Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives”

April 8, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives”

On Thursday April 4th, 2024, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event titled “Litigation Finance: Investor Perspectives.” The panel discussion featured Bobby Curtis (BC), Principal at Cloverlay, Cesar Bello (CB), Partner at Corbin Capital, and Zachary Krug (ZK), Managing Director at NorthWall Capital. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital. Below are some key takeaways from the event: If you were to pinpoint some factors that you pay particular attention to when analyzing managers & their track records, what would those be? BC: It’s a similar setup to any strategy that you’re looking at–you want to slice and dice a track record as much as possible, to try to get to the answer of what’s driving returns. Within litigation finance, that could be what sub-sectors are they focused on, is it intellectual property? Is it ex-US deals? What’s the sourcing been? How has deployment been historically relative to the capital they’re looking to raise now? It’s an industry that is starting to become data rich. You have publicly-listed companies that have some pretty interesting track record that’s available. I’m constantly consuming track record data and we’re building our internal database to be able to comp against. Within PE broadly, a lot of people are talking about DPI is the new IRR, and I think that’s particularly true in litigation finance. If I’m opening a new investment with a fund I’ve never partnered with before, my eyes are going to ‘how long have they been at it, and what’s the realization activity?’ There is also a qualitative aspect to this–has the team been together for a while, do they have a nice mix of legal acumen, investment and structuring acumen, what’s the overall firm look like? It’s a little bit art and science, but not too dissimilar from any track record analysis with alternative investment opportunities. Zach, you’ve got a bit more of a credit-focus. What are you looking for in your opportunities?  ZK: We want to understand where the realizations are coming from. So if I’m looking at a track record, I want to understand if these realizations are coming through settlements or late-stage trial events. From my perspective as an investor, I’d be more attracted to those late-stage settlements, even if the returns were a little bit lower than a track record that had several large trial wins. And I say that because when you’re looking at the types of cases that you’ll be investing in, you want to invest in cases that will resolve before trial and get away from that binary risk. You want cases that have good merit, make economic sense, and have alignment between claimant and law firm, and ultimately are settleable by defendants. That type of track record is much more replicable than if you have a few outsized trial wins. What are things that managers generally do particularly well in this asset class, and particularly poorly?  CB: I don’t want to paint with a broad brush here. With managers it can be idiosyncratic, but there can be structuring mistakes – not getting paid for extension risks, not putting in IRR provisions. Portfolio construction mistakes like not deploying enough and being undercommitted, which is a killer. Conversely, on the good side, we’ve seen a ton of activity around insurance, which seems to be a bigger part of the landscape. We also welcome risk management optionality with secondaries. Some folks are clearly skating to where the puck is going and doing more innovative things, so it really depends who you’re dealing with. But on the fundamental underwriting, you rarely see a consistent train wreck – it’s more on the other stuff where people get tripped up. How do you approach valuation of litigation finance portfolios? What I’m more specifically interested in is (i) do you rely on manager portfolio valuations, (ii) do you apply rules of thumb to determine valuations, (iii) do you focus your diligence efforts on a few meaningful cases or review & value the entire portfolio, and (iv) do you use third parties to assist in valuations?  CB: If you’re in a fund, you’re relying on the manager’s marks. What we do is not that – we own the assets directly or make co-investments. We see a lot of people approach this differently. Sometimes we have the same underlying exposure as partners and they’re marking it differently. Not to say that one party is rational and the other is not, it’s just hard to do. So this is one we struggle with. I don’t love mark-to-motion. I know there’s a tug toward trying to fair value things more, but as we’ve experienced in the venture space, you can put a lot of valuations in DPI, but I like to keep it at cost unless there is a material event. Check out the full 1-hour discussion here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.