IN CONVERSATION WITH RUTH STACKPOOL-MOORE 15
SAPNA Lawyers sometimes assume corporate clients want them to be as lean as possible with fee estimates. However, the trend is that clients are saying ‘don’t give me a bare bones fee estimate with lots of caveats saying that it doesn’t include this or that contingency. Give me a realistic budget and err on the more generous side rather than the leaner side’. I guess it is the same for you. RUTH Our interest in that respect is exactly the same as the Claimant’s as we step into their shoes in terms of payment. The ratio of the budget versus the claim value is a key metric for us in determining whether a case is a good investment. SAPNA Yes. RUTH People are often surprised that we don’t want the lowest budget possible. We recognise that to have good people working on these cases you need to pay a decent amount of money. We don’t want to pay for inefficiencies, or extra work that is not necessary, but we have no problem with paying for good work. Firms will come to us with their expected budget and we will say ‘what about this, what about that. You should make it a bit more’ to make sure we have a real reflection of the likely costs. SAPNA When you’re deciding to take a case on at the beginning, do you outsource any of your decision making, either on the investment side or the legal side? RUTH We do rely on others to provide us with relevant information but we don’t outsource any of the decision making. When we initially receive an enquiry myself, or one of our investment teammembers, will make an initial assessment to determine whether the case is one that we should be looking into. If it is, we will enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the claimant so that we can receive documents relating to the case. If it still looks like a good proposition after reading the documents, we will present it to the investment committee. So in all circumstances both the investment team member and investment committee has to be satisfied that a case is a good investment if we are to enter into a funding agreement.
SAPNA And are you engaged in any portfolio relationships with law firms or clients? RUTH We don’t currently have any portfolio arrangements with firms. I don’t know if we’ve been asked to look at that before. I certainly haven’t in the short time that the office in Hong Kong has been open. At Harbour, we are quite open- minded and will look at most opportunities to see if there is something that we can do, but I’m not sure whether we would enter into a portfolio arrangement with a firm. We have to make it work from an economic point of view, for our investors. We are also looking at funding a portfolio of claims for companies, and one development we have seen recently is banks coming to us with a portfolio of claims for us to look at. SAPNA Have you ever funded a Respondent? If so, how does it work? RUTH We generally don’t fund respondents unless there is a monetary counter claim, but I know others do. We are currently thinking about how we could make it work. SAPNA There must be a way, but it’s not as straight forward as funding a Claimant. RUTH You’re right, it’s not straight forward. When someone is facing a claim against them it is harder to define success. When the claim is in motion a Respondent may be very willing to sign up to our terms, but if it is successfully defeated, there is nothing coming in for us to take our portion from and the party may try to re-negotiate what we are actually are entitled to. However, as I mentioned, we can fund a counterclaim for a Respondent if we think it is viable. I am involved in a situation like that at the moment.
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker