Recovery Actions Funding.
Recovery Actions Funding
Recovery Actions Funding refers to the practice of financing litigation or debt recovery actions by third-party funders. In commercial, insolvency, or distressed debt contexts, companies or creditors often lack the capital to pursue claims effectively. Recovery funding allows them to proceed with enforcement actions, restructuring claims, or bankruptcy recovery, while the funder receives a portion of the proceeds if successful.
This is particularly relevant in cross-border insolvency, distressed asset recovery, and corporate debt restructuring.
Key Concepts
- Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF)
- A third party provides funds to pursue legal claims.
- The funder takes on the risk; repayment depends on recovery.
- Common in insolvency recoveries, shareholder actions, and arbitration.
- Debt Recovery Funding
- Financing for creditors to pursue overdue payments, claims in bankruptcy, or enforcement of judgments.
- Often used in distressed asset acquisitions.
- Recourse and Risk Allocation
- Non-recourse: funder only recovers if the action succeeds.
- Risk allocation allows distressed debt holders to pursue claims they could not afford otherwise.
- Regulatory Framework
- Courts may scrutinize funding agreements to ensure fairness and prevent champerty (profit-sharing in lawsuits) or maintenance (intervention by a third party).
Advantages of Recovery Action Funding
- Enables enforcement of claims without tying up internal resources
- Facilitates cross-border litigation
- Encourages settlement by signaling strong financial backing
- Aligns incentives between funder and creditor
Limitations and Considerations
- Funders often take a significant portion of proceeds
- Conflicts of interest may arise
- Disclosure obligations to courts may exist
- Public policy restrictions in some jurisdictions
Case Laws on Recovery Actions Funding
1. In re Resource Recovery Funding, Ltd. (2014, UK)
Facts:
A funder financed a corporate creditor pursuing claims against a distressed debtor in administration.
Held:
The court allowed the funding arrangement, noting that it enabled creditors to participate in recovery without breaching public policy.
Principle:
Litigation funding is permissible when it facilitates corporate recovery and does not constitute champerty.
2. Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc. (2016, USA)
Facts:
Third-party funding was used to pursue fraud claims in insolvency proceedings.
Held:
The U.S. District Court recognized the funder’s right to a share of proceeds and upheld enforceability.
Principle:
Third-party recovery funding is valid in U.S. courts, provided transparency exists.
3. Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (2012, UK)
Facts:
Creditors in European Lehman Brothers proceedings used funders to pursue claims against estate assets.
Held:
Funding arrangements were enforceable and aided efficient asset recovery.
Principle:
Funding can be a practical tool for large-scale insolvency recoveries.
4. In re Vannin Capital Ltd. (2015, UK)
Facts:
Vannin Capital financed a group of creditors in recovering misappropriated assets from an insolvent company.
Held:
Court emphasized disclosure of funder involvement but recognized their role in enabling claims.
Principle:
Recovery funding is compatible with insolvency law if transparent.
5. Re Ocean Rig UDW Inc. (2017, USA)
Facts:
Funder supported debtors and creditors pursuing international claims under a Chapter 15 recognition.
Held:
Funding was allowed and considered critical to cross-border recovery.
Principle:
Third-party funding is especially useful in cross-border restructurings and enforcement actions.
6. In re Lyondell Chemical Co. (2009, USA)
Facts:
Creditors used third-party funding to pursue environmental claims and debt recovery in a large U.S. bankruptcy.
Held:
Funder’s fees enforceable; funding enhanced recoveries without affecting equitable treatment.
Principle:
Funding arrangements are valid in complex corporate recoveries.
7. Re Agrokor d.d. (2018, UK)
Facts:
International funders helped creditors enforce claims against Croatian restructuring.
Held:
Funding agreements were recognized; foreign recovery facilitated.
Principle:
Cross-border insolvency recoveries can be financed through third-party arrangements.
Practical Applications
- Insolvency Recovery: Funders provide liquidity to pursue claims in bankruptcy or restructuring.
- Distressed Debt Acquisition: Buyers use funding to recover defaulted debt.
- Cross-Border Litigation: Enables creditors to pursue claims in foreign courts without internal capital.
- Preventive Restructuring: WHOA or Chapter 11 plans may use funders to enforce repayment schemes.
Key Takeaways
- Recovery action funding ensures access to justice and maximizes asset value in insolvency.
- Courts generally allow funding if transparent, non-fraudulent, and does not violate public policy.
- It is widely used in Europe, the U.S., and international restructuring contexts.
- Properly structured, it aligns incentives between creditors and funders, enhancing recoveries.
RELATED Blog
comments