Trending Now
Commercial Slingshot Capital Special Features

Asset Recovery, Collectability and the Uses of Intelligence in Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ 

Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. 

EXECUTIVE SUMARY

  • Collectability risk has moved to the forefront of litigation finance as a result of the Covid-19 induced financial crisis
  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a niche area within litigation finance that requires a unique skill set to be successful

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • Asset recovery and enforcement is a component of any piece of litigation, but certainly more prominent in certain case types and during times of financial stress
  • There are many risks associated with asset recovery and enforcement actions which give rise to different investor return characteristics – higher volatility, higher potential returns, and longer durations, to name a few.

Expanding on a recent article I wrote about defendant collectability risk in the context of the current Covid-19 induced financial crisis, I have reached out to AVVISO, a firm specialising in enforcement and collection, to discuss some of the challenges litigation finance managers may face in the current environment.

The Covid-19 pandemic is forcing many industries to adapt to new realities. The litigation finance industry is no different. As new realities emerge, so do new opportunities, and as the dust settles, we anticipate the following developments:

  • Collectability risk will be assessed as rigorously as legal risk before any commitments are made against sovereigns and commercial counterparties affected by the crisis.
  • A growth in demand for asset recovery and enforcement funding.

This article explores how to effectively assess collectability and maximise returns on asset recovery investments. Key to both is a multidisciplinary approach to supplement the traditional legal one.

COLLECTABILITY RISK

Let us take a closer look at what it means to assess collectability in the context of the broader litigation finance underwriting process. Woodsford Litigation Funding provides an overview of the assessment process it employs, which is broadly representative of the wider industry. “The funder will focus on six fundamental criteria when evaluating a claimant-side litigation funding opportunity”:[1]

  1. Merits of the claim
  2. Claimant (e.g. motivations for seeking funding and prior litigation history)
  3. Strength of claimant’s legal representation
  4. Litigation budget
  5. Expected damages
  6. Respondents and recovery

Litigation funds are well-equipped to address the first five criteria. Between the formidable in-house legal knowledge of most funds, input from external law firms which are retained to provide opinions on the merits, and input from claimant’s counsel and other experts, funders have this covered.

However, fund managers without internal expertise may be on comparatively shakier ground when it comes to that final sixth point, which is concerning at a time when the importance of effectively assessing collectability risk has perhaps never been greater. So why is this?

Assets…but not only

A sophisticated methodology to properly assess collectability is not just about assets. It is also about humanising problems which are predominantly viewed through a legal lens. Whether the opposition is a state, corporation or individual, we would explore:

Key stakeholders

  • Profile and motivations of the main decision-makers
  • What is their level of resource and resolve?
  • How entrenched is their position: are they likely to settle or fight a protracted legal battle?
  • If the former, what do they perceive to be an acceptable settlement range?
  • How politicised is the dispute and how would a change of government impact a state’s attitude towards it?

Modus operandi: disputes

  • Are they currently or have they in the past been involved in other major disputes?
  • If so, what lessons can be gleaned from the experiences of others who have faced them?
  • Do they have a history of avoiding payment of judgment/award debts?
  • Could we face a scenario where we are competing with other creditors over a limited pool of assets?

Assets

  • What assets does the defendant/respondent hold directly in jurisdictions amenable to enforcement?
  • How leveraged are these assets? How has the current financial crisis impaired asset values?
  • What is their asset profile more broadly and how is their ownership of these assets structured (if not held directly)?
  • Would these structures impede our ability to attach key assets if we needed to?
  • Are there any indications that the defendant is actively dissipating assets or otherwise making themselves ‘award proof’?
  • Has the defendant been forced to sell off assets previously thought available for collection as a result of liquidity needs stemming from the financial crisis?

Commercial activities

  • What is the nature and extent of their ongoing commercial operations?
  • How viable are these operations long-term and how concerned should we be about any commercial vulnerabilities (e.g. high customer concentration)?
  • Are there any commercial vulnerabilities which could be exploited as part of a legal or enforcement strategy (e.g. unreported allegations of bribery)?

Enforcement plan

  • What is the proposed enforcement plan if no voluntary payments are made at the conclusion of the litigation/arbitration?
  • Is the proposed enforcement budget realistic?

And so on. These kinds of questions are answered by means of specialised open source research, human intelligence gathering and other investigative means. In short, collectability is at its heart an intelligence problem – not a legal one. This explains why funds are comparatively weaker at addressing this problem – because the underwriting process they employ is mainly underpinned by legal analysis.

There are of course powerful legal tools (e.g. discovery to identify bank accounts internationally) which can and should feed into the process of assessing collectability. As long as someone then takes the time to understand the data generated by legal means, and answers the ‘so what?’ question by placing it in the context of the broader intelligence picture.

One final point on collectability: it is fluid. Once litigation finance commitments are made, funds would be well-advised to thoroughly monitor how the answers to the above questions evolve over the duration (often years) of major legal disputes. In the same way that investment banks, private equity firms, and major corporations routinely use intelligence to inform their investments and operations, so too will the litigation finance industry, as it becomes more competitive and established.

ASSET RECOVERY 

We are frequently asked why asset recovery problems are so common. One reason is the ease with which judgment and award debtors can avoid paying what they owe – if they so choose – which must represent one of the most profound shortcomings of the legal process.

And it is easy. If a sophisticated fraudster, sovereign state, or hostile corporate makes a commercial or political decision not to pay a debt, then it is fairly straightforward for them to structure their affairs in such a way that makes it difficult, time consuming and costly for creditors to pursue them. The Covid-19 pandemic will only increase the propensity of debtors to follow this path.

Another reason is the failed enforcement approach adopted by many creditors. Typically, the legal team which secured an award or judgment goes on to inherit the enforcement problem if the other side refuses to pay. Often, this team is ill-suited to tackle what is a very different problem than winning the legal argument. Indeed, it is not uncommon for legal teams to inadvertently trigger this problem by adopting a process-driven ‘get the judgment’ approach, while failing to engage sufficiently throughout the lifetime of the dispute with the question their clients care about most: how will we get paid?

This creates enormous investment potential in the asset recovery space, especially now, yet it remains on the frontier of the litigation finance industry. We anticipate an increase in opportunities to invest in asset recovery and enforcement matters, and for more funds to develop the knowhow to maximise their returns on these investments. For example:

  • Monetising awards and judgments against sovereign states and/or state-owned enterprises
  • Funding and coordinating enforcement efforts against fraudsters and other recalcitrant commercial debtors
  • Providing capital and expertise to governments to assist with their efforts to repatriate proceeds of corruption (e.g. post regime change)
  • Investing in the non-performing loan (NPL) portfolios of financial institutions in emerging markets
  • Funding cross-border insolvencies and restructurings

So, how will we get paid?

Major asset recovery situations are complex problems requiring a flexible, coordinated and multi-disciplinary approach. If funds want to play this game well and maximise their returns on investments, then they need to retire the tired lawyer-investigator trope. Below is a sample of the methods in a multidisciplinary asset recovery playbook:

Legal

  • Relevant civil legal work in appropriate jurisdictions (e.g. for the purpose of discovery and to attach assets)
  • Criminal remedies (e.g. private criminal prosecutions and confiscation orders)
  • Insolvency tools

Intelligence

  • Open source intelligence (e.g. to map complex offshore structures and identify revenue streams or personal assets)
  • Human intelligence (identifying and developing relationships with individuals who have access to information of potentially critical importance to the recovery)
  • Surveillance (e.g. to establish a debtor’s pattern of life, identify key associates, or to serve documents)
  • Financial intelligence and forensic accounting
  • Software and other tools (e.g. eDiscovery and proprietary asset tracing software)

Stakeholder engagement

  • Diplomatic approaches (e.g. working with ambassadors to facilitate negotiations with governments)
  • Backchannel negotiations with opposition decision makers
  • Well-timed media and PR strategies (e.g. prior to elections in a sovereign enforcement case)

Secondary market solutions

  • Post-settlement monetisation
  • Identifying non-traditional buyers of awards and judgments. Examples include: hedge funds with existing country exposure seeking to strengthen their hand during sovereign debt restructurings; or global commodities companies which can use a sovereign award to offset their tax liabilities in-country.

This list is not exhaustive and every bullet point merits its own separate discussion. The point is that as with collectability, asset recovery is not just about identifying (and in this case pursuing) assets. It is also about creative problem solving and recognising that there are people on the other side of the equation whose commercial or political calculus needs to change.

Asset recovery situations should be overseen by asset recovery specialists – professionals who have an awareness and understanding of the uses and limitations of all the tools in the box and are able to deploy the right ones at the right time. Their individual specialisation matters less than their ability to coordinate international teams and provide overall strategic oversight.

If funds embrace the complexities of asset recovery and the need for a multidisciplinary approach, then the new frontier will be bountiful. If they follow too narrow a path, then it may prove unforgiving.

Investor Insights

For investors in the litigation finance asset class, there should be an appreciation that enforcement and asset recovery represents a niche within a niche. Accordingly, these types of investment exposures have a different risk-reward profile than traditional litigation finance as they are much more about collection risk than litigation risk.  Consequently, proficiency in this area requires a different skill set from a fund manager perspective, and that capability can either be internalized or outsourced depending on the frequency of these opportunities. Concerns in this segment of the market are around ultimate collectability and the timelines involved with collection, both of which may be difficult to assess at the outset.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Ed is currently designing a product for institutional investors to provide unique access to the asset class.

[1] See https://woodsfordlitigationfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Practical-Guide-to-Litigation-Funding_ROW.pdf

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

By John Freund |

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Read More