Trending Now
Commercial Deals

New research shows companies with large claims recover more and preserve budgets by using legal finance as part of their class action opt out strategies

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases new independent research demonstrating the value of legal finance for companies with valuable commercial class action claims. In recent years, Burford has seen an increasing number of major corporations choosing to opt out of class action lawsuits to pursue high value claims individually and has commissioned independent research to examine the trend in greater depth.

Although companies are currently still more likely to remain in the class than they are to opt out, the research reveals that their reasons for doing so are economic—and solvable with legal finance, which de-risks the choice to opt out and provides a clear benefit to corporations with high value claims. As most legal finance is non-recourse, companies can receive risk-free funding to pursue meritorious claims as individual plaintiffs, as well as to accelerate the often-significant value represented by pending claims.

Given the results of the research, Burford expects the trend toward opt outs will continue, with major companies choosing to rethink their opt out strategies with legal finance.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “Burford’s independent research on commercial class actions demonstrates the clear benefit that legal finance provides to companies with significant claims. If you’re a GC and you have a claim that’s big enough to merit opting out, you should, because you’ll recover more, and you can do so without budget implications by using legal finance capital. Further, your competitors who are already using legal finance are opting out three times more often. As a former GC, I recognize the importance of maintaining control and maximizing returns in litigation, and Burford works with many GCs to use legal finance to reduce risk, maintain greater control and enhance the likelihood of achieving greater recoveries.”

Key findings from the research include:

  • Use of legal finance correlates to opting out.
    • Use of legal finance is 3x likelier among companies that mostly/always opt out vs. companies that mostly/always remain in the class, and 2x likelier than all companies.
  • Companies’ top reasons for opting out are maintaining control and maximizing return.
    • The #1 reason large company GCs opt out is their fiduciary duty to maximize recoveries to their company.
  • Companies’ top reasons to stay in the class are economic.
    • Not being able to justify the cost of pursuing an opt out claim (64%) and not having the budget to do so (61%) are the top 2 reasons companies remain in the class.
    • Legal finance ameliorates both cost and budget constraints.
  • GCs say the availability of legal finance would impact their opt out strategy.
    • 1 of 2 (52%) say that while they have not used legal finance, its availability would positively impact the decision to opt out. 

The Report on Class Action Recoveries can be downloaded on Burford’s website, where full results are also available. The research report was conducted in June 2022 by GLG via an online survey, with responses from 150 US GCs, heads of litigation and other senior in-house lawyers responsible for their companies’ commercial litigation.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Sydney and Hong Kong.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jeffrey Stern, Partner, Reed Smith

By John Freund |

Jeffrey Stern plays a leading role as partner in the Financial Industry Group resident in Reed Smith's New York office. With more than 30 years’ experience in structured finance and derivatives, Jeffrey brings a deep commercial sensibility to his practice.

He has completed securitizations, structured credit facilities, and derivatives/structured products transactions involving an exceptionally wide range of esoteric (and mature) asset types. His practice includes CLOs (including private CLOs), CFOs, and rated feeders, litigation pre-settlement funding, consumer loan finance, equipment lease finance, music royalty finance, financing and securitization of insurance-related assets (including life settlements and broker commissions), and specialty finance. Additionally, Jeffrey has worked in Latin America and the Caribbean for nearly 20 years, focusing on cross-border assets and cash flow financings.

Company Name and Description: Reed Smith is a dynamic international law firm dedicated to helping clients move their businesses forward. With an inclusive culture and innovative mindset, they deliver smarter, more creative legal services that drive better outcomes for clients. Their deep industry knowledge, long-standing relationships and collaborative structure make them the go-to partner for complex disputes, transactions, and regulatory matters.

Company Website:  https://www.reedsmith.com/en

Founded: Pittsburgh in 1877

Headquarters: New York

Areas of Focus: Finance, Structured Finance, Financial Services, Collateralized Loan Obligations, Latin America

Member Quote: “The field of litigation pre-settlement funding (and litigation funding generally) is an increasingly important category, and a particular area of innovation in documentation and structuring, within the esoteric structured finance market. As a result, it has become an area of real focus for the Reed Smith structured finance team.”

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Industry Leaders Share Views on the State of Third-Party Funding

By Harry Moran |

Legal funding has never before achieved such widespread adoption and acceptance within the legal industry, whilst simultaneously attracting increasingly vociferous opposition from those who wish to see limitations on its influence enforced. 

In its latest Quarterly Focus, Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) looks at the prospects for the third-party litigation funding market in the year ahead, highlighting both the tremendous progress the industry has made and the persistent critics who continue to call for enhanced regulations. In the article, CDR garners insights into what the coming year may hold from senior executives at some of the largest litigation funders, as well as those working with funders at law firms and consultancies.

The established and accepted position of legal funding is a key talking point with funders, as Burford Capital’s David Perla emphatically states that “legal finance is mainstream”, whilst William Marra from Certum Group points out that after many years of educating and raising awareness, “litigation funding is integral to the business models of many and maybe even most law firms.”

Despite the achievement of becoming a mainstream feature of the legal services industry, critics of third-party funding have not relented in their vocal opposition to its use, and if anything, have turning up the heat on lawmakers to introduce restrictions. Boris Ziser, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, offers the straightforward rebuttal to these critics that he doesn’t “see how anyone can argue with the fact that litigation funding increases access to justice.”

Similarly, Avenue 33’s CEO, Rebecca Berrebi points out that the most prominent critique of third-party funding, the US Chamber of Commerce cannot be considered an unbiased observer as it “is funded by the big defendants in many of the cases that are funded”.Additional analysis from these top executives on the various legislative efforts to restrict legal funding, and the role of the courts, can be found in the CDR article.

Commercial Legal Innovation

A Funder’s Top Tips on Litigation Valuation for GCs

By Harry Moran |

As litigation funders strive to forge closer relationships with lawyers, one benefit for all participants in the legal industry is the opportunity to share best practices.

In an article for Today’s General Counsel, Jeffery Lula, principal at litigation funder GLS Capital, suggests that in-house legal departments and GCs should adopt the litigation valuation approach used by litigation funders. Lula argues that in-house counsel “often take an ad hoc approach to valuation—which can lead to biased or imprecise evaluations”, whilst funders’ very longevity is tied to their ability to repeatedly evaluate lawsuits accurately. As a broad framework for litigation valuation, Lula highlights four key components that should be assessed: legal merits, damages, duration and collectability.

On the legal merits of any individual case, Lula suggests adding a level of ‘qualitative rigor’ by evaluating the probability of success for each significant milestone of the litigation, such as the probability of losing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. When it comes to assessing the scale of possible damages, Lula emphasizes that ‘damages are not created equal’, and that ‘this nuance regarding the certainty of damages is key to valuing a case.’

Whilst Lula acknowledges that the duration of a lawsuit is often hard to predict, he does point a particular spotlight on the scheduling order for courts, and the importance of understanding ‘whether the current scheduling order is likely to change.’ Lula closes his piece by noting that of all these components, collectability often receives less focus than others, and that it is of utmost importance for ‘in-house counsel to inquire whether the defendant entity is expendable.’