Litigation finance
What do "finance/investment professionals" do in litigation finance? I understand that the legal/merits due diligence requires litigation expertise, but what do you do if you are not a lawyer? Credit analysis? Modeling? Deal structuring?
And as a follow-up, which HFs are active in lit fin? I know Fortress and Centerbridge are.
Curious as well
Most of the big distressed funds have guys who will look at claims.
People I’ve seen play in claims oriented situations include Attestor, Centerbridge, Taconic, Elliott, Baupost, King Street, CarVal, Ellington, SVP, Davidson Kempner, Avenue, PIMCO, Beach Point. Probably a few I’m missing but those are a lot of the guys.
True litigation finance with actual staffed up litigation teams are Fortress and DE Shaw.
Our private special situations team does some interesting litfin stuff.
Are the people in the team mostly with legal backgrounds?
Took a look, nope. Good mix of IB, specialty finance, and structured finance backgrounds.
The litigation finance folks evaluate claims, usually plaintiff claims for 1) probability of winning, 2) size of payout, 3) collectability, 4) cost to complete litigation and timeline. They typically want to see underwriting to at least a 10x on cost. ie $10MM payday on $1MM funding. Cost of capital is expensive.
The lawyers are best at evaluating probability of winning by evaluating the merits of the case, the work product of the law firm, and various factors like judge, jurisdiction. I’m guessing, but I have some experience working with them.
I will say, litigation finance is hard to get in general. And it’s become a Big Boy financing tool (and portfolio hedge), rather than something for smaller fish to get justice.
I have no idea what increases in cost of capital has done to funding availability and terms. Investors like the sector because it is less correlated to the market and there is ability to have diversification.
Non-lawyers, probably work on the capital raising, investment thesis, building and overseeing systems, project managing data analysis to seek alpha (ie patent disputes in XYZ county or Federal Court ends up in favor of Plaintiffs), origination of new claims to evaluate, due diligence collection, term sheet formulation, cash management, marketing, and portfolio management, and managing stuff so the lawyers can concentrate on their highest and best use.
I can concur with the above as a finance professional in LitFin, background is in credit (corporate, structured & specialty finance). Happy to shed more insight if needed, just PM. Good luck!
Great! Interesting niche both from an investment category and career.
mind if i pm?
I’m extremely pro capitalist, and think most hedge fund strategies are net good to neutral to the world.
With that context, I think lit finance is a horrible industry that makes the world a meaningfully worse place. Anyone who pursues it should think hard about their contributions to society and the impacts of their work.
Can you elaborate? Are you referring to conflicts of interests between funders, counsel and claimants in regards to settlement & decision authority?
And assume you are referring to commercial lit fin v. tort?
In commercial, agree with the notion above that its a big boy financing tool with clear signage that its adult swim if you choose to enter the waters.
Broadly believe that it enables firms to cede financing risks & costs to an sophisticated third party with access to capital, and believe that it does warrant the existence of a capital market. Also, its nonrecourse?
Increased capital funding litigation means more litigation which is a massive tax on society with minimal benefit except for the lawyers involved. Overall litigation payouts are meaningfully up over the past decade to the point where it’s actually a real issue for businesses, large and small. Enabling this just so you can create an uncorrelated return stream or whatever nonsense is something that should be looked down on.
I would disregard his comment. It has to be the most retarded and cope induced answer I have read in the last weeks.
Buford Capital, for instance, had a +30% ROE last year and +8% CAGR in the last 10 years, which surpasses 90% of the HF out there. I think he is just mad that a field that was assimilated into finance, where finance skills mean jack shit, is outperforming whatever event driven strategy he is following. When you can't attack the returns, you attack the "ethical/moral" aspect, which to begin with, if you really cared as much wouldn't even be in finance (but even in this field, litigation finance has to be the most ethical field out there when the rest of fields just look at profit, meanwhile this sort of strategy/investment style actually has some tangible impact - positive, again - in society, and more precisely, in the justice system).
See my other comment below.
It's the opposite. With litigation finance, litigation becomes more equitable because a party that initially may not have sued or lost because of a lack of financial resources has higher chances to win now when the financial constraints are removed (better lawyers or access to lawyers).
So that's a good use of capital and resources because = Increase in accessibility to justice that disregards financial barriers, which is how an ideal and fair system would should be.
On the opposite side, Hedge Funds do destroy value when the resources allocated to them could have been used for other more tangible investments (let's say RE, which provides some use) or generally invested in any index fund at way cheaper costs to then do whatever with that wealth. So this - in the HF career path - is where someone should really consider their contribution to society and the impact of their work. No value whatsoever.
Can get mad as much as you want, but that's how it is.
I think where we fundamentally disagree is the assumption that increased amounts of commercial tort litigation where well capitalized parties are on both sides is representative of “increased access to justice” and that this reality of an overly litigious culture is somehow a good thing.
Agreed. Its the lowest of the low.
Not to get into the middle of the argument, but I mean if the funder only receives compensation from awarded damages, which is determined by a judge (and which in at least some of the jurisdictions I know - the judge determines payout %), then I don’t see how that is inequitable, given you’d be arguing the judge is wrong.
In terms of amount of litigation increasing - I think it’s sort of in the middle. It’s credit at the end of the day - you need a legitimate claim, it’s not just a punt - if your underwriting standards dip then you are bringing frivolous suits, and you’ll end up exiting the market as you’d be losing the funding and not winning the claims.
I mean sure if you add credit to any sector you run bubble risk, but if you believe the courts achieve their purpose then greater access to justice on margin should be preferable to less.
Gets to the final point of is it preferable to have the courts clogged with “good” litigation is that needs to be heard, but it is slower, or that this “good” litigation never sees the light of day. As a free market perspective would say that any “systematic bad” litigation would run out of capital long term.
My two cents though.
Well said. Agree.
I guess the only counter argument with merit is 1) it creates additional burden on judicial system. The poster’s view above could be validated if litigation financiers have a VC-like loss rate on funded cases. I.e, a few winners with asymmetric payouts driving portfolio gains. At which point, manufacturing suits that are frivolous, or marginally legitimate, for the prospect of asymmetric upside, may eventually create undue burden on judicial system as lawyers profit. But agree with point that market will eventually evolve to semi-efficiency and compressed returns would beget less investor allocations.
Optio quisquam voluptatum repellat dignissimos voluptate exercitationem. Voluptas repellendus placeat placeat nihil mollitia consequuntur. Molestiae quidem dicta nisi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...