Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

August 28, 2019

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

The following was contributed by Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM). The recent and well documented attacks by activist short-seller Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have brought litigation finance into the limelight. Whilst largely focussed on Burford’s accounting methods and corporate governance, the hedge fund’s accusations have raised concerns around the practices and legitimacy of the industry more broadly. One key question raised is around whether funders should even be listed on a public market. More pointedly, why can companies with questionable governance practices, an unpredictable revenue forecast, and operating in an industry with limited access to a secondary market against which claims can be evaluated, be listed? A lot of this is down to varying levels of understanding around Burford’s accounting practices, and indeed those of the wider industry. It is important to recognise that while there are many companies operating in the growing litigation finance space, they do not all do the same thing, or account the same way and shouldn’t all be tarred with the same brush. Fair value accounting – adopted by Burford and others under IFRS 9, is not an evil. But the application of it does matter. There are differing ways of adopting fair value accounting and how it is used is ultimately a management team decision. The accounting treatment for litigation projects varies across the industry and some approaches are more reliant on subjective judgement by management teams than others. For a clear representation, fair value numbers should always be given alongside historical cash accounting figures, so investors and counterparties are able to see the underlying performance of the business. It is vital that funders are fully transparent and have numbers that can be easily verified and valued externally. In practice, this entails the development of a fair value accounting method that can be scrutinised and tested by external parties. This probably results in lower valuations than management may have reached alone. But ultimately, as we’ve seen over the past fortnight, it is prudent to be cautious and conservative. The importance of disclosure to shareholders and clients cannot be underestimated. Subject to the right application of fair value accounting, there are several significant advantages to being listed – relating to transparency, regulation and access to capital – that make it a highly appropriate model for funders. Being listed on any stock exchange ensures a level of regulation and transparency that the private markets do not. We say this with some authority having been listed on both a main market (the Australian Securities Exchange) and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”). Our experience has been that there is little difference in standards and accountability between the two. As a constituent of a public market, there is pressure to ensure that standards of corporate governance are upheld. Natural checks exist to hold companies to account in the form of selling investors, analysts publishing negative research, and, at the most extreme level, activists or short sellers publicly targeting companies. What’s difficult is that there is no formal regulation of the litigation finance sector, although its introduction in multiple jurisdictions is inevitable in time. It is hard to predict what form it will take, but I have no doubt that respectable funders will welcome it when it arrives, and we should do. In the meantime, our listed status provides a platform through which we can continue to meet regulatory standards. This is particularly important for firms like LCM looking to fund corporate portfolio transactions. Naturally, sophisticated corporates have stringent KYC protocols, and being listed demonstrates a level of oversight and transparency around where your capital is coming from, often in stark contrast to some. Furthermore, litigation finance is capital-intensive by its very nature and being listed provides funders with access to public sources of capital in the equity and bond markets. Equity raises provide funders with permanent capital to invest from the balance sheet, thereby avoiding any potential liquidity mismatches that might occur with some alternative fund structures. It also means investors of all types (from institutions to individuals) can gain access to the asset class’s attractive, uncorrelated returns. There will be a failure in this industry soon. This will be in large part due to the use of contingent revenues to hide loss positions, as well as funders being over reliant on one part of the market, such as single case investments. This is clearly not a sustainable business model and further illustrates the need for the considered use of fair value accounting. Recent events have been no help to the ongoing education process around the benefits of legal finance generally. It is a rude awakening that the practices of one business in our industry have raised so many questions around the governance and reporting of its peers. It will take time for the jitters to settle. In the meantime, the regulatory oversight that being a listed company provides should be seen as a positive. Nick Rowles-Davies is Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) and leads the company’s EMEA operations.

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.