Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

The 5 Most Popular Episodes of the Litigation Finance Podcast

By John Freund |

The Litigation Finance Podcast features guests from across the global commercial and consumer litigation funding landscapes. With over 60 podcasts spanning five years of archives, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at the five top podcasts in terms of viewer traffic.

It should be noted that the Litigation Finance industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and as new entrants emerge into the space, many come to our site and listen to recent episodes of the LFJ Podcast, hence there is a recency bias in the traffic numbers (the earliest episode on our list comes from March of 2020).

That said, below are some key takeaways from our five most popular episodes:

#5) Dan Bush, CIO and Director of Innovation, Law Finance Group

As CIO and Director of Innovation, Dan Bush wears many hats. He has been with Law Finance for more than a decade, and helped develop one of its most popular products: AR Now.

AR Now was created to solve a specific and widespread problem for law firms—clients who won’t, or can’t, pay their bills. Increasingly, clients are approaching law firms demanding steep discounts on legal bills they can’t make good on. Law Finance Group (LFG) offers firms the ability to establish payment plans with clients without impacting the firm’s bottom line. Law firm invoices can be monetized, avoiding sending clients to collections. After all, non-paying clients can impact more than operating budgets. Lines of credit, bonuses, recruitment, even firm salaries may be affected.

Perhaps best of all, LFG’s involvement in the creation of payment plans remains clandestine. While this plan was developed due to COVID-related circumstances, Bush sees it outliving the impending return to normalcy. “Everybody was presented with kind of a dire situation, right? With the pandemic, the shutdown, all the economic fallout from that really provided the impetus to get this going. We really see how the product works beyond the COVID pandemic to help law firms help their clients while still bringing money into the firm.”

LFG works with firms of all sizes from boutique to leading law firms. It will look at cases in any stage of the litigation process, to see how funding can help. LFG has the equity needed to invest in a wide array of cases and portfolios. It may even offer terms with partial recourse to keep fees down and percentages low. As Bush explains, flexibility is key. “A lot of firms are taking more risks than they would in the past–taking some contingent upside risk, if not a full contingency. They’re coming up with hybrid arrangements, taking some percentages of the hourly fees, which has some contingent upside.”

Firms can apply to the AR Now program with a short application that is followed by due diligence and the signing of an NDA. AR Now agreements may cover a single client, small groups, or other arrangements as needed. The bottom line is that firms can take more risks when facilitating payments. It’s a ‘better late than never’ philosophy that works for firms and their clients alike.

#4) Elena Rey, Partner, Brown Rudnick

In addition to being a Partner at Brown Rudnick, Elena Rey is a member of the Litigation Funding Working Group—which, at the time of this interview, was in the process of creating standardized documentation for funding contracts.

Why focus on standardized documentation? Rey explains: “We’ve been seeing a number of trends in the Litigation Finance market in Europe recently. This includes the diversification for funders. So, besides the core of traditional litigation funders, more and more lenders are coming into the space.”

Standardizing funding documentation promises many benefits, including shortening the onboarding process and allowing firms to services a wider range of case types. It increases the level of protection for all parties, and speeds the development of secondary markets. Standardized documentation can also be used as part of the negotiation process, as a viable starting point when hammering out details.

The current working group has grown into 80 members, including major funders, family offices, insurers, leading law firms and barristers, and private funders. Essentially, professionals from all over the industry are making their voices heard—with the unexpected advantage of encouraging cross-disciplinary discussion on major industry issues.

And there is certainly a need for flexibility. As Rey details, all funding is bespoke at its core. Client needs are unique to each case. Commercial funders may be most impacted by standardized documentation, which promises to improve transparency and the quality of terms overall.

The first set of documentation from the Working Group is set to be released as early as June of this year. It will focus on insurance, and will serve to demonstrate how impactful this advancement can be on the overall industry. 

#3) Christopher DeLise, Chief Executive Officer, Delta Capital Partners 

Having been founded in 2011, Delta was an early entrant into the funding industry. Delta sets itself apart by getting term sheets to potential clients with blazing speed after a very short vetting process. Many cases at Delta are vetted and have funding deployed within 48-hours—an extremely fast turnaround in the Commercial Litigation Finance space. The use of standardized documentation also leads to greater clarity and speed—helping clients make more informed decisions about their options. DeLise explains that when it comes to funding, the speed of the process can have a huge impact on origination and client satisfaction.

Because Delta has been in the funding game for so long, the company has been at the forefront of the industry’s development since its inception. DeLise explains, “Part of the excitement of this industry, for me personally, is having been an early pioneer and seeing all the changes that have occurred.” In the beginning, much time was spent educating law firms and investors about the benefits of funding—now, that’s less necessary, as funding has grown increasingly popular.

Some of the more sweeping changes in the funding industry include an increased number of products available, as well as the trend of personalizing funding terms to better meet client needs. Because more recent graduates and old-school industry pros are becoming more aware of the benefits of working in Litigation Finance, sourcing new talent is easier than it’s ever been.

COVID has impacted all aspects of Litigation Finance. As DeLise says, “liquidity is tightening up globally.” This increases the need for funding—particularly commercial funding. This, in turn, leads to commercial entities eschewing traditional lines of credit in favor of non-recourse funding. DeLise expects that trend to continue into the future.

#2) Ben Moss, Asset Manager and Portfolio Advisor, Orchard Global Asset Management

Orchard Global is, as the name implies, a global finance entity with operating centers in the US, UK, and Singapore. Currently, Orchard Global has about 6.5 billion in assets under management.

In this interview, Moss explained Orchard Global’s basic investing philosophy and ideal investment size. Expounding on this, Moss detailed Orchard’s commitment to diverse portfolios, and a commitment to making room for non-traditional funding offerings.

In Europe, increased demand for litigation funding, particularly in the EU, Germany, and the Netherlands, as well as US markets, has flourished through the rise of collective actions and insolvency matters. As Moss explains, “In Europe, we see an increased awareness, appetite, and adoption of Litigation Finance.”

As the legal stage is set for a post-COVID return to normalcy (hopefully), backlogs are slowly being resolved. Class actions in particular were stymied by delays and closures—though some of this was mitigated through remote working and advancements in legal and financial tech. Moss opines that COVID has actually been helpful in terms of advancing Litigation Finance, particularly commercial funding. “In terms of opportunity going forward, we see a high demand for Litigation Finance for two reasons: There will be more claims generally, and also the increased use of Litigation Finance as a tool to fund claims.”

Orchard Global sets itself apart from competitors with a small team and clearly defined roles. Team members often take cases from origination through to completion—rather than handing off clients to different departments at different stages of the case. This, in turn, promotes client confidence and improves the experience of investors and clients alike.

The industry is buzzing with news of upcoming attempts at standardized documentation, which promises to increase transparency and worker efficiency. Arriving as quickly as Q2, these standardized documents will outline terms for a number of types of funding. This brings about concerns regarding bespoke agreements, and the overall need for flexibility.

Ultimately, Moss is expecting great things for the future of Litigation Finance, as it flourishes and develops in exciting new ways.

#1) Cesar Bello, Partner in charge of alternative asset and portfolio management, Corbin Capital Partners

Corbin Capital specializes in commercial multi-strategy and bespoke global portfolio investing. Currently, Corbin has nearly nine billion in assets under management.

In this interview, Bello summarizes the appeal of Litigation Finance as an investment, saying, “It’s particularly attractive in times of market volatility, where you expect more fat tails. We think there’s a good change that type of environment will persist in the near term.” The potential for outside returns and the sought-after nature of uncorrelated assets only enhances its appeal.

Describing what fund managers look at in terms of vital metrics, he explains that methodology, track record, and valuation are at the forefront. Knowing one’s place in the industry is an essential part of finding your market and sourcing cases. Risk assessment is also important, especially how risk is structured and whether or not it’s seen as completely binary, or more nuanced.

On the subject of ESG investing, Bello is clear that tackling environmental, social, and governmental issues through funding is an important factor in increasing access to justice. This can include mass torts, though the Volkswagen emission case was a very public miss. Still, the thoughtful application of funds toward ESG issues is vital for clients—and for investors looking toward lucrative investments that also support the public good.

Looking ahead, the industry can expect growth and price compression in the near future. Bello predicts that secondary markets will become increasingly important going forward.

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