Don't Expect Flood of Filings Following Burford's Bid for US Stock Exchange Presence
Different litigation financiers use different business models, experts say, which is why you shouldn't expect a wave of privately owned funds rushing to get on a New York stock exchange.
July 10, 2020 at 01:50 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Litigation funding giant Burford Capital might have dreams of being traded on the New York Stock Exchange, but don't expect other litigation financiers rushing to follow them.
Burford on Tuesday announced it had filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order to be listed on a U.S. stock exchange. What happens next, according to the firm, is a confidential review that'll take months to play out.
Getting listed on a U.S. stock exchange would grant Burford more access to capital as well as different sources of it, said William Farrell, the managing director and general counsel of Longford Capital Management, a Chicago-based litigation financier that competes with Burford.
Despite this, don't expect Longford and others to follow in Burford's footsteps, Farrell said. That's because Longford and Burford are using different models to raise money, he added.
"We are not considering going public and listing on the New York Stock Exchange," Farrell said. "We like the private model and we think there's advantages to that."
If it is traded on a U.S. stock exchange, Burford will be able to tap into a new cohort of investors who never would have backed the litigation financier if it wasn't for the stock exchange, Farrell said. However, Burford might also face pressure to post good results every quarter, which is something a private company like Longford doesn't need to worry about, Farrell added.
Burford's announcement "caused us to consider the advantages and disadvantages, and reaffirmed our preference to being a private model, being privately owned," Farrell said.
The firm's possible ascendancy to a U.S. stock exchange is a welcome development for the litigation-financing industry as a whole, said Charles Agee, the chief executive officer of Westfleet Advisors, which advises companies and law firms that are interested in obtaining litigation funding.
Having the largest litigation financier in the world become a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange would serve as "validation" for the industry, Agee said. However, he doubted that Burford's application to the SEC would be the start of a trend because there are different litigation-financing models in play.
Farrell noted that Burford was already a publicly listed company—its stocks are already trading on the London AIM, which is a submarket of the London Stock Exchange. Burford's announcement comes six months after it first teased the possibility of getting on the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ for its ordinary shares to be traded.
Farrell said the differences in the public and private models of litigation financing are not apparent to its customers.
"I would imagine that the customers, our users, really don't know or care that much about our corporate form of structure," Farrell said.
Burford, which is being represented by attorneys from Cravath, Swaine & Moore, declined to comment for this article.
Burford saw its revenue drop by 15% and its operating profits plummet by 21% in 2019. But in an interview with The American Lawyer, Burford's CEO touted the fact that it deployed over $1 billion for the third straight year, and was looking to take advantage of the economic chaos being caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
"We have significant cash on hand in addition to our proven cash generating capacity and access to hundreds of millions of dollars of fund capital to boot," Burford CEO Christopher Bogart said in an April 28 statement. "And much as we share the world's distress at our current health crisis, the reality is that we expect its aftermath to be a time of significant demand for our services and a moment when uncorrelated cash flows are especially attractive."
|
Read More
After Declines, Burford CEO Points to Busy 2020, Cites COVID-19 Claims Ahead
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 AllRivals Seize Opportunity as A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells Vacate South Africa
5 minute readSwiss Lawyers Sanctioned by U.S. Treasury Over Russia Denounce 'Political' Accusations
3 minute readExclusive: Mayer Brown Shutters Mexico City Office, Lawyers Scatter
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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