Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding May Be a Lifeline for Businesses and Law Firms Distressed by Coronavirus Shutdown

The following piece was contributed by Joshua Libling, Portfolio Counsel at Validity Finance, LLC.

Litigation finance has always billed itself as a way of helping meritorious claims regardless of the economic strength of the litigant. The coronavirus pandemic is now exerting enormous and growing stress on law firms and clients. If ever there was a moment for litigation finance to live up to its own hype, this is it. We think it can.

Keeping Plaintiff Cases Running at Reduced Cost.  Paying hourly fees to a law firm may be low on the priority list when weighed against retaining key employees or preserving cash for an economic re-start. But having the right priorities doesn’t change the fact that clients with pending claims deserve to see an appropriate return.  Funders can assist in at least two ways.

First, by converting hourly rate cases into hybrid contingency fee cases, clients can continue litigating claims without outlaying funds. Funders will pay law firms 50% or more of their hourly fees and potentially all costs, as needed, in return for about 20% of any recovery.  The law firm would also be entitled to a similar contingency, leaving clients with the bulk of the case proceeds. This can be good for both the client and the law firm. The client gets to reduce its expenditures. The law firm takes or continues a case that may have become a de facto contingency case anyway because of the client’s resources constraints, or may have disappeared altogether, and gets 50% of its billables paid now with participation in the upside later.

Second, economic pressures unrelated to the merits of the litigation can cause clients to accept unreasonably low settlement offers.  Sometimes settling is the right thing to do.  But settling for too little is no different than any other asset fire-sale. A funder can help by ensuring that the resources exist to continue the litigation, if that is the best course. Again, this should help all parties. The client doesn’t sell an asset on the cheap, and the law firm protects a meritorious ongoing case.

Monetizing New Plaintiff Cases.  This is a time when many clients need to be taking a hard look at their balance sheets and maximizing their assets. A meritorious claim is an asset, but it is an unproductive asset unless you litigate it. Funding can help monetize a company’s litigation assets. Even in the pre-litigation, investigation stage, funders can assist in identifying claims, independently confirming case merits, connecting clients without lawyers to a small group of suitable and efficient counsel to choose from, and making the necessary investments to effectively pursue the case. In fair funding transactions, clients will still retain the lion’s share of the upside. Because a funder’s capital is non-recourse to any other collateral, this kind of arrangement offers  upside opportunity without downside risk to a client, and a contingency recovery to the law firm. Clients can take a litigation asset they would otherwise get nothing from, turn it into something productive, and minimize risk while doing so.

Helping Defendants With Trouble Paying.  The lack of capital and decreased ability to tolerate outflows is not limited to the plaintiff side of the v. Law firms are seeing clients unable or unwilling to properly fund their defense, and clients are being faced with difficult trade offs between continuing to defend their legal rights and directing that capital to their core business needs. Funding can help these clients and law firms also. Defense-side cases can be turned into partial contingency matters through the negotiation of success fees or similar arrangements that define and monetize what victory means on the defense side. Funding can draw its return from that success fee and pay a portion of defense costs to the law firm in the interim, reducing the burden on the client (perhaps to nothing during the pendency of litigation) and providing the law firm with a reliable stream of paid work.

Bundling Plaintiff and Defense Cases to Reduce Fee Exposure.  Law firms and clients look forward to inflows of proceeds from strong plaintiff cases.  Clients must defend claims against them.  By bundling plaintiff and defense-side litigation together, funding provides capital for both affirmative claims and defensive needs. In effect, the client uses the value of the plaintiff-side litigations to reduce their costs on the defense side, thereby reducing outlays and smoothing their risk profile.  Most obviously, the risk of continuing fee exposure can be greatly mitigated. This can work at the law firm level as well as the client level.

Enhancing Law Firm Growth. Law firms will need to pitch to companies facing just the kind of liquidity or capital issues that funders can help solve. Law firms with pre-existing relationships and in-place portfolios with funders will have a competitive edge because they can offer contingency fee arrangements at the outset of the competitive process. Funding can thus speed up client matter acquisition. Funding is not limited to plaintiff-side litigations. A firm that has a stable of plaintiff-side contingency cases can use those litigations, and funding, to create bundled portfolios of mixed defense-plaintiff matters. Moreover, funding can provide a mechanism for investing in firm growth, allowing firms to share the risk of large portfolios of cases, or even to hire new partners to bring business to the firm.

Difficult times call for creative solutions and new ways of doing business. But being creative doesn’t have to mean doing something untested. In the United States, litigation funding has been providing increased liquidity and decreased risk to companies and firms for over a decade. In Australia and the United Kingdom, funding has been used effectively for even longer.

Litigation assets should not be squandered, nor sold for bargain basement prices, nor made to sit idle for months or years when clients urgently need capital. The time for funding to make a significant contribution to clients and firms is now.  If you have litigation assets and need to extract value from them, or need to reduce your litigation costs or risks, this is the moment to be creative.  Funding can help.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.