogate outputs rather than merely producing them faster.

Commercial

Indemnity Costs Order Turns Prince Harry Claimants’ ATE Shortfall Into a Live Liability

The seven celebrity claimants in the failed privacy action against the Daily Mail have been ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis and to make a payment on account of £9.54m by 28 August, crystallising a gap between their after-the-event insurance cover and the publisher's claimed costs.

As reported by the Law Society Gazette, Mr Justice Nicklin found that the case went "well outside the norm" and that its "conduct was unreasonable to a high degree." The judge described the action as "litigation conceived and pleaded on an unjustifiably wide canvas," which was "speculative at origin and depended substantially on inference," with serious allegations maintained over a prolonged period on an inadequate evidential foundation.

The claims of unlawful information-gathering, brought by claimants including the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John, were dismissed last month following an 11-week trial. Associated Newspapers had exceeded its approved budget by more than £18.6m, with total costs amounting to what claimant lawyers called an "eye-watering" £34,481,622.54. The claimants hold legal expenses insurance covering £16.2m.

Nicklin J declined to impose a cap on recoverable costs, though he described the publisher's costs as "striking." The payment on account was set at £9,544,355, close to the £9,950,624.37 sought by Associated, which represented 65% of incurred pre-budgeted costs and 90% of budgeted costs.

The order converts a previously theoretical insurance shortfall into an immediate obligation, and stands as a reminder of how far ATE limits can fall short of defendants' actual costs in heavily contested, long-running litigation.

Commercial

Rugby Head Injury Claimants Appoint Independent Counsel Over Funder and Law Firm Group Ties

Hundreds of struck-out rugby head injury claims have been granted relief from sanctions in principle after the players switched solicitors, in a ruling that also records the appointment of independent counsel to advise the claimants on their position relative to their new law firm and their litigation funder, which sit in the same corporate group.

As reported by Legal Futures, Senior Master Cook allowed the claims to proceed despite non-compliance with unless orders on disclosure of medical records, taking "comfort" from the change of solicitor. The litigation involves around 1,000 claimants across rugby union and rugby league who allege serious head injuries from collision forces in matchplay and training, and that the governing bodies did not do enough to protect them. Between the two groups, 530 claimants stood struck out.

The players moved from Rylands Garth, described by the judge as "a relatively new firm with one qualified solicitor," to class action specialists KP Law, with Leigh Day assisting. Master Cook said that had the original solicitor continued to conduct the litigation, "I could not have had any confidence that future court orders would be complied with timeously or at all."

A witness statement from former Wales international Alix Popham, on behalf of the union players committee, said the players have appointed James Oldnall, managing partner of Milberg London, as independent counsel to advise them on their position "vis-à-vis KP Law and [litigation funder] Asertis (as Asertis and KP are part of the same corporate group)."

Relief will be subject to conditions to be decided at a further hearing, with minimum terms including payment of the defendants' costs of securing compliance and production of the missing documents.