Trending Now
Commercial Slingshot Capital Special Features

Make no mistake, Litigation Finance IS Impact Investing!

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

  • Litigation finance is instrumental in driving societal, environmental and governance change
  • The industry has yet to position itself as an Impact Investing asset class
  • There are few other financial industries that drive similar societal benefits through the application of finance

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • When assessing portfolios, look beyond the financial returns and focus on the social impact of the various pieces of litigation supported by the manager
  • Returns can be tangible (financial) and intangible (societal) and this is an asset class that exhibits both
  • Litigation finance should be viewed and characterized as a form of Impact Investing for purposes of investors’ portfolio allocation

From the first time I was introduced to litigation finance, be it consumer or commercial, I was quite surprised by the case studies.  What surprised me was not the outcome or the quantum of damages or the amount of profit being made by lawyers or litigation funders. Not at all.  What surprised me was the behaviour of the people involved on the defense side (typically) of these cases, and how blatant some of the actions of the defendant were as it related to the damages caused to the plaintiff (some of which I have highlighted here on the Slingshot blog).  Not being a litigator and not having experienced the dark underbelly of corporate litigation, I was somewhat surprised by the cavalier attitude that some folks had as it related to breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and similar legal issues. Yes, it was the social justice aspect of litigation finance that first appalled and then attracted me to the sector, closely followed by the return profile (I am a capitalist after all).  This article discusses the nature of litigation finance and why it is ideally suited to be considered an Impact Investing asset class.

So, what is Impact Investing? 

It seems like the financial industry is constantly trying to put new monikers on investment strategies to appeal to different segments of investors and to differentiate their products.  The term “Impact Investing” is the latest in a trend of investment branding that has had strong appeal with a segment of investors, including Foundations, Endowments, Pension Plans, Family Offices and High Net Worth individuals who traditionally focused their efforts on investments that drove strong absolute returns. Before Impact Investing, there was Socially Responsible Investing and Environmental Social Governance (“ESG”) Investing, Green investing, Social Investing and so on.  For the remainder of this article I will refer to Impact Investing as a catchall for these references, even though each have nuanced differences.

The Global Impact Investing Network (“GIIN”), a UK based non-profit organization dedicated to Impact Investing, defines the amorphous term as “any investment into companies, organizations and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”.  As you will see from the many examples below, the underlying investments of many funders fall squarely into the Impact Investing mandate.

The Case Studies

The first case that hit home for me was Joe Radcliff vs. State Farm, whereby Joe identified that the insurance company was not treating like claims equally, so he decided to let the state regulator know. This one action, which was pure in its purpose to protect consumers, set off a chain of events that ultimately led to fourteen felony counts laid against Joe’s roofing business and its eventual demise.  Well, almost.  While 385 of 400 jobs were ultimately eliminated in short order due to the actions of an overzealous insurer, Joe’s business was able to live another day thanks to the litigation finance provided by Bentham IMF. Ultimately, Joe was able to restart his business, and more importantly, the defendant (oddly, the plaintiff in this case) was forced to pay $17 million in damages and interest.

At a September 2019 LF Dealmakers Forum conference, Boaz Weinstein from Lake Whillans guided the audience through an interesting case involving a software company named Business Logic that was decimated by the actions of one of its former customers who decided to copy their software in contravention of their supply contract.  Business Logic ultimately settled for a reported $60MM amount. That business now lives on as Next Capital, and employs 150 people thanks to the efforts of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and litigation finance.

Then there is the case of Miller UK vs. Caterpillar, which contains a somewhat similar fact pattern to Business Logic, whereby the actions of a former customer (contract breach and trade secret misappropriation) almost led to the demise of the business resulting in 300 of 400 employees being terminated. With litigation finance provided by Juris Capital LLC, Miller fought back and ultimately won a $75 million award.  The business has gone on to rehire many of its former employees and recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. The company has set a target of £50 million in revenue over the next five years.

While these cases are poignant, one may conclude that as commercial cases, this is simply the cost of doing business (I respectfully disagree). However, to put a finer point on the social justice aspect of litigation finance, I will turn your attention to other cases which are more closely associated with Human Rights litigation.

Litigation Finance as Human Rights advocate 

Litigation Lending Services provided financing to a class action case commonly referred to as the “Stolen Wages” case in Queensland, Australia.  In brief, the Stolen Wages case involves the theft of wages from 10,000 First Nations Queenslanders who, from 1939 to 1972, had their wages withheld under discriminatory Protection legislation named the Queensland “Protections Act”.  Essentially, the indigenous community were forced to turn over their wages to the state, and in turn through a series of Superintendents, those monies were supposed to be paid to the indigenous community members.  Unfortunately, this never happened, and a significant sum of the monies were used to fund Queensland government initiatives.  Recognizing the severity of the issue, the Queensland government created a Stolen Wages Reparations Scheme which was designed to compensate its victims, but the class action argued the compensation was insufficient. The Class was ultimately awarded AU$190 million plus costs as further reparations.

Similarly, IMF Bentham is pursuing multiple class actions involving PFAS, a man-made chemical compound that was utilized in many industrial processes and products, including fire fighting foam. In these Class Actions, local residents and business owners are seeking compensation for the financial losses they have suffered as a result of the contamination, in particular (i) reduction in property values and (ii) damage to business interests such as farming, fishing, tourism and retail amongst others.

Recently there have been some more specific developments with respect to Impact Investing and litigation finance.  Burford announced its “Equity Project”, which has been “designed to close the gender gap in law by providing an economic incentive for change through a $50 million capital pool earmarked for [litigation finance matters] led by women”.

There is also at least one UK-based fund, Aristata Capital, that has a specific social impact mandate which is described as “…dedicated to driving positive social and environmental change with an attractive financial return”.

In the personal injury litigation finance market, almost every single case involves an individual who has suffered damages (typically physical) whereby their lives have been turned upside down and litigation finance has provided some semblance of normalcy while the plaintiff embarks on the long, arduous task of pursuing damages, typically from a large insurance company.

So, should litigation finance be considered “Impact Investing” 

No one likes litigation (except maybe the litigators), but litigation itself is not necessarily a bad thing.  The structural problem that most capitalist systems have, is that inevitably there are large corporations with (a) significant balance sheets and access to capital, (b) access to some of the best and brightest lawyers, and (c) time. Large corporations are also driven by shareholder returns like never before, which puts increased pressure on managers and executives to deliver shareholder value; some take that to heart by adjusting their ethical compasses accordingly.  One way to deliver shareholder value is to cut corners and hide behind balance sheets and lawyers, which is an unfortunate consequence of business in the twenty-first century.  Executives understand the power their large corporations have, and are prepared to deal with the consequences of their decisions regardless of whether those decisions are ethical. What’s more, the ultimate cost of litigation may pale in comparison to the equity value created by the decision. Accordingly, the frequency and cost of litigation has been driven upwards for decades, resulting in an unlevel playing field for large corporations. In short, the system is making the problem it created worse through compounding costs.

The concept of litigation was designed to help right wrongs, and the above examples illustrate that it has been quite effective in doing so. Litigation finance helps facilitate many of these cases through the provision of capital, albeit risky capital.  Managers and investors in the asset class can hold their heads high knowing that their investment monies are going to support cases like those mentioned above, where there has been a material and blatant decision made by one entity to damage another.  I can’t think of another asset class that is more impactful than litigation finance in terms of seeking justice and ensuring the companies and individuals that have been damaged at the expense of another’s actions are compensated.  Forget the investor returns, the societal benefits are even more compelling!

So, if you are an allocator within a pension plan, endowment, foundation, family office or high net worth individual, or a consultant to one of these investors, ask yourself if there is anything in your portfolios that even comes close to the positive societal impact provided by litigation finance (coupled with the financial returns).  I think you will be hard pressed to find many examples.  Investors need to change their attitude toward litigation finance, wipe away the negative patina associated with litigation, and start to appreciate how it is an asset class that is benefiting society – perhaps it has even benefitted someone you know.

The Life Settlements industry (i.e. the purchase of life insurance policies from beneficiaries to assist in funding healthcare costs, or simply to monetize the value of their policy) has incurred a similar struggle as that of litigation finance, because the former is considered to be in the business of “death”.  This connotation is quite misleading, as Life Settlement providers are in the business of providing financial options to policy holders that insurance companies won’t offer (little known fact – about 80% of life insurance policies lapse, which means the insurer has very little costs to apply against the decades of premiums they receive, making the provisioning of these policies very profitable).  Similarly, the litigation finance industry is also in the business of providing options in the form of capital to injured parties to allow them to pursue their meritorious claims.

If one considers the impact litigation finance has had in its first few years of existence, one can start to imagine the fundamental impact it may have on society and the way in which corporations think, act and govern themselves.  One could argue that litigation finance may even be its own worst enemy.  If litigation finance as an industry is successful, then taken to its logical conclusion, there is a scenario where litigation finance is so effective that it changes the way in which corporations make decisions, as they strive to ensure that their decisions are not adversely and illegally damaging other businesses and thereby diminishing the need for litigation finance altogether.  Call me a skeptic, but I don’t believe human behaviour, regardless of incentives, will ever change that significantly, and so I am going to continue to invest in litigation finance.

The importance of being an “Impact Investing” asset class  

Clearly, Impact Investing is a significant trend as the following statistics will attest.

  • According to GIIN – currently $228 Billion in impacting investing assets, double that of LY
  • According to RiA Canada – Impact Investing has had 81% growth over 2 years
  • JP Morgan – over the next 10 years Impact Investing will encompass $400 Billion to $1 Trillion in invested capital
  • Graystone (Morgan Stanley) has created the Investing with Impact Platform, and also has $5B in institutional assets in the non-profit area alone

Every single wealth management firm, including Blackrock, Morgan Stanley & UBS, to name a few, have recognized that making a difference is becoming increasingly important to the investor community.  So, for a nascent industry looking to ‘stand out from the crowd’, and given the demand for Impact Investing and the inherent societal benefits associated with its service offering, the industry is best served by ensuring litigation finance is included in the Impact Investing conversation, which would be a critical role for an industry association to assume.

I encourage all members of the litigation finance community to start talking about the industry in the context of an “Impact Investing” asset class, as the industry is instrumental in making positive changes for the benefit of society, the environment and governance, as the above examples strongly illustrate.

Investor Insights

There is no doubt that litigation finance, whether consumer or commercial, should clearly qualify as a form of Impact Investing.  The benefits derived from the asset class extend well beyond financial returns and allocators should assess both tangible and intangible impacts of the asset class as part of their investment review. I believe that litigation finance is an important component of an investor’s Impact Investing portfolio and investors should not be dissuaded by those who argue otherwise (like the Institute for Legal Reform), the proof is in the outcomes of the cases that litigation finance supports.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

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