Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Aon’s Litigation Risk Group

By John Freund |

Aon is a global insurance brokerage and professional services firm with approximately 50,000 employees across 120 countries that offers a wide array of risk mitigation products and structured solutions.  Aon’s Litigation Risk Group focuses on de-risking adverse outcomes in active and potential future litigation for corporate, private equity, hedge fund, law firm, and litigation finance clients through the use of insurance.

Aon has spearheaded the rapid development of this insurance market over the past five years with pioneering solutions like judgment preservation insurance, insurance-backed judgment monetization, and portfolio-based “principal protection” coverage for funders and plaintiff-side law firms.  Aon’s Litigation Risk Group is the dominant market leader in the litigation and contingent risk space, having placed nearly $5 billion in total limits over just the last several years, including over $1 billion in limits in 2023 alone.

Website:  https://www.aon.com/m-and-a-transaction/transactionsolutions/litigationsolutions.jsp

Founded:  1982

HQ:  London (Global) and Chicago (US), with Aon’s Litigation Risk Group being based in New York

About Aon’s Litigation Risk Group:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group works with a wide variety of clients across all industries and sectors of the economy, but the fastest-growing appetite for insurance solutions by far comes from litigation funders and other similar investors in litigation-related assets.

Aon helps these clients protect their downside in litigation-related investments in many different circumstances, whether protecting a judgment they have obtained in a case in which they invested at inception, wrapping a loan they are making to a plaintiff-side law firm with principal protection insurance, or insuring an entire portfolio of uncorrelated investments in cases at different stages of the litigation lifecycle.

Aon has fostered strong partnerships with dozens of insurance markets to bring our clients the most creative bespoke insurance solutions for the most complex litigation-related risks on the best possible coverage terms.  As the Director of Underwriting for a well-established litigation funder on whose behalf Aon has placed over $70 million in limits across a number of different investments put it:  “We have worked with the Aon’s Litigation Risk Group on a number of insurance policies over the years, and I can say unequivocally that they are second to none.  Besides being fantastic to work with, the team was also able to leverage their litigation know-how and strong relationships with insurers to obtain favorable terms for each of our policies.  Even when we had to file a claim on a policy, they jumped on it right away, handling it quickly and professionally without any need to involve a separate claims team.  We have been very happy with our partnership.” 

Points of Differentiation:

Innovation – Aon is a leader in terms of pushing the limits of what litigation and contingent risk insurance policies can do.  While this area of the insurance industry got its start on the defense side in the context of M&A transactions, where what is now refered to as “adverse judgment insurance” or “AJI” was used to ring-fence litigation risks that were getting in the way of an acquisition, they were the first to place insurance on plaintiff-side judgments, which led to Aon coining the term “judgment preservation insurance” or “JPI,” which is now used industry-wide and beyond.

Aon was also the first to have the insight that once a judgment is insured, so long as the defendant is sufficiently creditworthy, the combination of “judgment plus JPI policy” can serve as collateral for a loan that can be made on more attractive terms than would be available without insurance.  Aon was among the first broker in the insurance industry to facilitate loans against this combination of “judgment plus insurance,” a solution they named “insurance-backed judgment monetization,” and which has now also become widespread and provided a significant boost to the broader litigation and contingent risk insurance industry.  Their team prides itself on finding new and unique uses for insurance to help our clients achieve their goals, and excels at using insurance capital to solve complex litigation-related issues.

Pre-Underwriting­ – Aon’s team of former litigators has earned a reputation for submitting to insurers only the highest quality risks, after thoroughly analyzing their merits before submission to insurers.

As one of the leading insurers in the litigation and contingent risk insurance space, Ambridge Partners, put it:  “We’re always happy to receive contingent risk submissions from the Aon team.  The deals are always pre-vetted and well-presented, and it’s clear that they’ve asked themselves ‘What would I want to see as an underwriter?’ – and then provide exactly that.  It makes Aon’s deals very attractive easy for us to consider.”

And per Alston & Bird litigation partner Steve Penaro, “As outside counsel working with underwriters in the contingent risk space, when we see a contingent risk submission from Aon, we immediately know that is has been thoroughly vetted and the issues meticulously scrutinized.  And, once the underwriting process begins, Aon actively partners with us to ensure all relevant information is readily available and all questions have been answered allowing for a smooth close.  From the initial submission to the binding of the policy, Aon is there every step of the way.” 

Given the explosive growth in this space, Aon values their underwriters’ scarce time, and enjoys a competitive advantage knowing that underwriters move Aon submissions to the top of their piles.

Relationships with Insurers – Aon is not only a market leader in terms of litigation and contingent risk insurance, but also other lines of insurance written by the same carriers such as representations and warranties and tax insurance.

As one lawyer we have worked with on policies for two different clients put it: “The Aon team did a magnificent job in placing adverse judgment insurance for one of my clients and judgment protection insurance for another.  They have deep contacts with the insurance market, and it was apparent to me that insurers trust their expertise and judgment.  I have not hesitated to recommend them to other attorneys.”

Given the volume of business that Aon does in the broader transaction solutions insurance market, they maintain deep relationships with insurers, and that benefits their clients by helping them deliver the best possible coverage terms, pricing, and claims service.

Key Metrics:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group has placed billions of dollars in limits on litigation and contingent risks in the last several years, including ten separate insurance programs that each provided more than $100 million in coverage limits and four that provided at least $500 million in coverage limits.

The policies placed by Aon have arisen in a variety of procedural contexts and run the gamut in terms of subject matter and types of claims – commercial litigation, breach of contract, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and antitrust, just to name a few.  Aon has placed adverse judgment insurance on the defense side and judgment preservation insurance on the plaintiff side, including pre-trial, pre-judgment insurance for litigation funders to protect the value created by important evidentiary rulings that were the subject of interlocutory appeals.

Aon has also placed principal protection insurance on several hundred million dollars that have been invested into early stage, pre-complaint patent litigations across multiple unique patent families. They have procured insurance for defendants who have lost significant damages verdicts at trial against the risk that an appellate court will not reverse, and have insured against adverse outcomes related to regulatory processes.  Put simply, as long as their team has access to sufficient underwritable information about the litigation risk to be insured, there are few limits on the kinds of cases or procedural postures that Aon can insure.

Jurisdictions and Sectors Served:

Aon’s Litigation Risk Group has insurance broking teams not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom (which can insure risks across much of EMEA), Bermuda, and Southeast Asia, which enables them to deliver to our clients truly global solutions across myriad jurisdictions.

While the core of Aon’s business remains insuring the outcome of judicial proceedings in the United States, they understand where to go to find appetite to insure litigation in other domestic courts, as well as insuring the outcome of international arbitration proceedings. 

Key Stakeholders:

Stephen Davidson is a Managing Director and both the Head of Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and Head of Claims for Aon’s broader Transaction Solutions team.  As Head of the LRG, Stephen works with clients and insurance markets on the development of litigation and contingent risk insurance.  As Head of Claims, Stephen manages transaction liability claims – which includes not only litigation and contingent risk insurance claims but also representation and warranty and tax insurance claims – and has overseen and helped negotiate the favorable resolution of hundreds of such claims in North America and around the world.  Prior to joining Aon in 2016, Stephen was a commercial litigation partner in DLA Piper’s New York office, and he began his career at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, where he worked as a litigation associate for several years.

Stephen Kyriacou is a Managing Director and Senior Lawyer in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group, and was the first insurance industry hire dedicated solely to the litigation and contingent risk insurance market, which he has been working to develop and grow since 2019.  Stephen has twice received the designation of “Power Broker” from Risk & Insurance Magazine (in 2022 and 2023), which called him “a pioneer in judgment preservation insurance,” and is the only litigation and contingent risk insurance broker to have been so recognized.  While Stephen places insurance across all of Aon’s solution lines, he specializes in single-case judgment preservation insurance and adverse judgment insurance placements.  Prior to joining Aon, Stephen spent close to a decade as a complex commercial litigator at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where he amassed significant trial, appellate, and arbitration experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in the U.S. and abroad across a wide array of practice areas, and clerked in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ed Conlon is a Managing Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group, and is the team’s resident insurance industry veteran, having been in the industry for over 15 years and having placed litigation and contingent risk insurance since 2015, when the market for such insurance was still in its embryonic stages.  While Ed brokes across all of Aon’s litigation and contingent insurance lines, he focuses primarily on developing cutting edge bespoke portfolio-based coverage structures for law firms, litigation funders, and other investors in litigation.  Ed also leverages his deep, battle-tested relationships across the broader insurance industry to bring new carriers into the growing litigation and contingent risk insurance market and to maximize limits and optimize coverage terms on Aon policies.  Prior to his current role, Ed led Aon’s Financial Institutions Group and, before that, was a complex commercial litigator and ran a complex commercial claims desk at AIG.

David Hodges is a Vice President and joined Aon’s Litigation Risk Group in 2021.   David brokes across all of Aon’s litigation and contingent insurance lines, and focuses primarily on single-case judgment preservation and adverse judgment insurance placements.  Prior to joining Aon, David was a complex commercial litigator at Boies, Schiller & Flexner and Lankler Siffert & Wohl, and was also a law clerk for federal judges on the Second Circuit and D.C. District Court.

Bill Baker is a Managing Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and joined the team in early 2020.  Bill leads the team’s work on structured solutions, including loans that are collateralized by judgment preservation insurance policies and other financing solutions that are customized to meet the unique capital needs of our clients.  Prior to joining Aon, Bill was an investment banker at various firms throughout a 15-year career, after which time he worked in private equity and corporate roles, including strategy, corporate development, and investor relations.

Mike Kenny is a Director in Aon’s Litigation Risk Group and joined the team in 2021.  Mike is responsible for the team’s structured finance solutions, including premium finance and judgment monetization.  Mike works with clients to structure bespoke credit transactions, allowing them to leverage the combination of their judgments and insurance to access the capital markets and obtain liquidity.  Mike uses his industry relationships and a broad network of investors to help clients find the best deal terms and structure for their specific needs.  Mike is also a licensed investment banker with Aon Securities.  Prior to joining Aon, Mike was an investment banker at BTIG, where he focused on M&A, public and private financing, and strategic advisory for software industry clients.

 

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