Pa. Firms Carve Out Niche in Guiding Lawyers, Funders on Litigation Finance
From performing due diligence on cases to working on interest rate-proof transactions, attorneys at Fox Rothschild and Saul Ewing are finding ways to engage with litigation funders and the recipients of their investments.
November 14, 2024 at 05:50 PM
5 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Saul Ewing and Fox Rothschild are servicing litigation funders and their funding clients alike, facing minimal competition in this sector of the legal market.
- Despite being a controversial financing option for law firms, attorneys at both firms expect opportunities to bring in work related to the industry to continue to expand as new investors consider entering the industry.
Love it or hate it, the litigation finance industry is here to stay. Two Pennsylvania-based firms are taking the opportunity to establish niche practices addressing the industry, performing due diligence on potential cases eligible for funding and staking claims on interest rate-proof transactional work.
Fox Rothschild launched its litigation finance practice as an offshoot of its litigation department around three years ago, with the practice incorporating the expertise of an unspecified number of attorneys across multiple of the firm’s practices; Saul Ewing launched its litigation finance industry group around two years ago, and has a grand total of eight attorneys working in the space spread across Minneapolis, Chicago and Boston.
|
The Nature of the Practice
Both firms indicated they helped service clients on both sides of litigation transactions: the funders and the firms looking to get cases funded, particularly in terms of due diligence.
“We’re really well situated in terms of the business flow that we have for due diligence projects—we’re just doing a lot of them lately,” said Saul Ewing practice leader Casey Grabenstein.
Fox Rothschild, meanwhile, also focuses on the actual transactions involving litigation funders, helping negotiate terms for financing and helping law firms steer clear of potential conflicts of interest.
“One of the gateway issues for pre-settlement litigation financing is the rule of professional conduct 5.4, which prohibits fee sharing with nonlawyers,” said partner Peter Buckley. “When a law firm gets presentation with a funding relationship, we get involved as outside counsel to advise the client about that transaction so that the firm itself is not providing advice about a funding agreement that may pay the firm.”
There’s another advantage to focusing on litigation funding deals—these transactions tend to be insulated from the effects of interest rates, which can throw a wrench into other kinds of transactions.
“Just from the investor side, one of the reasons this area will continue to grow is that it is a non-correlated investment,” Buckley explained. “When you’re diversifying a portfolio at a fund or a big financial institution, to have something that doesn’t rise and fall with interest rates is a hedge against those risks.”
In representing those transactions, said Fox Rothschild partner Erika Levin, formerly the general counsel at a litigation funder, the firm will typically handle negotiations or renegotiations between parties, due diligence, and legal research and analysis into a case.
|
Spotting the Opportunity Early
Due diligence work proved an entry point for Saul Ewing to begin working in the litigation finance space, although Grabenstein aspires for the practice to do more transactional work and for the firm to ultimately uncover more cases worth investing in on its own.
“I saw this was a booming industry, and it was an opportunity to be ahead of the curve in terms of being a market leader and riding the wave of where this was heading,” Grabenstein said of his decision to get involved in litigation funding legal work. “Litigation funding continues to be a booming industry, but it has seemed to flatten out a little bit. … The industry is getting more mature, it’s still very healthy, it’s just not shooting up like a rocket.”
Levin expressed a similar sentiment, noting that she—along with Buckley, and litigation co-chair Brett Berman, who collectively lead the group—recognized this was a space where clients needed "legal assistance and advice in multiple capacities.”
“This is an area that’s changing and growing quickly,” she said.
However, both Levin and Grabenstein acknowledged that competition has thus far been minimal in this industry space. Grabenstein speculated that servicing litigation funders isn’t something firms are willing to publicize, and Levin suggested that the specialized nature of the practice enticed only a small number of practitioners.
“There are a few firms that have this practice or capability, but not many,” Levin observed. “Unless you’ve worked with this space, it’s almost another language. … You can’t jump into this space without knowing what you’re doing.”
|
Insurer Interest and Growth Opportunities
Grabenstein said he found additional growth opportunities for his practice on the insurance side of litigation funding. Although insurance companies typically find themselves on the defense side of funded litigation—and have been pushing for greater regulation of the industry alongside their defense counsel—they are becoming increasingly interested in offering litigation risk insurance.
“Over the past couple of years, we got involved in the insurance side of the affirmative litigation practice, and it’s really blowing up right now,” said Grabenstein. “Insurance is taking off—there are new insurers offering new products, and insurance companies are almost matching funding in the market. If you have a contingency fee matter, you take it on contingency and get it funded or have it insured.”
Fox Rothschild, meanwhile, is beginning to note growing interest amongst different kinds of potential litigation funders, including hedge funds.
“This is another asset class,” Levin said. “We’re starting to get a lot of calls and working more with hedge funds and investment banks. Funders are broad. … We’re seeing all types of deals. It’s an offshoot of corporate finance.”
“We’re seeing a lot in the intellectual property space, and a lot in terms of co-investment opportunities and just continued litigation finance transactions of all sorts,” Levin continued. “This is an area that’s getting busier and busier.”
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.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View AllGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Skeptical of Sacks Weston's Survival, Judge Dismisses Firm's Chapter 11 Petition
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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