Trending Now

All Articles

3403 Articles

CAT Rejects Applications for CPOs in Mastercard/Visa Claims

The UK’s collective actions regime under the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has been cited as a positive catalyst for litigation funders in the UK, bringing new opportunities to fund consumer-led actions against major corporations. However, this does not mean that all claims brought before the CAT will have their requests for collective proceedings granted, as the CAT has once again demonstrated last week. In a judgement published by the CAT on June 8th, the Tribunal’s three-person panel unanimously rejected four applications for Collective Proceedings Orders (CPOs) being brought against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of businesses. The four claims, which included an opt-in and an opt-out claim against each defendant, are being led by Harcus Parker and have received litigation funding support from Bench Walk Advisors. The claims focused on allegations that Visa and Mastercard had overcharged businesses through their unlawful and anti-competitive use of Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs). In the CAT’s ‘conclusion and disposition’ section of the judgement, the panel stated that the claims in their current form “do not meet the requirements set out in the CA 1998, the Rules and the case law to bring forward coherent proposals and to show a practical way forward to develop evidence to take the case to trial.” Among the various reasons laid out for rejecting the CPO applications, the panel stated that “the PCRs (Proposed Class Representatives) have exhibited a casualness about the methodology requirement which is concerning.” However, despite Mastercard and Visa’s arguments that the PCRs should not be given further time to revise their proposed proceedings, the CAT has proposed an eight week extension for the PCRs to notify the Tribunal “whether they intend to attempt to address our concerns by making adjustments to any of the proposed proceedings”. In the closing statement from the judgement, the CAT emphasized that “any revised proposed proceedings which the PCRs wish to present in response to the invitation above will need to overcome a number of hurdles in order for CPOs to be granted.”

Maximizing Claimant Success: Harnessing the Synergy of Litigation Funding and Litigation Insurance

“The emergence of legal insurance products has been a game changer in allowing both clients and law firms to lock in judgments, ring fence potentially deleterious outcomes, and provide for certainty where uncertainty used to be the rule.” - Ross Weiner, Legal Director at Certum Group  Uncertainties abound in today's complex legal landscape, leaving individuals and businesses vulnerable to the high costs associated with legal disputes. A pair of innovative solutions–litigation funding and litigation insurance–have emerged as powerful tools that, when utilized in tandem, can offer peace of mind to those involved in legal proceedings. In this article, we delve into the benefits inherent in synergizing these two forms of financial assistance, exploring the various types of litigation insurance, the individuals and entities that benefit from these products, and the numerous advantages they bring to the table.  Types of Litigation Insurance Products Below are popular forms of litigation insurance: 
  • After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance: ATE insurance policies are designed to protect litigants against the opposing side’s costs and expenses, should the claimants fail to win their case. It is typically purchased by plaintiffs, though some insurers do issue ATE insurance to defendants. These policies typically cover adverse costs, including the opponent's legal fees and disbursements. ATE insurance is purchased after the event which prompts the claim, but before the legal proceeding initiates (the closer to the start of the proceeding, typically the more expensive ATE insurance becomes). As ATE insurance protects against an adverse costs award, it is not applicable in the United States, which does not have a cost-shifting regime in place (except in extremely rare circumstances). 
  • Before-the-Event (BTE) Insurance: BTE insurance, also known as legal expense insurance, offers coverage for potential legal costs before a dispute arises. This product provides coverage for legal expenses in various scenarios, such as personal injury claims or contract disputes. 
  • Judgement Preservation Insurance (JPI): JPI is exactly as it sounds–insurance that protects a claim or group of claims which have already received judgements. JPI is very straightforward, and essentially meant to be a math problem: If your judgment is X, and you receive Y, the insurer will cover the difference or a portion thereof. As such, documentation is minimal, with fraudulent activity being the primary exclusion inserted into the agreement.  According to Stephen Kyriacou, Jr., Managing Director and Senior Lawyer at Aon: “Judgment preservation insurance can be used for more than simply mitigating appellate risk. Judgment holders have used it to accelerate the recognition of judgment-related gains in their earnings, to monetize judgments while appeals are still pending, and even to convert more expensive unsecured debt into less expensive debt secured by the policy, since the policy effectively guarantees a minimum recovery so long as there is no collection or enforcement risk associated with the judgment.”
  • Litigation Funding Insurance: Litigation funding insurance is a specialized form of coverage designed to protect litigation funders, who provide financial support to claimants in exchange for a share of the proceeds, if the case is successful. This insurance safeguards funders against the risk of losing their investment in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. It provides critical protection against adverse cost orders and helps to minimize the financial risks associated with funding litigation. Stephen Kyriacou explains: “It has been a years-long challenge persuading certain insurers to consider insuring litigation finance-related risks, but we’ve seen recently that insurers have become much more willing to consider high-quality risks from funders when all parties work together to creatively structure coverage and properly align interests and incentives. As more insurers continue to come around to the idea of insuring funders over the coming years, the litigation and contingent risk insurance market will continue to grow, and even more value-creating solutions will become available to litigation finance firms.”
  • Portfolio Insurance: Portfolio insurance, also known as litigation risk portfolio insurance, is a comprehensive solution that covers multiple litigation cases within a portfolio. This type of insurance allows law firms, corporations, or litigation finance companies to spread the risk across a range of cases, reducing their exposure to any individual matter. Portfolio insurance offers cost predictability and stability, enabling stakeholders to manage their litigation risks more effectively and allocate resources strategically.
There have been other ancillary uses of insurance, such as when one firm looks to purchase the docket of another firm’s cases, or to insure a portfolio of IPs that have an associated value. As the Insurance and Litigation Funding industries continue to become intertwined, expect more bespoke products to emerge.   Users of Litigation Insurance Products There are three typical users of litigation insurance products: 
  • Individual Litigants: Individuals involved in legal disputes, such as personal injury claims or family law matters, can benefit from litigation insurance products. ATE and BTE insurance provide financial protection, enabling individuals who seek justice without the fear of exorbitant legal expenses.
  • Businesses and Corporations: Litigation can pose significant financial risks for businesses and corporations, diverting resources from core operations. Litigation insurance products help shield companies from the potentially crippling costs associated with commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, or intellectual property conflicts.
  • Law Firms: Law firms can also benefit from litigation insurance products. By offering these products to their clients, law firms enhance their value proposition, differentiate themselves in the market, and provide an additional layer of protection to their clients.
Benefits of Litigation Insurance Products The benefits of utilizing litigation insurance are clear-cut: 
  • Cost Mitigation: Litigation insurance products alleviate the financial burden associated with legal disputes. They cover legal costs, including solicitor fees, expert witness expenses, court fees, and opponent's costs, reducing the financial risks for litigants and providing access to justice for those who might not have the means otherwise.
  • Risk Management: Litigation is inherently uncertain, with outcomes dependent on various factors. Litigation insurance acts as a risk management tool, providing litigants with the confidence to pursue their case knowing that their financial interests are protected. It enables litigants to make informed decisions based on the merits of their case rather than financial constraints. 
  • Enhanced Negotiation Power: Litigation insurance empowers litigants during settlement negotiations. With insurance coverage in place, litigants can approach negotiations from a position of strength, knowing that they have the financial resources to endure protracted litigation. This can lead to more favorable settlement outcomes and increased bargaining power.
  • Access to Justice: Perhaps one of the most significant benefits of litigation insurance is its role in ensuring access to justice for individuals and businesses. By removing financial barriers, these products level the playing field and enable litigants to pursue their legal rights, even against well-funded opponents.
Litigation funders understand the ‘access to justice’ problem quite well. Litigation insurance further contributes to the democratization of our legal system by ensuring that even if the claim is unsuccessful, claimants are protected from the potentially crippling costs of litigation. This assurance encourages claimants who may be otherwise deterred by the financial risks associated with litigation to pursue their claims with confidence. Consequently, the collective impact of litigation funding and insurance is an increased participation of claimants, a broader range of cases being pursued, and a more inclusive legal system. As Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33 points out, "The increased availability of insurance has enhanced the options available to claimants and law firms when it comes to protecting the downside of litigation. Only time will tell whether or not the litigation-focused products offerings will remain cost-effective additives to litigation finance." Litigation Funding & Litigation Insurance Litigation insurance products have emerged as valuable tools in the legal landscape, offering financial protection and peace of mind to those navigating the complexities of litigation. Whether individuals seeking justice, businesses guarding against commercial risks, or law firms enhancing their service offerings, litigation insurance provides a range of benefits.  Similarly, litigation funding affords plaintiffs the opportunity to see their case to fruition, when there might otherwise be no avenue for remuneration. By combining litigation funding and litigation insurance, claimants gain access to a tailored financial solution that meets their specific needs. Each claim has unique financial requirements, and the flexibility of these tools allows claimants to structure a financial package that aligns with their case's dynamics. This synergy offers claimants the freedom to allocate capital as required, covering legal costs, expert fees, and other case-related expenses while safeguarding against the risk of adverse costs. As the demand for these products continues to grow, they will mature into an integral part of the litigation landscape, empowering litigants and transforming the dynamics of legal proceedings for years to come. According to Boris Ziser, Partner and Co-Head of Finance and Derivatives at Schulte Roth and Zabel: “The growth of insurance products for the litigation funding space can be a real game changer, impacting not only the cost of capital, but expanding the universe of investors able to add this sector to their portfolios.” By integrating these two solutions, claimants can significantly enhance their prospects for success while reducing financial risks. This harmonious approach not only levels the playing field between claimants and well-resourced opponents, but also promotes a fairer and more accessible legal system.
The LFJ Podcast

Episode 75: Reid Zeising, Gain

Hosted By Reid Zeising |
In this episode, we sat down with Reid Zeising, Founder and CEO of Atlanta-based Gain (formerly Gain Servicing and Cherokee Funding). Reid discussed Gain's new AI-powered platform that addresses the operational and communications challenges, as well as the defense risks inherent in the consumer legal funding and medical lien spaces. [podcast_episode episode="11473" content="title,player,details"]

Texas Patent Infringement Defendant Requests Funding Disclosure, Citing Delaware Standing Order

For the last year, the conversation around patent litigation funding has been dominated by disputes over disclosure requirements, driven by the efforts by Delaware district judge Colm Connolly to increase transparency around third-party funding in these cases. The impact of these activities in Delaware are having a knock-on effect across the US, as demonstrated by a defendant in Texas asking the court to order the plaintiff to disclose details around its litigation funding. An article by Reuters covers the latest developments in the case of Lower48 IP LLC v. Shopify Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where Shopify has asked Judge David Ezra to force Lower48 to reveal its funding sources for the litigation. Lower48 had originally brought the lawsuit against Shopify in 2022, claiming that Shopify had infringed four patents concerned with the GraphQL query language.  Shopify’s lawyers emphasized the importance of the disclosure request, stating that unless the judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal its financial backers, “neither the court nor Shopify will know who the beneficiaries of this litigation are.” Shopify claimed that Lower48 is connected to IP Edge, an allegedly notorious non-practicing entity that has been involved in multiple patent infringement lawsuits. Shopify’s request is notable in its explicit citation of the standing order requiring disclosure of third-party funding, which was issued last year by Judge Connolly in Delaware.

Max Doyle Joins LexShares as New Chief Executive

As litigation funders continue to grow in a challenging economic environment, the importance of leadership and strategic vision for these businesses has never been more apparent. With the first half of 2023 nearing completion, one of the most established litigation finance companies has signaled its future vision with the announcement of its new chief executive. An article by Bloomberg Law shares the news that LexShares has appointed Max Doyle as its new Chief Executive Officer, with Doyle moving on from his position at Augusta Ventures where he led North American operations from Toronto. Doyle’s move to LexShares reflects his desire to focus on opportunities in North America, telling Bloomberg Law that his new position would allow him to do “something amazing”.  With LexShares reportedly hoping to close its third fund next year, Doyle emphasized the need to blend the firm’s long standing experience with a focus on the market’s evolving environment, stating that the new fund must have “enough DNA from the past, and comprise the types of cases that we’ve been known for.”  Whilst suggesting that the firm may focus on larger cases across a variety of areas in the future, Doyle suggested that mass torts would remain an active area for LexShares, stating that “it’s just one aspect of law, but it’s a particularly hot one at the moment.”

Key Takeaways from IMN’s 5th Annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance

On Wednesday, June 7th, IMN hosted its 5th annual Financing, Structuring and Investing in Litigation Finance conference. LFJ attended the event and covered various panel discussions on topics ranging from key trends and developments, ESG initiatives and insurance products. Below are some key takeaways from the event. The first panel of the day focused on broader trends and developments impacting the Litigation Finance industry. The panel consisted of Douglas Gruener, Partner at Levenfeld Pearlstein, Reid Zeising, CEO and Founder of Gain (formerly Cherokee Funding & Gain Servicing), William Weisman, Director of Commercial Litigation at Parabellum Capital, Charles Schmerler, Senior Managing Director and Head of Litigation Finance at Pretium Partners, and David Gallagher, Co-Head of Litigation Investing at the D.E. Shaw Group. The panel was moderated by Andrew Langhoff, Founder and Principal of Red Bridges Advisors. One of the most interesting back-and-forths came on the issue of secondaries, as Doug Gruener noted that 'There were a large number of investments made five to seven years ago, so the opportunity is ripe both on the demand side and supply side." Andrew Langhoff, the moderator, responded that there are major hurdles involved in facilitating a secondaries market, such as questions around pricing, execution and management of the claims, to which other panelists agreed. However, Charles Schmerler pointed out that this industry is like any other capital markets industry, and to the extend that a secondaries market can provide liquidity and be a useful resource, he would be surprised if five years from now we're not all reminiscing about how we once questioned the efficacy of a secondaries market in Litigation Finance. Perhaps the most timely panel of the day was on insurance, and its impact on the Litigation Finance market. The panel consisted of Brandon Deme, Co-Founder and Director at Factor Risk Management, Sarah Lieber, Managing Director and Co-Head of the Litigation Finance Group at Stifel, Megan Easley, Vice President of Contingent Risk Solutions at CAC Specialty, and Jason Bertoldi, Head of Contingent Risk Solutions at Willis Tower Watson. The panel was moderated by Stephen Davidson, Managing Director and Head of Litigation and Contingent Risk at Aon. Brandon Deme pointed to the rapid growth of the industry: “The insurance market is expanding. We’ve got insurers that can go up to $25MM in one single investment. When you put that together with the six to seven insurers who are active in the space, you can insure over $100MM. And that wasn’t possible just a few years ago.” One interesting point of discussion was on how to engender more cooperation between insurers and litigation funders, given that the two parties are at odds on issues relating to disclosure and regulatory requirements. Jason Bertoldi of Willis Tower Watson noted that almost every carrier who offers this product will have some sort of interaction with funders, either directly or indirectly. And while there is opposition to litigation funding from insurers around frivolous litigation and ethical concerns, there are similarly concerns amongst insurers around adverse selection and information asymmetry. So the insurance industry has to get more comfortable with litigation finance, and vice versa. The panel on ESG consisted of Viren Mascarenhas, Partner at Milbank, Nikos Asimakopoulos, Director of Disputes at Alaco, and Rebecca Berrebi, Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. The panel was moderated by Collin Cox, Partner at Gibson Dunn. This discussion touched on the opportunities afforded to funders by ESG efforts, as well as the challenges this emerging sector presents, such as diligence problems and confusion around how multinational ESG initiatives might impact state and local laws. Examples were provided around whistleblower claims, international arbitration efforts, supply chain issues in foreign jurisdictions. Other panels included discussions on the economics of the Litigation Finance market, strategies for mass torts investments, regulatory issues, and a small group meeting on women in Litigation Finance. Overall, IMN's 5th annual Litigation Finance event highlights the growth and maturation of a nascent industry, and the range of interested parties in attendance (from funders to law firms to insurance providers to asset allocators) underscores the sector's long-term sustainability.

Delta Capital Partner Management Welcomes Prominent Plaintiff-Side Litigator to LEAD Underwriting and Due Diligence

Delta Capital Partners Management, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce that Brian O’Mara has joined the company as its Chief Underwriting Officer.  In this role, O’Mara will be responsible for overseeing underwriting and due diligence and managing Delta’s investment portfolios. O’Mara joins Delta from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, one of the world’s most prominent complex litigation law firms.  At Robbins Geller, O’Mara was a litigation partner and focused his practice on complex shareholder and antitrust disputes.  O’Mara has been twice recognized by the American Antitrust Institute’s Antitrust Enforcement Awards for the category of Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice, has been named a Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine for the past six consecutive years, has been named a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer by Lawdragon.  With two decades of experience counseling clients on complex litigation matters, O’Mara brings a wealth of expertise to Delta. “At Delta, we are committed to attracting and retaining top talent with the ability to drive the best outcomes for our clients and investors.  Brian’s extensive experience and deep knowledge of the litigation landscape will be invaluable as we continue to grow and expand our global investment portfolio,” said Christopher DeLise, Delta’s CEO and CIO.  “We are thrilled to have Brian join our team and expand Delta to the West Coast.” “I am very excited to join Delta and help the firm continue to drive innovation in the litigation finance industry,” said O’Mara.  “I look forward to working with the team to evaluate high-quality investment opportunities for our clients and assist claimholders, law firms, and other parties seeking legal finance solutions around the world achieve their dispute resolution goals.  I could not be happier to advance my career with the Delta team and contribute to the firm’s continued growth and success in the years ahead,” commented O’Mara. About Delta Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global private equity firm specializing exclusively in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery.  Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants to enable them to investigate claims, pursue litigation or arbitration, recover assets, enforce judgments or awards, and more effectively manage their risks, cash flow, and capital expenditures.

Malaysian Government Wins Ruling Against Sulu Heirs, Threatens Legal Action Against Heirs and Funder

As LFJ has previously reported, the case brought against the Malaysian government by Filipino heirs of the Sulu sultanate has attracted much attention, having been cited as an example of litigation funders backing claims that threaten countries’ sovereignty. A judgement handed down by a French court this week suggests that the tides may be turning against the Sulu heirs and their funder, with the Malaysian government threatening to take legal action against these parties.  Reporting by Al Jazeera covers the latest development in the ongoing dispute between the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu and the Malaysian government, as the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitral panel, which had handed down the previous award, did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Robert G Volterra, a legal spokesperson for the Malaysian government, stated that  the ruling “validates Malaysia’s long-held position that this sham arbitration is nothing more than an attempt by a group of individuals to extort an exorbitant amount of money from Malaysia.” The Paris court also ordered the Sulu heirs to pay the Malaysian government €100,000 in costs and having previously ordered a stay on the $14.9 billion award in March, the Malaysian government said that it expected the court to annul the award entirely. The article reports that Therium had conducted nine rounds of funding for the arbitration, and that the case’s costs had risen to more than $20 million.  A separate article by Malaysia Now highlights comments by Azalina Othman Said, a government minister for law and institutional reform, who stated that the government may take legal action against the parties involved in bringing the case. Arguing that the initial claim by the Sulu heirs was financially motivated and backed by foreign capital, Azalina stated: “We are now seeing a movement that is more towards an element to make money, and we know that litigation funders will take 25 to 30% of the amount (claims). And that is why I want to issue a reminder that this is a very serious attack against the country’s sovereignty.”

Corporates, Law Firms and Funders Closely Watching Implementation of EU Class Action Directive

As member states across the European Union each begin to implement their own legislation governing class actions under the Representative Actions Directive, speculation is increasingly focused on the impact these frameworks will have on class action activity. Whilst major companies are understandably nervous about the potential move towards the US system, which is receptive to aggressive consumer-led lawsuits, funders and plaintiff-side law firms are trying to gauge the demand for their services in this new environment. An article in The Wall Street Journal examines the watchful atmosphere among companies, law firms and funders in Europe, as each of these parties wait to see how the class action landscape develops inside the EU. Scevole de Cazotte, senior vice president for international initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, believes that companies are anxious about the future, as they are “not at all used to this aggressive, entrepreneurial way of bringing cases.” The article notes that many US law firms have got on the front foot to try and secure a share of the expected class action market, with firms including Hausfeld and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman opening offices across the continent. Lucy Rigby, a partner in Hausfeld’s London office, argues that the new regime is a “long-awaited step forwards toward access to justice across the EU”. Funders are equally enthusiastic at the potential growth for their European businesses, with Omni Bridgeway’s Maarten van Luyn stating that the new directive will provide a boost for the funder’s business.