Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event on Australia: The Evolution of a Litigation Finance Market

Litigation Finance News

On Tuesday June 15th, LFJ hosted a special digital event on Australia: The Evolution of a Litigation Finance Market. Moderator Ed Truant (ET), founder of Slingshot Capital, helmed a panel discussion  that covered a broad range of issues facing the Australian market. Panelists included Andrew Saker (AS), CEO of Omni Bridgeway, Stuart Price (SP), CEO of CASL, and Patrick Moloney (PM), CEO of Litigation Capital Management. 

Below are some key takeaways from the event: 

ET: From my perspective, and I have diligenced many managers on a global basis, the Australian fund managers seem to be the most successful and consistently performing fund managers in the world, can you offer any insight as to why that may be the case? 

PM: The fact that the panelists here today have been around since the inception of the industry in Australia, it’s given us a long time to think long and hard about not only how we originate these opportunities for investment, but how we undertake the due diligence process, and how we manage those processes.

AS: There’s a combination of factors. It’s partly to do with the strength of the legal system here in Australia, involving a sophisticated judiciary. As a second point, there’s historically been limited competition. As a consequence, litigation funders could afford to be more choosy—and cases were generally of higher quality.

ET: Another difference in the Australian market is the concept of contingent fees for law firms. Can you comment about why that really doesn’t exist in the Australian market? Is that changing, and what effect may that have?

SP: Contingency fees were introduced in 2020 in Victoria, where law firms were able to receive a return/reward of the settlement proceeds. This has really expanded the litigation funding market—providing different forms of litigation funding for plaintiffs—that should be a positive outcome.

PM: There’s a strongly held perception in Australia that there’s a conflict of interest between lawyers participating, and having their fees tied to the outcome of a particular dispute resolution. I think that’s one of the reasons Australia has resisted the contingency fee type of charging that has been prevalent for many years in places like the US.

ET: Do you find that people consider Australia a market leader in Litigation Finance in terms of innovation? Have you seen examples of Australian innovation cross-pollinating to other jurisdictions?

PM: I’m not sure that Australia really has led a tremendous amount of innovation in our industry. Our greatest innovation is in taking this industry and turning it into a business.

AS: Australia has been innovative in the evolution of the business, and its coupling with the conducive class action regime we have here in Australia. There are some very good minds around the world within our organization and elsewhere that are taking this industry in new directions. It’s still very much in its infancy, and the next steps for its evolution are going to be interesting and exciting to see.

ET: As your business grew, what changes did you witness in terms of regulatory, legislative, etc. And how did those changes affect the market?

AS: I’m a recent newcomer to the industry. I’ve been with Omni Bridgeway now for six years. During that period, we’ve seen the growth of the industry and its continued adoption outside the traditional uses of litigation funding. So that’s one of the more significant changes we’ve seen—adoption by corporates, for exploring ways to mitigate legal risk. The other significant issue is the growth of regulation and the industry of criticism that seems to be evolving toward litigation finance, which all started from a very noble social access to justice limb. I think it continues to have those characteristics. But for whatever reason, an ear has been gained for those who are critical of the industry—which will lead to a reassessment of how the industry is regulated and run.

PM: I’ve been involved in this industry directly now for 18 years. The greatest shift I’ve observed has been that shift between those who use litigation finance for necessity to those who use it through choice. People who need finances in order to continue their dispute or go through the arbitral process. And the maturing of our industry has now brought it to larger corporates who use litigation finance as an incredibly efficient capital source to run their portfolio disputes and manage risk, and to also bring in an efficient way of managing disputes through to their conclusion.

ET: Looking forward, in the insolvency market, there’s an expected tsunami of insolvency claims post-COVID, yet Australia as a country appears to have managed the economic impact perhaps better than the rest of the world. Is the tsunami coming?

SP: Australia has done remarkably well on a global scale. Its economy is strong and it seems to have weathered the impact of COVID very well. I’ve been speaking with a number of insolvency practitioners, and they do not expect a tsunami. They certainly don’t expect a large wave—but out of any crisis will always come bad behavior and some insolvencies. So for people who are committed to the insolvency market, when you’re there consistently, you’ll have a relatively consistent stream of opportunities.

There is unlikely to be a tsunami—but as ever there will be corporate misbehavior, which can lead to insolvencies.

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.