Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled “Spotlight on Insurance.” The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren’t able to do that as a first-time manager, but it’s something we’d like to explore in the future. We’re currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to ‘yes.’

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I’m seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It’s very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders – an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn’t go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn’t be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you’ve got a policy with an insurer and you’re invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder– all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you’re not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you’re not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you’ll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the ‘divide and rule game’ with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we’ve been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) – things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won’t be insurable in the US. But we’re seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that’s where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we’ve been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial Regulatory Issues

More Than 100 Companies Sign Letter Urging Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule for Federal Courts Ahead of October Judicial Rules Meeting

By Harry Moran |

In the most significant demonstration of concern for secretive third-party litigation funding (TPLF) to date, 124 companies, including industry leaders in healthcare, technology, financial services, insurance, energy, transportation, automotive and other sectors today sent a letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging creation of a new rule that would require a uniform process for the disclosure of TPLF in federal cases nationwide. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will meet on October 10 and plans to discuss whether to move ahead with the development of a new rule addressing TPLF.

The letter, organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), comes at a time when TPLF has grown into a 15 billion dollar industry and invests funding in an increasing number of cases which, in turn, has triggered a growing number of requests from litigants asking courts to order the disclosure of funding agreements in their cases. The letter contends that courts are responding to these requests with a “variety of approaches and inconsistent practices [that] is creating a fragmented and incoherent procedural landscape in the federal courts.” It states that a rule is “particularly needed to supersede the misplaced reliance on ex parte conversations; ex parte communications are strongly disfavored by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges because they are both ineffective in educating courts and highly unfair to the parties who are excluded.”

Reflecting the growing concern with undisclosed TPLF and its impact on the justice system, LCJ and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted a separate detailed comment letter to the Advisory Committee that also advocates for a “simple and predictable rule for TPLF disclosure.”

Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel said: “The Advisory Committee should propose a straightforward, uniform rule for TPLF disclosure. Absent such a rule, the continued uncertainty and court-endorsed secrecy of non-party funding will further unfairly skew federal civil litigation. The support from 124 companies reflects both the importance of a uniform disclosure rule and the urgent need for action.”

The corporate letter advances a number of additional reasons why TPLF disclosure is needed in federal courts:

Control: The letter argues that parties “cannot make informed decisions without knowing the stakeholders who control the litigation… and cannot understand the control features of a TPLF agreement without reading the agreement.” While many funding agreements state that the funder does not control the litigation strategy, companies are increasingly concerned that they use their growing financial leverage to exercise improper influence.

Procedural safeguards: The companies maintain that the safeguards embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) cannot work without disclosure of TPLF.  One example is that courts and parties today are largely unaware of and unable to address conflicts between witnesses, the court, and parties on the one hand, and non-parties on the other, when these funding agreements and the financial interests behind them remain largely secret.

Appraisal of the case: Finally, the letter reasons that the FRCP already require the disclosure of corporate insurance policies which the Advisory Committee explained in 1970 “will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation.” The companies maintain that this very same logic should also require the disclosure of TPLF given its growing role and impact on federal civil litigation.

Besides the corporate letter and joint comment, LCJ is intensifying its efforts to rally companies and practitioners to Ask About TPLF in their cases, and to press for a uniform federal rule to require disclosure. LCJ will be launching a new Ask About TPLF website that will serve as a hub for its new campaign later this month.

Read More
Commercial People Moves

Mesh Capital Hires Augusto Delarco to Bolster Litigation Finance Practice

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Mesh Capital announced the hiring of Augusto Delarco who has joined the Brazilian firm as a Senior Associate, bringing a “solid and distinguished track record in complex litigation and innovative financial solutions” to help develop Mesh Capital’s Litigation Finance and Special Situations practices. 

The announcement highlighted the experience Delarco would bring to the team, noting that throughout his career “he has advised clients, investors, and asset managers on strategic cases and the structuring of investments involving judicial assets.”

Delarco joins Mesh Capital from Padis Mattars Lawyers where he served as an associate lawyer, having previously spent six years at Tepedino, Migliore, Berezowski and Poppa Laywers.

Mesh Capital is based out of São Paulo and specialises in special situations, legal claims and distressed assets. Within litigation finance, Mesh Capital focuses on “the acquisition, sale and structuring of legal claims, covering private, public and court-ordered credit rights.”

Case Developments Commercial

Delaware Court Denies Target’s Discovery Request for Funding Documents in Copyright Infringement Case

By Harry Moran |

A recent court opinion in a copyright infringement cases has once again demonstrated that judges are hesitant to force plaintiffs and their funders to hand over information that is not relevant to the claim at hand, as the judge denied the defendant’s discovery request for documents sent by the plaintiff to its litigation funder.

In an article on E-Discovery LLC, Michael Berman analyses a ruling handed down by Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in the case of Design With Friends, Inc. v. Target Corporation. Design has brought a claim of copyright infringement and breach of contract, and received funding to pursue the case from Validity Finance. As part of its defense, Target had sought documents from the funder relating to its involvement in the case, but Judge Bibas ruled that Target’s request was both “too burdensome to disclose” and was seeking “information that is attorney work product”.

Target’s broad subpoena contained five requests for information including Validity’s valuations of the lawsuit, communications between the funder and plaintiff prior to the funding agreement being signed, and information about the relationship between the two parties.

With regards to the valuations, Judge Bibas wrote that “while those documents informed an investment decision, they did so by evaluating whether a lawsuit had merit and what damages it might recover,” which in the court’s opinion constitutes “legal analysis done for a legal purpose”. He went on to say that “if the work-product doctrine did not protect these records,” then the forced disclosure of these documents “would chill lawyers from discussing a pending case frankly.”

Regarding the requests for information about the relationship between Design and Validity, Judge Bibas was clear in his opinion that these requests were disproportionately burdensome. The opinion lays out clear the clear reasoning that “Target already knows that Validity is funding the suit and that it does not need to approve a settlement”, and with this information already available “Further minutiae about Validity are hardly relevant to whether Target infringed a copyright or breached a contract years before Validity entered the picture.”The full opinion from Judge Bibas can be read here.