Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

The following article was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.

With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.

In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.

The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.

The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.

The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But - at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 - the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.

In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker - in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details - including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.

Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’

In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.

After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court heldthat the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.

We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.

Sarama Resources Ltd. ("Sarama" or the "Company") (ASX:SRR)(TSXV:SWA) is pleased to advise that it has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement ("LFA") with Locke Capital II LLC, an arm's length party that specializes in providing funding for dispute resolution (the "Funder") to commence international arbitration proceedings in relation to its investment dispute (the "Dispute") with the Government of Burkina Faso (the "Government").

The Dispute pertains to the illegal withdrawal of the Company's rights to the Tankoro 2 Exploration Permit (the "Permit") (refer news release 5 September 2023). The Permit covered the Tankoro Deposit which was the focal point of the Company's Sanutura Project (the "Project") which featured a multi-million ounce gold resource.

Litigation Funding Agreement

The LFA provides a four-year non-recourse loan facility ("Facility") of US$4.4 million to the Company to cover all fees and expenses related to its Claim to Arbitration (the "Claim").

Security of the Facility is limited to the Claim, associated potential proceeds and all benefits arising from the property and assets of the subsidiary companies comprising the ownership chain (the "Chain") pertaining to the Project (refer Annual Information Form, 2 April 2024). The Facility has been structured to enable the Company to continue to operate and consolidate its business outside the Chain without encumbrance or lien from the LFA.

All monies advanced through the Facility are non-recourse and repayable only in the event of a successful Claim or settlement of the Dispute that results in the receipt of Proceeds ("Proceeds") by the Company or in the event of a default by Sarama under the LFA. In the event of the occurrence of a material adverse change under the LFA, the Funder shall be entitled to recover only those funds which were advanced but remain unspent. The Funder's return is directly tied to the successful award and settlement of the Claim, with the total amount payable being a function of time and total Proceeds receipted. The priorities for distribution of receipted Proceeds are set out in the LFA and where commercially and legally sensitive, shall remain confidential.

If there is no settlement or award (or no default by Sarama under the LFA), the Company does not have an obligation to repay the loan. A detailed budget has been approved as part of the LFA, which covers all expected legal and ancillary costs associated with the arbitration process.

Plans for Arbitration

On 29 November 2023, the Company issued a Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso. The Government of Burkina Faso did not respond substantively to the Company's efforts to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. With funding to support legal costs secured, the Company is now preparing to lodge a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"). The Company will seek full compensation for the loss suffered which may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the Permit, the value of the Company's historic investments in the Project, the value of the Project at the time the Permit was withdrawn and damages the Company has suffered as a direct result of the Government's actions. The Project hosted a multi-million-ounce gold resource which was the subject of a substantially complete Preliminary Economic Assessment and fast-tracked development study at the time of the Government's illegal actions.

The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP ("BSF"), a leading international law firm, to assist with legal matters pertaining to the dispute (refer news release 17 October 2023). BSF is an internationally recognised dispute resolution law firm with extensive experience representing investors in international investment arbitrations in the mining and natural resources sectors worldwide.

Background to Claim

On 31 August 2023, the Company received notification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Quarries of Burkina Faso (the "Minister") that the Company's application for the Permit, received in August 2021 and granted to Sarama in November 2021 had been purportedly "rejected", even though the previous Minister had approved the Permit in accordance with the applicable laws nearly two years prior.

On 6 September 2023, during his public presentation at the Africa Down Under Mining Conference in Perth, the Minister, Simon-Pierre Boussim, stated that the Permit was available for purchase. Based on the notification from the Minister and his subsequent actions, the Company was forced to interpret the Minister's letter of 25 August 2023 as withdrawing the Company's rights to the Permit. The Minister did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Company on the matter.

The unlawful withdrawal of the Permit by the Minister, resulting in the removal of the rights to the land conferred thereunder, has rendered the Project valueless to Sarama, consequently destroying the value of the Company's investment in the Project.

Sarama's President, CEO & MD, Andrew Dinning, commented:

"The establishment of a non-recourse funding facility to cover all expenses related to the Company's arbitration case represents a major step forward in its pursuit of redress for the substantial damages suffered as a result of the Government of Burkina Faso's illegal actions.

Sarama's legal representatives, Boies Schiller Flexner, are highly experienced and have a very successful track record in international investment disputes, including an arbitration claim brought by Indiana Resources (ASX:IDA) against Tanzania which saw the company recently receive the first tranche of a US$90M settlement.

The Company will now proceed with filing a Request for Arbitration and intends to prosecute its case to the fullest extent possible."

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

Information in this news release that is not a statement of historical fact constitutes forward-looking information. Such forward looking information includes, but is not limited to: the sufficiency and continued availability of funding for arbitration; statements regarding the possibility of initiating international arbitration proceedings in accordance with the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso; the impact, if any, of the actions of the Government on the Company's investments in mineral projects in Burkina Faso; the ability for the Company to successfully recover proceeds of an award or settlement from Burkina Faso; the filing of the material change report; the occurrence of an event of default or material adverse change under the LFA; and providing further information in due course. Actual results may vary from the forward-looking information due to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; the success of the Claim; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations and expropriation or nationalization of mining operations; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; as well as those factors disclosed in the Company's publicly filed documents. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.

Sarama does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable laws.

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It's about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business's strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It's all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it's all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm's potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company's potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

A long-time litigation funding professional and former trial lawyer, Ronit Cohen is considered among the most experienced legal finance underwriting counsel in the U.S. After working as a litigator at Simpson Thacher and O’Melveny and Myers, she joined the burgeoning funding industry in 2012, first at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway, where she helped launch their first office, and then at Validity Finance, where in addition to serving as a member of the Risk Monitoring Team, she headed up a pro bono effort to provide capital to wrongfully accused individuals during the pendency of their civil actions. She co-founded Arcadia Finance in June of 2024, and serves as Managing Director along with co-founders David Kerstein and Joshua Libling.

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital - fast. Led by industry veterans with over $400 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance's mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

Area of Focus: With a focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration, Arcadia Finance is open to the full spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross-border and offshore matters. We consider cases in all federal and state courts, as well domestic and international arbitrations.    

Member Quote: "I believe litigation funding is essential for a balanced legal system. It empowers clients with valid claims to seek justice, even when facing well-resourced opponents."

Moneypenny and VoiceNation have an excellent service offering to help legal clients drive new business by responding quickly to new inquiries on their behalf.

The service means that VoiceNation’s team of professional US-based call handlers will help improve the conversion rate of new inquiries, by responding to them quickly on the phone, and qualifying them by asking a series of screening questions provided by, and tailored to, the client. As a result, legal firms’ own teams can focus on converting qualified leads, saving their teams time and effort.

VoiceNation’s highly trained professional call handlers know the importance of making a good first impression and the new Intake Service is backed by full CRM and Zapier integration.

How it Works

• When a new completed web form arrives at a client’s CRM, this alerts VoiceNation’s OpenAnswer platform
• OpenAnswer immediately flags to a VoiceNation agent about the lead
• Using the completed web form details, the lead is qualified by phone, or any other required channel
• All information requested by the client is then fed back into the client’s CRM for immediate conversion
• The service integrates with all CRM platforms and contracts can be completed via Docusign

Eric Schurke, VP of Moneypenny and  VoiceNation said: ‘This service enables legal companies to respond to new leads before their competitors do. We’re doing the heavy lifting of sifting through new opportunities, efficiently and cost-effectively, by qualifying new leads, so in-house sales teams can then convert hot leads faster.  Our clients should see benefits of the new service really quickly, achieving faster new business growth.’ 

On Wednesday October 16th (Thursday the 17th, in Australia), LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled 'Spotlight on Australia.' The event featured Michelle Silvers (MS), CEO at Court House Capital, Stuart Price (SP), CEO and Managing Director of CASL, Maurice Thompson (MT), Global Head of Litigation Funding at HFW, and Jason Geisker (JG), Head of Claims Funding Australia. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Unfortunately, Jason Geisker was unable to join the panel due to technical difficulties. However, the other three panelists covered a broad range of topics relating to litigation funding in Australia. Below are key takeaways from the event:

ET: Australia is a pioneer in the use of litigation finance. Can you provide an overview of the Australian market?

MS: Australia has been involved in litigation funding for over 20 years, since the late 1990s. At the moment it's an interesting environment, we have listed and private funders, hedge funds, law firms and private insurers. Our market is dominated by litigation funders, not necessarily alternative capital sources, which is what tends to happen overseas. We've witnessed the market globalizing with offshore funders entering, and local funders expanding abroad, but a lot of the offshore funders have withdrawn from the market in recent years.

The market is small - Australia's population is 25-28 million, so you can imagine that the way we operate here is quite different than overseas. We have about 10 players operating in the Australian market at the moment. Our environment is quite different than overseas, it's smaller and well-knit. We all know each other quite well, we compete for the same cases. It's fierce competition, and an exciting environment.

ET: In terms of return profile, I 've been privy to a lot of litigation finance resolutions on a global basis, and in my review of the data, it strikes me that Australian funders are some of the best in terms of producing consistent returns, albeit the quantum of financing is a little bit smaller than what you might find in the US. Generally speaking, do you agree with that? And to what would you attribute the performance of Australian funders?

SP: I attribute that to the predictability of outcomes, and that really comes from the jurisdiction being established for a long time. Some of the growing pains that other jurisdictions are having, are dealing with new issues and new laws. Most of our bench that deals with litigation funding and new actions, they were senior and junior lawyers, partners, barristers, and now have become judges. So there is an ingrained knowledge of the system, and an appreciation of the importance of litigation funding to provide access to justice.

That in itself also goes with the Australian civil justice system, which is an absolute Rolls Royce. It is gold-plated, it is costly, so you need to be able to navigate that in a way where duration risk doesn't become an issue to you. So when you talk about performance, I absolutely agree Australia is up there as one of the better performing markets in the world. We select our cases well and we settle cases before trial (about 95% of cases settle before trial - that brings duration risk down). That combination of factors are all a reflection of the 25 years-plus of existing in this market.

ET: Up until recently, outside of the class action space, lawyers have not been able to engage in contingent fee arrangements, but jurisdictions like Victoria have changed this dynamic. Can you discuss the current state of contingent fee arrangements and its likely trajectory, and the implications for the litigation funding market?

MT: Everything Stuart mentioned about this being an isolated part of the world, and the impacts that has on doing business here, is absolutely correct. A flip on that though, is that degree of isolation that we've had as a nation has always had us looking closely outside of our borders. So we observe what's happening in other parts of the world and that influences how we think.

Some of the comments you've heard might suggest that we're a slightly immature legal market, in the sense that politics have impacted the courts and there has been some degree of uncertainty since 2020. But I'd flip that and say that this is a case of us looking hard at what we need moving forward and what will suit Australia. The largest differential between us and the United States, for instance, is that we never want to see a situation in Australia where the overweight child might sue the fast food chain because some lawyer provides contingent fee arrangements, all those sorts of things. We've laughed at that scenario overseas, and we don't want that here. So the whole idea of contingent fees stirs up all sorts of feelings in our legal environment, and in having to deal with those negative perceptions, we have to think very carefully about how we structure things moving forward.

In the period between 2020 and now, there's been a proliferation of class actions in Victoria to take advantage of the contingent fee arrangements. Not all law firms have done that - my law firm, for instance, we're running three large plaintiff class actions at the moment, we've got a few others in the pipeline. We're currently not fixated on Victoria, because among other things, the way it's been dealt with - generally if you want to take full advantage of a contingent arrangement sanction by the court and legislation, you have to bear all the risk of the costs and a security for costs order against the law firm. And most law firms won't stomach that at all (because this is so new). But other law firms see this as an opportunity - particularly large national firms like Maurice Blackburn for instance. Large firms like that will take advantage because they can finance the risk. If I'm going to sell that to my partners in London, Asia or elsewhere, it's a different proposition.

So we are inching closer to a wider opportunity for law firms to take on contingent risk, but we're not there yet. I don't think it's going to be the free for all that people have been concerned about. That's not to say there hasn't been class actions flooding into Victoria as opposed to other states, but I think that will slow down. And so a firm like us is looking beyond the Victoria borders.

To view the entire 1-hour discussion, please click here.