Litigation funding: an attractive emerging asset class
I do not come from a traditional background for litigation funding. Before I joined Vannin I was a corporate lawyer, focusing on international private equity transactions, rather than a litigation or arbitration practitioner. As a consequence, I entered the market without any preconceptions and have been excited about the opportunities that funding offers for claimants, lawyers and investors.
December 11, 2014 at 08:26 AM
5 minute read
I do not come from a traditional background for litigation funding. Before I joined Vannin I was a corporate lawyer, focusing on international private equity transactions, rather than a litigation or arbitration practitioner. As a consequence, I entered the market without any preconceptions and have been excited about the opportunities that funding offers for claimants, lawyers and investors.
The benefits for claimants
While the funding market is still relatively young in the UK, the benefits for claimants are relatively well understood. Funding increases access to justice by enabling claimants to bring meritorious claims that they would not otherwise have been able to bring owing to a lack of funds, budgetary constraints/internal policies, or a need, or desire, to deploy money in other parts of their businesses.
At the same time, funding de-risks the claim (the claimant pays nothing if the claim is unsuccessful) and allows it to be taken off balance sheet. This is particularly relevant to businesses that are focused on producing a certain level of EBITDA as a self-funded claim will result in a reduction of EBITDA equal to the costs of the claim (likely spread over a number of years) but any damages won will be recorded as a one-off item (with no positive impact on EBITDA). I am sure that my former private equity clients will be very focused on encouraging their portfolio companies to explore funding in the event of a dispute to avoid impairing EBITDA which could, in turn, have a very negative impact on exit valuation.
A driver of law firm growth
Funding can also offer law firms a range of benefits. Most significantly, clients do not currently pursue all the strong potential claims that they have in their businesses because they have to work within a limited legal budget and the board/management will have a limited tolerance for risk. Funding can address both these constraints on activity and generate increased work flow for law firms. Law firm partners should, therefore, ensure that their clients are fully appraised of the benefits of funding.
Other benefits include the ability to tackle ever increasing fee pressure – in essence funding offers law firms the ability to arrange finance for their clients for the expensive purchase of litigation or arbitration services – and increased certainty around recovery of fees and disbursements, which are guaranteed by the funder provided the agreed budget is adhered to, and cash-flow.
An emerging asset class
While claimants and lawyers are already taking advantage of the benefits of funding, there is a longer term story here. Litigation funding is emerging as an interesting alternative asset class for investors.
As a lawyer, I worked for nearly a decade with the world's leading private equity firms and witnessed the explosion of the asset class. When I was accepted for a training contract in 2003 and I explained to my friends that I was going to work at a firm famed for its private equity practice I received mostly blank stares; nobody really knew what private equity was. Fast forward to the present day and private equity has entered the mainstream and is never far from the headlines. Is it possible that litigation funding is set to follow a similar path with an explosion in activity that will grab the headlines?
It is unlikely that funding would ever achieve the same scale as private equity, after all the number of fundable disputes is rather smaller than the number of acquirable companies. That said, funding is unquestionably growing and at Vannin we are seeing a significant uptick in demand, particularly in relation to international arbitration matters. We are also seeing the market at the top end thin out, with only a small handful of credible companies capable of addressing a large pool of potential claims.
Ultimately, it is the nature of the returns generated from litigation funding activities that will make a wider base of investors start to take interest. First, returns are uncorrelated with the public equity markets – funding is a defensive and counter-cyclical play not significantly impacted by wider economic sentiment. Secondly, there is the potential to make outsized returns where the cost of funding is dwarfed by the damages received. Thirdly, there are sufficient cases in the market to enable a portfolio approach to maximise the upside and protect against the downside.
The future
Funders who are well capitalised, benefit from significant market experience, have built a demonstrable track record, employ a strong bench of legal, financial and commercial talent and have developed a rigorous, but efficient and flexible approach to case selection look set to thrive.
Chris Smith is a lawyer and business development professional at Vannin Capital. This article, which originally appeared on vannin.com, has been republished for the Commercial Disputes hub, an online resource from Legal Week in association with Vannin Capital.
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
© 2025 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 AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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