|
|
|
|
|
by dmurray
2070 days ago
|
|
I would think of it as closer to an equity investment: they provide some of the capital and share in some of the upside. And they likely provide some of the things equity investors do: strategic advice, domain knowledge, access to their network, all of which may or may not have value. In some jurisdictions they may need to structure and describe it as a loan. But a non-recourse high-interest variable-payback-schedule loan is really blurring the lines between equity and debt no matter what you call it. |
|
I agree that calling litigation financing a loan may be misleading because it could look more like debt or equity, depending on the structure. If the premium is fixed, then it looks like a zero-coupon corporate bond, except with uncertain maturity. If the premium is a percentage of the recovered amount, then it looks more like a stock investment.
The structure will probably also depend on the entity being funded (a corporate entity, a law firm, or an individual plaintiff). For a law firm, there are ethical restrictions on fee-sharing with non-lawyers. For individuals, there may be consumer protection laws that apply. Also, if the structure looks like a loan then laws regulating lenders may apply.
I'm not an expert in this, I just know enough to know it's complicated.