Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Partners with SEI to Bring Litigation Finance to Registered Investment Advisors
Commercial Deals Special Features

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

September 29, 2021

Day One of LF Dealmakers Concludes

Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities. The initial panel discussion was titled “State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook.” The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:
  • Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
  • Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
  • Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
  • Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital
The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in: Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before. Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential. Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before. The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table. In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here. At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims. The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here. Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow. The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on “How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey,” featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs. Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value. MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services. All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

KPMG Appoints First U.S. Legal Services Chief as Arizona Alternative Business Structure Faces Scrutiny

By John Freund |

KPMG LLP has named Christian Athanasoulas as the inaugural head of KPMG US Legal Services, a newly created position aimed at expanding the Big Four firm's legal offerings in the United States. Athanasoulas, a Boston-based M&A tax practice leader with more than 25 years at the firm, will oversee efforts to integrate legal services with KPMG's broader corporate advisory platform.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appointment comes one year after KPMG gained regulatory approval to operate as an alternative business structure in Arizona — making it the first Big Four firm permitted to run a U.S. law firm. The division focuses on work traditionally handled by in-house legal teams, including post-merger contract cleanup, entity dissolution, and vendor consolidation.

The expansion, however, faces growing regulatory pushback. Arizona's Committee on Alternative Business Structures has recommended rule changes that would require ABS firms to serve Arizona clients and provide direct legal services rather than operate as national referral networks. The Arizona State Bar has warned that some entities may be exploiting the framework without meaningfully benefiting Arizona residents.

The development is significant for the legal industry's evolving competitive landscape. KPMG operates globally with more than 3,000 licensed attorneys and has already expanded legal services in the UK and Australia. Traditional law firms view the firm's entry with caution, recognizing that its established corporate client base, substantial resources, and technology investments present a formidable competitive challenge to conventional legal service delivery models.

Case Developments Commercial

U.S. Government Sides with Argentina in Discovery Dispute Over $18 Billion YPF Judgment

By John Freund |

The U.S. government has intervened in the long-running battle over an $18 billion judgment against Argentina, urging a federal judge not to hold the country in contempt for allegedly failing to produce official communications. The filing adds a significant layer to one of the largest litigation finance-backed disputes in history.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, former shareholders of YPF SA — Argentina's state-owned oil company — are seeking discovery of text messages and emails from Argentine government officials. The shareholders, backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, obtained the landmark judgment in 2023 after a court found that Argentina violated their rights through the 2012 nationalization of YPF.

The discovery effort is central to the shareholders' collection strategy. Plaintiffs argue that the communications could demonstrate that Argentina's state-owned banks and national airline function as "alter egos" of the government — a legal theory that, if successful, would allow them to pierce corporate structures and pursue assets held by those entities to satisfy the judgment.

The U.S. government's decision to back Argentina in the discovery fight underscores the diplomatic sensitivities at play. Sovereign discovery disputes of this scale raise complex questions about foreign government immunity and international comity. For the litigation finance industry, the case remains a closely watched test of whether third-party-funded enforcement actions against sovereign nations can ultimately yield meaningful recoveries on judgments of this magnitude.

Commercial

UPC Court of Appeal Rules Litigation Insurance Can Replace Multimillion-Euro Security Deposits

By John Freund |

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal has issued a landmark ruling that could reshape how patent disputes are funded across Europe. In a decision overturning four million Euros in security for costs orders, the court held that properly structured litigation insurance policies can fully satisfy a defendant's right to costs recovery — eliminating the need for cash deposits or bank guarantees.

As reported by McDermott Will & Schulte, the ruling arose from the case of Syntorr v. Arthrex. McDermott partners Hon.-Prof. Dr. Henrik Holzapfel and Dr. Laura Woll represented Syntorr in the appeal, successfully arguing that the plaintiff's litigation insurance policy contained sufficient protections to address the court's concerns.

The court identified several features that satisfied its requirements for adequate security, including non-voidability provisions, direct rights for the defendant to claim against the insurer, straightforward payment triggers, and placement with an EU-authorized Solvency II insurer. Together, these anti-avoidance endorsements provided the court with confidence that the defendant's interests were adequately protected.

The decision carries significant implications for the litigation finance industry. By establishing that well-structured insurance products can substitute for cash security, the ruling creates a clearer pathway for patent holders — particularly smaller innovators — to pursue claims in the UPC without immobilizing substantial capital. The court's framework effectively balances defendant protection with access to justice, signaling that the UPC is open to modern funding mechanisms in patent enforcement proceedings.