Certum Group, which provides bespoke solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation, has appointed William C. Marra as a director responsible for leading the company’s litigation finance strategy. Marra is a seasoned litigation funder and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk who will help Certum continue its mission of growing and redefining the litigation finance landscape. “We are delighted to welcome aboard Will, who shares our mission-driven approach to helping clients mitigate legal risk and vindicate their rights,” said Joel Fineberg, Certum’s founder and managing director. “Will’s wide-ranging experience in both the legal and business worlds will be an asset as we continue to innovate in the fast-growing world of litigation funding.” Certum Group created the first and only litigation risk transfer platform that combines insurance, premium finance, and litigation funding to provide tailored solutions for companies, litigants, and law firms. Founded 10 years ago, the team is comprised of former litigators, judicial clerks, actuaries, and financial professionals who design risk transfer and funding solutions to meet legal, business, and financial objectives. “I am delighted to join the talented team at Certum,” said Marra, who grows Certum’s presence in the New York City area. “Funding gives litigants with meritorious claims better access to the courts, and I look forward to helping Certum’s clients get access to litigation funding, insurance, and other solutions that will help them achieve their legal and business goals.” Marra’s unique blend of legal and financial expertise mirrors Certum’s distinctive approach to helping clients mitigate legal risk by offering the widest breadth of legal and financial products currently available in the market. Marra graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He co-teaches a course on litigation finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School, and his law review article, The Shadows of Litigation Finance, was published by the Vanderbilt Law Review. Prior to joining Certum, Marra spent several years at another litigation funder, where he managed litigation investments from sourcing and diligence through funding and resolution. Marra litigated commercial, constitutional, and appellate matters at Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C. He also clerked for both Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

About Certum Group

Certum Group provides bespoke solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation. We are the leader in providing comprehensive alternative litigation strategies, including class action settlement insurance, litigation buyout insurance, judgment preservation insurance, adverse judgment insurance, contingency fee insurance, capital protection insurance, litigation funding, and claim monetization. Our team of experienced former litigators, insurance professionals, and risk mitigation specialists helps companies remove the financial and operational volatility arising out of litigation by transferring the outcome risk. Learn more at www.certumgroup.com.

Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. ("Mill City") (NASDAQ:MCVT), a specialty short-term finance and non-bank lender, announced today that it extended an additional $1 million of short-term loan principal to Mustang Funding LLC d/b/a Mustang Litigation Funding ("Mustang") and refinanced and extended earlier provided short-term loan principal. In December 2022, Mill City announced that it had entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Mustang contemplating a merger combination transaction with Mustang. Contemporaneously, Mill City provided Mustang with a $5 million short-term loan to provide additional capital. The most recent $1 million of additional short-term lending brings the total amount of capital committed to Mustang to $8 million. The principal amount of all short-term loans made to Mustang accrues interest at the per annum rate of 15% and becomes due and payable upon the earlier of May 31, 2024, or 90 days after any termination of discussions for the contemplated combination transaction. Mill City's Chief Executive Officer, Douglas M. Polinsky said, "[O]ur December 2022 announcement of our intention, subject to certain identified conditions and to entering into a definitive agreement with Mustang, to effect a combination transaction with Mustang signifies what we believe to be a transformational opportunity for Mill City and its shareholders. For the entirety of 2023, we have been working diligently, in a collaborative manner, with Mustang to lay the foundation for this combination transaction. Our most recent extension of further credit to Mustang aggregates to $8 million of total investment with Mustang-approaching 50% of our net assets-reflecting both our profound commitment and confidence in Mustang and our expectation of completing an eventual combination." Jimmy Beltz, Co-Founder and President of Mustang, commented, "We are extremely excited to have Mill City's support, evidenced by its continuing financial commitment to our company, and are working toward a definitive agreement for the merger. Mustang is continuing to grow its litigation funding business and anticipates that the merger will enable it to further capitalize on the opportunities available within the emerging litigation finance industry. Post-merger, Mustang expects to benefit from being able to access public markets for capital, while also presenting investors with the ability to participate in a differentiated, Nasdaq-listed, litigation finance company." Mill City does not anticipate providing any further updates with respect to a possible transaction with Mustang until the earlier to occur of its entry into a definitive agreement with Mustang or the termination of discussions.

Viren Mascarenhas is a Partner in the Litigation and Arbitration Practice at Milbank LLP based in New York.  He specializes in construction, commercial and investment arbitration, and has represented investors in investment arbitrations against the governments of Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Viren has special expertise in commercial disputes in the energy and mining sectors, and construction disputes over energy infrastructure.  He has been ranked in international arbitration by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Lawdragon 500, Who’s Who Legal, Euromoney Legal Media, Latinvex, and Law 360, and has been recognized more generally for his accomplishments as a lawyer by The New York Law Journal, Crain’s New York Business, the American Bar Association, the US National South Asian Bar Association, and the US LGBT Bar Association. Milbank is a full-services, international law firm, with offices in the US (New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC), Brazil, Europe (London, Munich, and Frankfurt), and Asia (Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul and Tokyo).  Its Litigation and Arbitration practice thrive on complex cases in federal and state courts throughout the US, English courts, and arbitral tribunals. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Viren Mascarenhas: What first interested you in litigation finance? What experiences (positive or negative) have you had interacting with the sector?  My first encounter with the litigation finance industry goes back to 2011, when a funder instructed the firm where I was then an associate to assess the likelihood of an investor prevailing in a potential investment treaty arbitration against a South American state regarding the denial of a mining concession.  The experience helped me cut out the noise; focus on the key elements of an alleged wrongdoing; review the key evidence; and then use my judgment to assess the likely outcome.  As lawyers, we want to tell the full story when pleading a case—sometimes to a fault.  Litigation funders—like judges and arbitrators—rigorously try get to the heart of the matter quicker. My experience with the sector has always been positive.  In addition to being instructed by funders to do risk assessment, I have been able to secure funding successfully for my clients over the past decade from several different funders.  These were all meritorious matters in which my clients would not have been able to get a shot at justice without funding.  And their claims always have become stronger and more compelling based on insights shared by experienced funders during the due diligence/underwriting phases and exchanges during the arbitral proceedings. What trends are you seeing pertaining to arbitration funding of various legal sectors? How is the landscape evolving?  The trends I have seen are:

1. Funders have become more selective about funding investment treaty claims.  The increased selectivity usually is unrelated to the merits of the cases—which often times are compelling—but concern over the length of time tribunals are taking to render awards, and subsequent time thereafter to enforce the award if the respondent state does not comply willingly with the award.  The profile of the sovereign defendant (are they likely to pay; do they have enforceable assets) has become critical to the funding assessment.
2. By contrast, funders are increasingly keen to fund commercial and construction arbitrations.  They are very eager to work with corporates that likely have a portfolio of arbitrations at any given time.
3. More players exist in the market now to buy a stake or all of an arbitration award than a decade ago.

What are the regional issues that arise when funding arbitration disputes?  It is becoming increasingly clearer in certain jurisdictions, especially in Asia, about the extent to which litigation funding is permitted and under what terms because of recent legislative or common law developments in those jurisdictions.  However, clients from those jurisdictions who are seeking litigation funding sometimes have “sticker shock” when reviewing funding terms being offered to them either to fund their matters or to “buy” their awards.  They need more handholding when it comes to understanding the economics of litigation funding, largely because of a lack of familiarity with the litigation funding market. Sometimes, local law firms that have strong relationships with local clients may have difficulty securing funding either because they are not known to the funders (relationships matter) or because they have not represented their clients in specialized arbitrations, such as construction or investment arbitrations.  In these circumstances, local law firms have reached out to me to serve as lead or co-counsel during the funding process and then subsequently in the arbitrations. What are the challenges presented in terms of compliance with the losing party during an arbitral award, and how do you navigate those?  Enforcement of international arbitration awards has got a relatively bad rap now because of investment arbitration.  Increasingly, sovereign states seek annulment of an award as a matter of course, just to tie things up in annulment proceedings for several years to demonstrate to their voting constituents that the government used all options available to it.  And even after an award survives annulment challenges, some states still do not pay up, resulting in years of enforcement litigation chasing after those state assets that are not protected by sovereign immunity. The challenges are much fewer in commercial and construction arbitration.  Unless the stakes are very high (a “bet the company” arbitration), award debtors do not frequently seek annulment of an award given the low chances of ultimately being successful.  Unless the award debtor is a true deadbeat, it will tend to comply with the award or at least offer to settle the award at a discount.  Often, these commercial actors have long-standing relationships with each other, so the arbitration outcome is just one component of the business relationship with the counterparty and overall reputation in the industry. What are the trends / key developments you are keeping an eye on in relation to litigation/arbitration funding that impact how you think about your international arbitration portfolio?  The main developments that I focus on are:

• New mining claims from investors in the critical minerals industry. These are minerals that are essential to the energy transition (such as lithium, which is used in battery storage). Governments all over the world, such as in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, are enacting new measures to regulate and control these critical minerals.  Many of the mining companies or their investors (such as electric vehicle automakers) are new to the mining sector and/or are junior or small mining companies.  They likely will need third-party funding for their claims—and there will be claims in the next few decades given the commercial and geo-political fights over critical minerals in the supply chains.
• More arbitrations in the renewables sector (commercial, construction, and investment arbitrations) all over the world as governments continue to implement their obligations under the Paris Agreement and fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions to invest in renewable energy, low carbon, and hydrogen projects. As has been the case in Italy, Spain and other European countries, governments may change a key economic input (such as the price of feed-in tariffs) that led to foreign investment in the renewables sector, resulting in investment treaty disputes.  There will also be more commercial disputes as new technologies in the sector evolve and the limits of existing technologies in long-term projects (wear and tear) are tested.
• My firm Milbank frequently serves as counsel to lenders in financing projects. If the project company is tied up in disputes, lenders need comfort on recovering their loans, which requires ballparking damages and obtaining protections in the form of insurance products or indemnities. This has led to me facilitating more conversations between my finance/restructuring partners and litigation funders.
• Discussions with clients over whether to secure ATE insurance even if an arbitration is not seated in a jurisdiction such as England that adopts a default principle of “loser pays.” We are seeing more adverse costs awards against unsuccessful claimants in the investment arbitration space.  So, a client may want to consider whether to obtain ATE insurance in addition to third party funding, even though this might mean more overall borrowing.

Viren Mascarenhas es Socio del Departamento de Litigios y Arbitraje de Milbank LLP, con sede en Nueva York. Está especializado en arbitraje de construcción, comercial y de inversiones, y ha representado a inversores en arbitrajes de inversiones contra los gobiernos de Argentina, Azerbaiyán, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italia, México, Nigeria, Perú, Filipinas, Federación Rusa, Timor Oriental, Uruguay y Venezuela. Viren tiene especial experiencia en litigios comerciales en los sectores de la energía y la minería, y en litigios de construcción sobre infraestructuras energéticas. Ha sido clasificado en arbitraje internacional por Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Lawdragon 500, Who “s Who Legal, Euromoney Legal Media, Latinvex y Law 360, y ha sido reconocido de forma más general por sus logros como abogado por The New York Law Journal, Crain” s New York Business, la American Bar Association, la US National South Asian Bar Association y la US LGBT Bar Association. Milbank es un bufete internacional de servicios integrales, con oficinas en EE.UU. (Nueva York, Los Ángeles y Washington DC), Brasil, Europa (Londres, Múnich y Fráncfort) y Asia (Pekín, Hong Kong, Singapur, Seúl y Tokio). Su práctica de Litigación y Arbitraje prospera en casos complejos ante tribunales federales y estatales de todo EE.UU., tribunales ingleses y tribunales arbitrales. A continuación, nuestra Conversación LFJ con Viren Mascarenhas: ¿Qué fue lo primero que te interesó de la financiación de litigios? ¿Qué experiencias (positivas o negativas) has tenido interactuando con el sector? Mi primer encuentro con el sector de la financiación de litigios se remonta a 2011, cuando un financiador encargó al bufete en el que yo era entonces asociada que evaluara la probabilidad de que un inversor prevaleciera en un posible arbitraje de un tratado de inversión contra un Estado sudamericano en relación con la denegación de una concesión minera. La experiencia me ayudó a eliminar el ruido, a centrarme en los elementos clave de una presunta irregularidad, a revisar las pruebas fundamentales y a utilizar mi juicio para evaluar el resultado probable. Como abogados, queremos contar toda la historia cuando presentamos un caso, a veces hasta la exageración. Los financiadores de litigios, al igual que los jueces y los árbitros, intentan llegar al meollo del asunto con mayor rapidez. Mi experiencia con el sector siempre ha sido positiva. Además de recibir instrucciones de los financiadores para hacer evaluaciones de riesgos, en la última década he conseguido financiación para mis clientes de varios financiadores distintos. Todos ellos eran asuntos meritorios en los que mis clientes no habrían podido obtener una oportunidad de justicia sin financiación. Y sus demandas siempre se han hecho más sólidas y convincentes gracias a las ideas compartidas por financiadores experimentados durante las fases de diligencia debida/suscripción e intercambios durante los procedimientos arbitrales. ¿Qué tendencias observas en relación con la financiación del arbitraje de diversos sectores jurídicos? ¿Cómo está evolucionando el panorama? Las tendencias que he visto son

1. Los financiadores se han vuelto más selectivos a la hora de financiar las demandas de tratados de inversión. El aumento de la selectividad no suele estar relacionado con el fondo de los casos -que a menudo son convincentes-, sino con la preocupación por el tiempo que tardan los tribunales en dictar laudos, y el tiempo posterior para ejecutarlos si el Estado demandado no los cumple de buen grado. El perfil del demandado soberano (si es probable que pague, si tiene bienes ejecutables) se ha convertido en un factor crítico para la evaluación de la financiación.
2. En cambio, los financiadores están cada vez más dispuestos a financiar arbitrajes comerciales y de construcción. Están muy dispuestos a trabajar con empresas que probablemente tengan una cartera de arbitrajes en un momento dado.
3. Ahora existen más actores en el mercado para comprar una participación o la totalidad de un laudo arbitral que hace una década.

¿Cuáles son los problemas regionales que surgen al financiar los litigios de arbitraje? En algunas jurisdicciones, especialmente en Asia, cada vez está más claro hasta qué punto está permitida la financiación de litigios y en qué condiciones, debido a la reciente evolución legislativa o del derecho consuetudinario en esas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, los clientes de esas jurisdicciones que buscan financiación para sus litigios a veces se llevan un buen susto cuando examinan las condiciones de financiación que se les ofrecen, ya sea para financiar sus asuntos o para “comprar” sus laudos. Necesitan más ayuda para comprender los aspectos económicos de la financiación de litigios, en gran parte por falta de familiaridad con el mercado de la financiación de litigios. A veces, los bufetes locales que tienen sólidas relaciones con clientes locales pueden tener dificultades para conseguir financiación, bien porque no son conocidos por los financiadores (las relaciones importan), bien porque no han representado a sus clientes en arbitrajes especializados, como los de construcción o inversión. En estas circunstancias, los bufetes locales se han puesto en contacto conmigo para que actúe como abogado principal o coasesor durante el proceso de financiación y posteriormente en los arbitrajes. ¿Cuáles son los retos que se presentan en términos de cumplimiento con la parte perdedora durante un laudo arbitral, y cómo se navega por ellos? La ejecución de los laudos arbitrales internacionales tiene ahora relativamente mala fama debido al arbitraje de inversiones. Cada vez más, los Estados soberanos buscan la anulación de un laudo como una cuestión de rutina, sólo para atascar las cosas en procedimientos de anulación durante varios años y demostrar a sus electores que el gobierno utilizó todas las opciones que tenía a su disposición. E incluso después de que un laudo supere las impugnaciones de anulación, algunos Estados siguen sin pagar, lo que da lugar a años de litigios de ejecución que persiguen los activos estatales que no están protegidos por la inmunidad soberana. Los desafíos son mucho menores en el arbitraje comercial y de la construcción. A menos que sea mucho lo que esté en juego (un arbitraje de “apueste la empresa”), los deudores de laudos no suelen solicitar la anulación de un laudo, dadas las escasas posibilidades de tener éxito en última instancia. A menos que el deudor del laudo sea un auténtico moroso, tenderá a cumplir el laudo o, al menos, ofrecerá liquidarlo con un descuento. A menudo, estos actores comerciales mantienen relaciones duraderas entre sí, por lo que el resultado del arbitraje es sólo un componente de la relación comercial con la contraparte y de la reputación general en el sector. ¿Cuáles son las tendencias/evoluciones clave que sigues en relación con la financiación de litigios/arbitrajes y que influyen en tu forma de pensar sobre tu cartera de arbitrajes internacionales? Los principales avances en los que me centro son:

• Nuevas demandas mineras de inversores en la industria de los minerales críticos. Se trata de minerales esenciales para la transición energética (como el litio, que se utiliza en el almacenamiento de baterías). Los gobiernos de todo el mundo, como los de Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, México, Zimbabue y Zambia, están promulgando nuevas medidas para regular y controlar estos minerales críticos. Muchas de las empresas mineras o sus inversores (como los fabricantes de automóviles eléctricos) son nuevos en el sector minero y/o son empresas mineras junior o pequeñas. Es probable que necesiten financiación de terceros para sus demandas, y habrá demandas en las próximas décadas, dadas las luchas comerciales y geopolíticas por los minerales críticos en las cadenas de suministro.
• Más arbitrajes en el sector de las energías renovables (arbitrajes comerciales, de construcción y de inversión) en todo el mundo, a medida que los gobiernos siguen cumpliendo sus obligaciones en virtud del Acuerdo de París y sus Contribuciones Determinadas a Nivel Nacional para invertir en proyectos de energías renovables, bajas emisiones de carbono e hidrógeno. Como ha ocurrido en Italia, España y otros países europeos, los gobiernos pueden cambiar un factor económico clave (como el precio de las tarifas de alimentación) que dio lugar a la inversión extranjera en el sector de las energías renovables, lo que dará lugar a disputas sobre tratados de inversión. También habrá más disputas comerciales a medida que evolucionen las nuevas tecnologías del sector y se pongan a prueba los límites de las tecnologías existentes en proyectos a largo plazo (desgaste).
• Mi bufete Milbank asesora con frecuencia a los prestamistas en la financiación de proyectos. Si la empresa del proyecto se ve envuelta en litigios, los prestamistas necesitan tranquilidad para recuperar sus préstamos, lo que requiere calcular los daños y obtener protecciones en forma de productos de seguros o indemnizaciones. Esto me ha llevado a facilitar más conversaciones entre mis socios de finanzas/reestructuración y los financiadores de litigios.
• Discusiones con los clientes sobre la conveniencia de contratar un seguro ATE aunque el arbitraje no se celebre en una jurisdicción como Inglaterra, que adopta el principio por defecto de “el perdedor paga”. Estamos viendo más sentencias adversas en materia de costas contra demandantes que no han tenido éxito en el ámbito del arbitraje de inversiones. Por tanto, un cliente puede considerar la posibilidad de obtener un seguro ATE además de la financiación de terceros, aunque ello pueda suponer un mayor endeudamiento global.

LegalPay, India’s first and largest player in the legal financing industry, has announced the successful closure of its Rs 12 crore Interim Financing Bonds. This innovative investment instrument in the fixed income category, which was launched earlier this year in January, boasts a remarkable coupon rate of 14% compounding annually. "We are thrilled to celebrate the success of our Interim Financing Bonds and our contribution to the economic revitalization of companies like Lavasa Corporation," said Mr. Kundan Shahi, Founder & CEO at LegalPay. "We are proud to have successfully closed our Interim Financing Bonds, but our true pride lies in the impact we create in the legal & insolvency ecosystem and the value we create for our investors and our clients. We are here to alleviate financial burdens, mitigate risks, and ensure that justice prevails." The bond has set new standards in the financial industry by realizing its opportunity in an impressive timeframe of just eight months despite having an original tenure of 36 months with a callable feature. LegalPay's Interim Financing Bonds represent a paradigm shift in the world of investments, offering a unique opportunity to investors and companies alike. The funds raised through this visionary initiative have been strategically employed to support Lavasa Corporation, a prominent player in the infrastructure sector. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the resolution plan of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited (DPIL), which offered Rs 1,814 crore to the creditors and homebuyers of Lavasa. Raj Infrastructure Development India, one of Lavasa's creditors, filed a bankruptcy petition against the company after it failed to meet its payment obligations. The petition was approved in August 2018. Notably, LegalPay's unwavering commitment to a rigorous underwriting process played a pivotal role in mitigating the perceived risks associated with this opportunity. In the face of skepticism, LegalPay's cutting-edge technology and AI-driven analysis, combined with its diligence and expertise, prevailed, resulting in the rapid realization of this investment. This remarkable success in just 8 months stands as a testament to LegalPay's strong underwriting, powered by advanced technology, and its dedication to delivering outstanding results to its investors. However, LegalPay's impact extends far beyond this successful bond closure. LegalPay is dedicated to providing critical capital to companies undergoing insolvency, breathing new life into struggling businesses, and fuellingeconomic growth. LegalPay's innovative approach is revolutionizing the way companies navigate litigation challenges, alleviating their financial burdens and providing a lifeline for those seeking funding for their legal battles. About LegalPay Currently managing claims worth INR 2700Crores, LegalPay aims to manage INR 5000 Crores with its proprietary tech and AI by the end of FY 2025. This demonstrates the company's dedication to substantially impacting India's legal and financial landscape. With groundbreaking instruments like Interim Financing Bonds and a commitment to supporting companies in insolvency and financing legal claims, LegalPay is making a substantial impact on the Indian legal andfinancial landscape while creating quintessential value for both businesses and investors.