An Introduction to Litigation Funding

Out investment series continues with an exploration of litigation funding, with a guest post from Sophie Liu at Axia Funding:

AxiaFunder is an online litigation funding platform that connects investors with pre-vetted commercial litigation opportunities that we believe have the potential to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. We are specifically targeting cases on the lower end of the legal market which, in our view, has been underserved by existing funders. 

To date, AxiaFunder raised £2,387,843 for 14 commercial cases, of which six have already reached a positive resolution, generating a 12-94% return to our case investors each over a period of 2-15 months (with an average IRR of 48%). The remaining 8 cases are currently ongoing. There are no losses to date. *

What is Litigation Funding?

Litigation funding is where a third-party agrees to finance the legal costs of a dispute in return for a share of the proceeds that would be eventually recovered by the funded party. Litigation funding is typically provided on a non-recourse basis, meaning the funded party has no obligation to repay the funder in the event the case is unsuccessful.  

What are the benefits of litigation funding as a new investment asset? 

Litigation funding can potentially generate significant returns to case investors. It is common for investors of a winning case to expect to double, triple or quadruple their initial investment.* This asset also has zero correlation with the fluctuations in the broader economy and other assets. In addition, each case is almost entirely uncorrelated with each other. Thus, this offers further diversification. 

What are the impacts of post Covid-19 economic environment on litigation investment? 

In contrast to other investment opportunities (such as equities or real estate), litigation investment has zero correlation with the fluctuations in the broader economy and other assets. This makes it a compelling investment in current economic environment plagued by volatility and ongoing uncertainty over the end of the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, litigation itself is expected to increase during an economic recession due to a sharp increase in a number of business insolvency related claims.

What are the social benefits of litigation funding? 

Litigation funding helps to level the playing field by offering access to justice for those who need it the most. The litigation process is well known to be an expensive and often lengthy exercise with the final legal costs being uncertain. SMEs or individuals who enter contractual agreements with large companies often find themselves exposed to additional commercial risk due to the prohibitive cost of protecting their legal interests. Litigation funding offers claimants a means of pursuing a viable claim while preserving liquidity and minimising risk. 

Can you give any examples of your funded cases? 

• An unfair minority shareholder prejudice petition, where the defendant, the majority shareholder and a director of a company, allegedly diverted economic value from the claimant, a minority shareholder, who was instrumental in developing the business. This case has resolved successfully generating a 33.1% return to investors in 14 months.*

• An insurance claim by the builder, whose development was subjected to an arson attack, against both the insurance company for unreasonably seeking to avoid settling the client’s claim on its insurance policy, and the insurance broker for the non-disclosure of information on the basis of which the policy has been voided. This case has resolved successfully generating a 11.8% return to investors in 2 months.*


How do you select litigation cases? 

Cases have to satisfy the following criteria:

• Legal merit: The legal merits of the claimant’s case must be strong. Typically, independent legal counsel will have endorsed the case with a high probability of success.

• ATE insurance policy: Each case must have an ATE insurance policy in place. It protects AxiaFunder’s case investors from adverse cost risk and helps to eliminate low quality cases.

 • Case economics: The estimated damages normally have to be at least 5x the estimated costs of pursuing the case to trial. 

• Enforceability: There must be clear evidence that the defendant has the financial resources to pay the damages and that any court judgement can be enforced.

• Experienced legal team: AxiaFunder will only fund cases for which the claimant’s legal team are clearly competent and have in-depth experience in the relevant area. 

• Alignment of interest: The claimant and his legal team should share some downside risk in the event the case loses. 

Other considerations include regulation, security for costs, pricing, and funding strategy to trial.


What are the risks of investing in litigation cases and how to mitigate them?

Litigation funding is typically provided on a non-recourse basis. As a result, an investor stands to lose all or most of their original investment if the case is unsuccessful. However, the downside risk of losing the entire investment can be significantly reduced by investing in a portfolio of litigation cases. This is illustrated in the article Single case versus portfolio litigation funding.

There is also a risk of having to pay the other side’s costs in the event the losing party themselves lacks the capital to cover these costs. The adverse cost risk can be mitigated by having After-The-Event (ATE) insurance policy in place. It provides protection against the liability to pay the other side’s costs in the event the case is unsuccessful. 

How to invest with AxiaFunder?

Investors need to register on the AxiaFunder platform and complete the onboarding process which involves completing identity checks and passing the investor suitability test. Once these steps are complete, investors are ready to invest. 

Past performance is not indicative of future results & Capital at risk. Returns are not guaranteed

Emerging from the pandemic – Startup sentiment in the UK and USA

Angel Investment Network, the world’s largest angel investment platform, surveyed the views of startups in the USA and UK to see how they have responded more than a year and a half after the pandemic first hit. This involved interviews with 1,205 startups in the USA and 667 in the UK. The key findings in the overall report we have published are:

1) Confidence returning
Similar numbers in both territories are now positive about the next 12 months. In the USA 76% of respondents are now confident about the next year, with 72% confident in the UK. However more US startups are very optimistic about the future, 52% against 42% in the UK. This could of course be down to a naturally more upbeat mindset but the research also reveals some particular challenges in the UK – for example the impact of Brexit. Meanwhile 70% of respondents in the USA are confident about the country retaining its status as a ‘startup hub’, versus 65% in the UK.

2) Networking and bootstrapping have been ways of mitigating stalled investment
62% of US startups have seen growth negatively impacted with 59% in the UK negatively impacted. The research also reveals the similar approach to mitigating the impact of stalled investment. The top strategy adopted in both countries was focusing more on networking. Other strategies adopted included delaying launch plans, holding back on marketing and hiring and  bootstrapping businesses as far as possible..

3) Raising investment is biggest challenge goingforward
Raising investment remains the biggest challenge going forward and there is a firm belief in both countries that government has a key role in making the conditions more favourable through tax relief. The report also looked at the biggest bugbears for startup founders. Number one in both countries was investors demanding too much of a stake in the business. Time consuming due diligence was also a pressing concern as were very slow rejections.

As we look forward, startups in the US and UK can be the engine room of economic recovery in both countries – nurturing their growth is vital.

Here is the full report