Longford Capital Strikes $67M Litigation Finance Deal
In the latest example of potential portfolio appeal, the litigation financier is investing $67 million in a "leading litigation firm."
August 27, 2018 at 05:27 PM
4 minute read
Litigation funders have long said that law firms are interested in packaging multiple cases into one funding deal known as a “portfolio.”
Providing more evidence for that argument, Longford Capital Management announced Monday that it had struck a $67 million portfolio deal with an unnamed “leading litigation firm.” The Chicago-based litigation funder also said it had previously struck a $50 million portfolio deal and it has now spent more than two-thirds of a $500 million fund it raised one year ago.
The $67 million is already slated to be spent on attorney fees and other costs related to roughly 15 cases that Longford has already agreed to fund, said managing director and general counsel William Farrell Jr. The cases are on behalf of various clients; range in amount in dispute from $25 million to more than $100 million; and are being litigated by multiple lawyers at the firm, said Farrell, a co-founder of Longford. He declined to name the firm, citing privacy concerns for its clients.
“One of the objectives of this particular firm and many others is they want to be able to make this process easy,” Farrell said. “They don't want to go through an RFP process. They don't want to have due diligence done by two or three or five different funders because it's distracting.”
So-called portfolio deals are beneficial for litigation funders because they spread out the risk of losing capital among a number of cases. In turn, portfolio deals are a cheaper financing option for law firms and corporate litigants than one-off cases. Funders also said portfolio deals can be a way for law firms to use financing in more creative ways than simply lowering their risk in contingency cases.
Portfolio deals can be structured in a number of ways. Some deals, like Longford's, are documented from the outset with a prearranged number of cases and potential returns. Others are more open-ended and can represent an agreement to fund cases up to a particular dollar amount in the future.
“We look at each and every case,” said Farrell, a former partner at Chicago-based Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. “We underwrite each case as if it were a single investment. It's a little more time consuming, but we really think we bring value to law firms in the process beyond the capital.”
Still, there are only a handful of known portfolio deals. Burford Capital Ltd., which recently announced its half-year financial results, has said it invested $100 million in a global firm's commercial litigation cases; $50 million in another large firm's arbitration cases; and $45 million to fund cases for a company that press reports later identified as British Telecom. In May 2017 year, a new litigation boutique, now called Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, reported that it had received funding from Pravati Capital LLC for a number of its cases.
Burford's recent financial numbers showed that the London-based company invested $205 million in the first half of the year in portfolio deals. That represented 70 percent growth from the same period a year ago. Burford, which has continued to hire former Big Law litigators, invested $88 million in more traditional “one-off” litigation during that time.
For Longford, the $67 million deal is the biggest in the company's history. It is also larger than the first fund Longford raised for litigation finance, which was $56.5 million in 2014.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSquire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
1 minute readMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 2Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 3$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 4Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 5Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250