The litigation funding market is maturing
Litigation funders are focusing on different types, sizes and stages of claims and using innovative business models to raise the funds necessary to carry on business...
March 27, 2015 at 08:54 AM
4 minute read
I spend a lot of time at Vannin speaking to litigation funders around the world to explore business development opportunities. One thing that has become clear in recent months is that the market is starting to mature, with funders focusing on different types, sizes and stages of claims and using innovative business models to raise the funds necessary to carry on business.
In the same way that the venture capital market has firms focused on certain stages of the funding lifecycle – seed/early stage, Series A, Series B and so on – there are early signs that the litigation funding market may follow suit, with firms becoming known as specialists in their chosen area or areas of focus.
Crowd funding
At the lower end of the market, where the funds required are typically less than £250,000, one entrepreneurial business based out of New York has been championing a crowd funding model. LexShares provides details of claims to its roster of registered investors via an online marketplace. Investors are able to review the details, including summaries prepared by the LexShares team, and then invest from as little as $2,500.
It will be interesting to see how widely LexShares is adopted outside the tight knit hedge fund and HNWI community, but so far the impact has been broadly positive, raising awareness of the benefits of litigation funding for both claimants and investors. And, as with start-up crowd funding, it's likely that there will be additional entrants to the market soon, further raising the profile of litigation funding as an asset class.
Volume investors
As the market for funding high value, (potentially) high return cases, becomes more competitive some funders are turning to a volume based model, signing up a large number of smaller cases and trying to automate elements of the review and monitoring process.
Whilst signing up lots of cases and taking a portfolio approach to risk should improve cash flows – more cases being won more often means more money making it back to the fund – it will be interesting to see whether returns suffer as a result of automating a number of processes which have previously been carried out by highly experienced lawyers, barristers and judges.
In any event, one hopes that some funders can master this high volume, low value end of the market for the simple reason that it will enhance access to justice for those smaller cases which have traditionally been uneconomical to fund.
Premiumisation
Whilst a number of funds are innovating to access new sources of capital and new cases, at the top end of the market there are signs of premiumisation, with a handful of funds securing their position as the 'go to' firms for the highest value, most complex litigation and arbitration matters.
These funds tend to have a number of things in common: they have been active in the market for several years with experience of funding successful claims; their teams are composed of practitioners with experience at the world's leading law firms and chambers; they have established and robust investment review processes; and they have a strong, recognised brand. Any fund in this position has a significant competitive advantage as they will receive more cases leads, sign up and win more cases, and generate more cash to re-invest, increasing the barriers to entry for new market participants.
We're probably some way off from any formal ranking of funders – there just isn't the publicly available information to make this is a credible exercise – but perhaps it won't be too long until we are referring to Magic Circle Funders or White Shoe Funders?
Conclusion
Although it is encouraging that entrepreneurs are looking at new ways to tackle the litigation funding market, the reality is that the ecosystem remains in its infancy. It our job, as one of the leading early market participants, to continue working hard to educate lawyers, finance directors and claimants of the benefits of funding, and to deal with any lingering uncertainties people may about what we do.
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