Trending Now
Commercial

LF Dealmakers Forum Brings Together Legal Funders, Lawyers, Academics and In-House Counsel

By John Freund |

This past Wednesday and Thursday saw New York City play host to the 2nd annual LF Dealmakers Forum. Hosted by Wendy Chou, whose popular IP Dealmakers Forum served as a launchpad for a similar conference aimed at the litigation funding market, the sold out two-day event brought together industry experts and novices alike.

Keynote Address

The event kicked off with a keynote address from Stephen Susman, founding partner of Susman Godfrey, and one of most successful plaintiffs lawyers in US. Susman recounted his early days as essentially one of the first litigation funders, having formed his contingency-only plaintiff-side law firm in the late 70s, back when the notion of contingency-only raised more than a few eyebrows.

Susman saw himself filling a need in the marketplace, and indeed by the end of the decade had grown so popular that in 1981 he landed the cover of American Lawyer, which itself founded the legal journalism market. In the process of running his contingency-fee practice, Susman learned how to construct fee agreements that provide the right incentives, how to handle cases efficiently, how to compensate associates and partners properly, and how to teach younger lawyers to be effective at their trade.

These are all ideals that Susman continues to preach. The theme of Susman’s speech was how contingency leads to efficiency. The more skin in the game that attorneys have, the more likely they are to question the efficacy of their discovery motions, and reconsider or reevaluate their overall case strategy with an eye towards efficiency over simply a ‘more is better’ approach. “Lawyers who are paid by the hour have no incentive to be efficient,” Susman said. “Even if they give you a discount. It’s like buying a suit at Barney’s half price. It’s already been marked up four-times.”

To that end, Susman advocates funders adopt a 50/50 fee model with the law firms they partner with. He recommends funders insist that law firms also maintain skin in the game. Susman further encouraged the industry to play an active role in reducing the cost of litigation. He advocates for public jury trials, as opposed to private dispute resolution.

Susman ended his address by suggesting that funders have a role to play in terms of advising their clients on how best to negotiate with their law firms. While acknowledging that this advice goes against his own best interests, Susman stated unequivocally that litigation funders – with their legal expertise, and the fact that they are no longer lawyers and are therefore operating as advisors – can guide clients on how best to negotiate with law firms on fee arrangements. This is an area where funders can provide value to the client, outside of pure financing.

Panel Discussions

Panels ranged from a broad overview of the funding industry, to coverage of specific sector topics. In the first panel of the day, which provided a bird’s eye view on the state of the industry, panelists highlighted the industry’s monumental growth, both in single-case and portfolio funding, and within boutique and AmLaw 200 law firms alike.

Of course, as firms become more knowledgeable, they are becoming more sophisticated. Five years ago many law firms hadn’t even heard of litigation funding, whereas now they are experts; some even holding auction processes for funding, and others entertaining offers from funders as a source of leverage for settlement negotiations. In the latter example, a law firm will receive an offer from a funder with no intention of accepting. They simply approach the counterparty in the claim and ask for a higher settlement figure than what the funder is willing to invest. Clearly, the marketplace is growing more sophisticated.

What’s more, law firms are negotiating better fee splits on their behalf. Years ago, a funder would receive 100-150% of their investment recouped on first-money back. Today, law firms are negotiating a chunk of that first money, and even integrating success fees (usually in the 20% range) to secure their spot at the front of the line.

On a CIO-specific panel, the panelists discussed their preferences for types of cases to fund. Obviously, IP topped the list, given the lengthy time-to-settlements and high upfront costs. International arbitration was also mentioned, yet most funders broaden their scope to include any commercial litigation opportunities. To keynote speaker Susman’s point, panelists did point out that they prefer to get law firms on board with fee sharing, via 50/50 splits, yet they noted how some law firms simply aren’t comfortable with risk. Therefore, if a case is right, the funder will cover 100% of fees if necessary.

When asked about the biggest threats to funding, panelists agreed that all of the overly optimistic or naïve capital coming into the space could lead to some negative outcomes, like funder misbehavior which may incur negative headlines. These could then be seized upon by regulators in a bid to exert broad industry oversight. Allison Chock of Bentham IMF noted that the Chamber of Commerce is now approaching state legislatures, and none of them know what litigation finance is or how it works.  So they are ramming through legislation with people who don’t understand the industry. This is a cause for concern.

And to the point of ‘dumb money’ in the space, Chock illustrated an example of how an influx of capital into a growing sector can lead to extremely bad decision-making. She told of receiving an email from a claimant in a case they had looked at that another funder had heard that Bentham was interested, so they simply threw money at the claimant. Chock’s firm signed an NDA, but that didn’t mean they were interested. They simply wanted to diligence the claim. Chock noted how this was the third such instance she heard about, where another funder jumped into a claim simply because her firm had been looking at it.

“A fool and his money are soon parted,” warned Chock.

A Case Study

Perhaps the most interesting panel of the day centered around a case study of how litigation finance literally saved a business’ life. Business Logic (BL) had a trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract claim against a subsidiary of Morningstar. At the time, BL was a 20-person firm with annual revenue of $4MM. All of its margin and savings were tied up in the litigation.

The case had been in the works for a few years, and BL was so confident in their claim they committed much time and money to fighting it. Yet they reached a breaking point. The company was going to have to reduce its workforce to continue the claim, unless it found outside financing. They reached out to a trio of funders, and Lake Whillans responded. The funder provided fee coverage and even working capital to BL. Now, as the trial approached, law firm Yetter Coleman could find top experts and formulate a robust case.

Suddenly, Morningstar got nervous. No longer could they threaten the small Business Logic by bleeding them dry pre-trial. The trial was approaching, and BL had a strong case, and was well-capitalized. The damages claim was for $65MM, and Morningstar was so concerned about a multiple of that number being rewarded, they settled for nearly the full value of the claim – $61MM. It was the 9th largest trade secrets settlement at the time, and to this day remains the largest in the state of Illinois.

BL has since grown its business to 150 employees, and changed its name to NextCapital. The story illustrates the quintessential David v. Goliath dynamic that litigation funding facilitates, and highlights how funding can not only save a company from going under, but help it thrive well into the future.

Final Thoughts

Given the packed house, it’s safe to say there will likely be a third annual conference next year. The growing popularity of conferences like LF Dealmakers underscores the mainstream acceptance of litigation finance. I personally noticed the diversity of attendees at this conference compared to the initial installment. There were more lawyers, in-house counsel and academics this time around, and I expect that will continue into next year and beyond.

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