Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: Innovations in Litigation Funding

On Wednesday, November 10th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital conference titled Innovations in Litigation Funding. The event featured a panel discussion on disruptive technologies within Litigation Finance, including blockchain, AI and crowdfunding platforms. Panelists included Curtis Smolar (CS), General Counsel of Legalist, David Kay (DK), Executive Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Liti Capital, Cormac Leech (CL), CEO of AxiaFunder, and Noah Axler (NA) Co-founder and CEO of LawCoin. The panel was moderated by Stephen Embry (SE), founder of Legal Tech blog TechLaw Crossroads. 

Below are some key takeaways from the panel discussion:

SE: All of you seem to have an interest in taking litigation funding out of the back rooms and making it more mainstream so that anyone can invest. I want to ask each of you to briefly explain your specific approaches in trying to accomplish this goal.

CS: Basically, what Legalist does, is we use artificial intelligence and machine learning to reduce the potential for adverse selection and hazards that may exist in the Litigation Finance field. By reaching out to those who have valuable claims, we’re able to select the cases we want, versus simply having cases presented to us and sold to us. This has been extremely valuable to us, as we get to really pick the best cases based on criteria that we are selecting.

DK: I think we’re getting pretty close to it already being in the mainstream. I think adoption has grown a lot over the last ten years. In terms of moving it forward, our view on it at Liti Capital is that we are trying to democratize the availability of Litigation Finance both from the people who finance it and the people who have access to it.

CL: What I really see AxiaFunder doing is connecting investors with a new asset class, and at the same time, providing claimants with a new source of flexible funding. AxiaFunder in a nutshell is a funding platform that connects investors with carefully vetted litigation investment opportunities on a case by case basis. The capital is put to work immediately, and then when the case (hopefully) resolves positively, we return the capital with a return. So there’s little or no cash drag. We see it as an obvious win-win.

NA: What we’re seeking to do is open Litigation Finance, like some of the other folks on the panel, beyond the institutional space into individual accredited investors and also to retail investors. The additional value add we have, is that we fractionalize the investments as digital assets, or what are sometimes called tokens, using the Ethereum blockchain. We think ultimately that by doing that, we can bring liquidity to the Litigation Finance space and beyond Litigation Finance as well. We’re not the only ones securing this in the private security space.

SE: One of the questions we often see with cryptocurrency, whether it’s right or wrong, is that it’s used to hide who is paying what to whom. How does that concept square with the growing concern of many investors (and to some extent, the judiciary) about transparency in terms of funding agreements and the identity of funders?

DK: I think the key here is consistency, which is to say ‘who is the funder?’ and I think that’s an important distinction that gets a short shrift from a lot of these discussions. To put it another way, if Liti Capital is the funder, then it’s obviously very important to know who Liti Capital is, and who are any majority or control holders within Liti Capital. And we, like other companies on the blockchain, are still required to do KYC and other rules with our investors to ensure that we’re compliant with domestic and international law. So I think that piece is much ado about nothing. But what I will add, is that I do think litigation funders should be held to the same standard as companies, and whether or not an arbitrator has an investment in our company is important to know, or a decision maker has an investment in our company is important to know. And disclosures in the same way that’s required in US Federal Court makes perfect sense. This is not a new issue. I think where we fall prey to the people that are against litigation funding…we’re falling prey to this argument that somehow everything and everyone must be known—or it’s evil. Access to justice is not evil. Being able to compete with people with large amounts of capital is not evil.

NA: I second a lot of the things David said. At LawCoin, we’re selling securities. We’re very upfront about that. That’s a hot button issue in crypto, whether or not a particular token is a security. We have a separate white list that exists off of the blockchain, which might in some cryptocurrency circles lead to criticism that we’re not a decentralized operation in the way that a lot of cryptocurrency evangelists argue that cryptocurrency is most suited for. We embrace the obligations that go with issuing securities, so as a result…there’s no issue with respect to our platform with having anonymous investors that haven’t gone through a KYCAML process.

SE: Given the volatility of cryptocurrencies that we’ve all seen…how do you mitigate against a severe price drop or price increase, and what do you tell investors in that regard?

DK: How does Blackstone or Apollo mitigate against market crashes or change in the underlying value of their equity? Volatility and movement in price just exist—in terms of value of the corporation. In terms of funding the cases, we’re not funding cases in Bitcoin or Ethereum. We’re not a cryptocurrency, we’re a company that’s listed on the blockchain. Our token trades on the blockchain, but our token represents the underlying equity of the company. The money that we raise, 90% of it is dollars, some small percent is in Ethereum, but…our expenses are paid in dollars, we raise money in dollars, our revenue comes in dollars. There is some currency risk in anything we would keep in Ethereum, but we manage it. … You really just have to be aware and manage the fact that you’re operating in two currencies.

SE: Given the way litigation sometimes drags on, especially in the US, given the unexpected twists and turns—what happens when you have to go back to your investor pool and say, ‘we need some more money?’ How do you manage that and how are the terms structured?

CL: There are two aspects to it. First of all, before we actually issue a claim, there’s no adverse cost risk for the claimants or our investors. But once you issue the claim, you potentially have adverse costs risk for the claimants. If the claimants can’t pay, our investors could potentially be liable for the adverse costs risk, which we’re obviously not comfortable with. Before we will fund a case where the claim is going to be issued, we basically get a cost budget through trial, and make sure we have enough money to see the case through to the end of trial. Having said that, the cost-budget is always an estimate. So sometimes you need to come back and get more capital from investors.

Litigation Finance Journal produces numerous digital events throughout the year. Please subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to stay informed about future events. 

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.