Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy.

The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March.

The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries.

As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing.”

By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available.

“When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.”

London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.”

Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

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.