Risk Settlements, which provides bespoke solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation, has changed its name to Certum Group. Latin for “certainty,” Certum represents the core benefit the company delivers to its clients across its entire suite of solutions. “Our new name represents our mission of bringing certainty to the uncertain world of litigation through our proprietary risk transfer platform,” said Joel Fineberg, managing director. “By using risk transfer of known, threatened, or pending litigation or judgments, we help our clients win more by risking less.” Certum Group has 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. Certum Group’s suite of products includes litigation funding for companies and law firms, claim monetization for known or latent litigation assets, and judgment preservation insurance (JPI) to guarantee the recovery of large judgments being appealed. It also includes portfolio “wrappers” to ensure that an entire group of cases will prevail making monetization or funding possible, class action settlement insurance (CASI) which removes the uncertainty of claims-made settlements, and litigation buyout insurance (LBO) that shifts the outcome of contested litigation from the defendant to a large insurance carrier. Depending on the client’s goals, these solutions are offered stand-alone, or in combination with each other. 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.
In 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled that legal advertisements are protected by the first amendment. The court highlighted that restrictions on legal marketing hampered access to justice “particularly for the not-quite-poor and the unknowledgeable.” The 1980s spawned a renaissance in attorney advertising, and today, the market for legal advertising tops well over $1.2B a year in the United States.CNN Business reports that many personal injury firms are seeking to advertise to the public, in a bid to attract attention with clever TV commercials and newspaper promotions. Direct response methods are even engaged to target potential clients who are currently in the hospital recovering from injury. Hedge funds and savvy litigation investment networks invest vast sums of capital to attract business in the personal injury market, according to CNN. The U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (a longstanding opponent of the litigation funding industry) claims that aggressive attorney advertising is problematic and can increase the number of frivolous lawsuits. In contrast, CNN reports that the overall amount of claims filed in the United States is declining, partly due to stricter state laws to curb social inflation, and also due to the increasing cost of bringing cases to court. That latter point is exactly why consumer legal funding exists in the first place.
Litigation funding continues to be one of the best tools available for individuals to seek legal redress against large corporations and institutions, where they would otherwise be outmatched by the weight of legal resources these organizations can finance. This is once again the case, as a Swedish business leader has received funding for his case against one of Sweden’s prominent investment banks.Realtid covered the news that Kapatens, a leading Swedish litigation funder, is backing Lage Jonason’s claim against Mangold Fondkommission. The lawsuit centres around allegations by Mr. Jonason that Mangold unlawfully executed a forced sale of shares that Jonason had pledged as security. The sale of these shares in one company, which reportedly took place mostly in a single day, resulted in a massive 86 percent drop in the value of the company’s shares. Jonason’s claim alleges that the shares which were forcibly sold for a value of 20 million SEK, were previously valued at 150 million. Kapatens is funding the claim which is valued at approximately 99 million SEK, with the case being led by Nybron Advokater, a Stockholm-based boutique law firm.
In an update to one of the most significant sets of class action suits, Johnson & Johnson has been denied by an appellate court after it attempted to prematurely end class actions through the use of bankruptcy procedures.An article by Bloomberg covers the latest development in the ongoing series of lawsuits being brought against J&J by cancer victims, who allege that the company’s ‘tainted talc’ baby powder led to their cancer diagnosis. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia found that J&J was not allowed to block these cases, numbering over 40,000 lawsuits, by placing an individual business unit (LTL Management) into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.The panel of three judges ruled that J&J’s attempts to provide LTL protection under the bankruptcy code was not legitimate, given that the business was not faced with immediate financial danger. Leigh O’Dell, principal at Beasley Allen law firm, is leading thousands of these cases for cancer victims and stated that the panel’s ruling opened ‘the doors to the courthouse’ and condemned J&J’s ‘cynical legal strategy’.J&J is allowed to appeal the ruling, and if they are once again denied, will still have the option of appealing its case to the Supreme Court.
The use of the blockchain and the tokenization of litigation funding has been promoted by many parties as the next step in the digital transformation of the industry, unlocking new avenues of access to justice. In a recent post, one industry thought leader puts forward the argument that this technology can also be used to increase opportunities for litigation funding as a vehicle for social impact, and increase the potential for nonprofit legal funding.In a post by Aurelia Le Frapper, co-founder of blockchain litigation funding platform No Impunity, the potential benefits of tokenized litigation funding are outlined. Le Frapper highlights that by using fractional non fungible tokens, the ownership and funding of an individual lawsuit can be distributed more widely, and create more opportunities for impact investors to finance social impact lawsuits.Le Frapper also points out that this approach can increase the number of lawsuits that are able to be financed, by using a crowdfunding approach that brings a larger number of small value investors together. The article also describes a number of benefits enabled by this approach, including additional transparency provided by the blockchain, more efficient distribution of settlement funds and a more streamlined ability to ensure regulatory compliance through the tamper-proof blockchain records.
Among the various criticisms faced by the litigation funding industry, one that has found a resurgent voice in recent months has been the claim that allowing third-party funding of lawsuits in the U.S. is a threat to national security where foreign investors are financing lawsuits. This critique has been leveled by the Chamber of Commerce and a cadre of lawmakers, but in a new opinion piece, a top legal scholar seeks to combat these assertions.Writing for The Hill, M. Todd Henderson, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, argues that policy proposals which seek to curtail third-party funding only create an environment of ‘financial isolationism’ and would, in reality, have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and legal system. Henderson begins by returning to the guiding principle behind litigation funding, that a lack of financial capital should not be a barrier to entry for those seeking legal redress, and that the identity of the funder does not affect the merit of the case being brought.The op-ed also refutes the claim that litigation funding could jeopardize national security secrets, pointing out that not only are funders passive investors in the litigation process, but also if there are concerns around classified material, the courts have the ability to maintain that security through mechanisms such as protective orders. Additionally, Henderson points out that the U.S. is already a beneficiary of around $5 trillion in foreign direct investment, according to IMF data, and this particular industry should not be unjustly excluded from foreign investment that is actively welcomed in the wider economy.
On January 25, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023. The hour-long panel discussion and audience Q&A was live-streamed on LinkedIn, and featured expert speakers including William Farrell, Jr. (WF), Co-Founder, Managing Director and General Counsel of Longford Capital, Laina Hammond (LH), Co-Founder, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer of Validity Finance, and Louis Young (LY), Co-Founder and CEO of Augusta Ventures. The discussion was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. The discussion spanned a broad spectrum of key issues facing the litigation funding industry in 2023. Below are some key takeaways from the event: RB: How does your underwriting change, given the varied risks across different legal sectors? Do you have different IRR requirements for different case types or jurisdictions? LH: At various points in time in our process, we are going to be assessing the risk of total loss. Antitrust, treaty arbitration, patent cases are riskier. When we’re calculating expected risk of loss, we take into account the various factors that make a case more risky—jurisdiction, collectability, other factors that dictate the IRR range. That is how we tie the risk factor to IRR, so the returns reflect the risk commensurate for any situation. WF: At Longford, our underwriting process remains the same across all legal sectors. But risk assessment is unique across opportunities. We look at 50 different characteristics for risk assessment. At Longford, and I imagine the same is true at funders like Validity and Augusta, there is a very strong demand for our financing, so we are able to pick only the most meritorious cases, rather than pricing risk for a range of cases. LY: We have a very controlled process in our underwriting, and it’s conducted in a very stock-standard framework. But that framework is a continual iterative process. Our underwriting changes as we resolve cases through wins and losses, where you learn things that you didn’t know in underwriting. If we had to build a portfolio like we did for our first portfolio, which was 60-70 investments with $200MM invested—if that took us three years to build at the time, it would take us four or five years now, given the fact that we’ve learned so many other things as we’ve invested. Changes in financial modeling have become far more complex and nuanced as to the particular cases, so the outcomes and scenarios that we run now are far more detailed. RB: The last prolonged recession helped jumpstart the litigation funding industry in the US. If we do have a prolonged recession, what do you see as the prospects for the industry this time around? Can we expect the same growth post-recession? LH: I think it’s tricky to accurately predict the impact of recessions on specialty industries like Litigation Finance, especially when the recession arises out of complicated geopolitical factors. That said, it’s entirely likely that a recession provides a boost for demand. Legal services will always be in demand, and the cost of legal disputes is going to continue to rise. In tough economic conditions, companies might be pushed to consider litigation finance as an alternative to the self-funding that they historically use for their litigation. This could also lead to an infusion of capital into the market, as investors look for ways to diversify into alternative assets that are uncorrelated to the broader market. LY: I don’t know if the last recession did jump start the industry. I remember one of the first trips I did across the U.S. – this was around 2014 or so. And there were a whole set of law firms who didn’t know about litigation funding, so they were taking on the risk themselves—they were in effect acting as litigation funders. I think what really spurred litigation funding was the entrepreneurial bent of these law firms, who said to themselves ‘ok we’ve been taking this risk on for our clients, and here is a way we can de-risk ourselves.’ It was that mindset, and it happened so quick. In 2014, I introduced myself, and it was like, ‘Nice to meet you, here’s the door.’ Then two years later, it was happening. You just had very savvy, sophisticated people within the law firms who saw litigation funding for what it was, and they’ve become champions of it. And those same law firms are championing litigation funding even more now, and that will spur the industry forward. RB: What insurance products look most interesting right now, and are there any you’d like to see in the future? WF: Over the past two years, the insurance industry seems to have identified our industry as a new and attractive source of business for the insurance industry. There are significant synergies and similarities between litigation finance investments and insurance products, and for the moment, insurance markets seem to be most comfortable placing insurance on judgement preservation, and that is because they perceive cases at that stage of the lifecycle to be more easily understood, evaluated, and priced. But other products are popping up every day—insurance wrappers, which can be around an entire fund, or offer judgement preservation or principal protection, or they could be more bespoke and wrapped around particular subsets of investments. Offering insurance products for individual investors within a fund, uniquely designed for that particular investor’s risk tolerances is on the horizon, and will be made available to investors and funds in our industry. At the end of the day, the costs of these products will be most important in determining whether the Litigation Finance industry will be able to find a way to work with the insurance industry. The cost of these products will be taken directly from the returns that might otherwise be achieved without insurance, and the evaluation of these costs against the risk that is being protected against, is what will determine whether insurance becomes a meaningful part of our business. RB: What are your thoughts on the 60 Minutes piece, and the resulting publicity for the industry? Is this a net-positive—all publicity is good publicity, or would the industry benefit from being more under-the-radar, as there might be a mainstream outcry over a single bad actor that could malign the entire industry? WF: The Litigation Finance industry has made great strides over the past 10 years, particularly when it comes to awareness and acceptance of our offerings among all of the effected constituencies. Litigation Finance also levels the economic playing field, to where disputes among companies are resolved on the merits, rather than on the financial wherewithal and strengths/weaknesses of the litigants. So it’s good for the legal system. I think that the more awareness we can achieve, the more acceptance and more use we will see. I am opposed to flying under the radar—I like the idea that the more that people know about our industry, the more they will see that we are doing good, because we are helping people access justice which might not otherwise be there for them.
Katonah NY. Modeso LLC D/B/A Rapidfunds (“RF”), today announced that they have signed an agreement with Amicus Capital (“AC”), a prominent investment firm in the legal financing market, establishing a partnership to provide financing to law firms throughout the United States. Through this partnership, RF and AC will market each other’s services to existing and prospective law firms on a nationwide basis by leveraging their extensive databases of law firms. This partnership will provide significant benefits to both organizations, as well as the lawyers they serve. By pooling their resources, RF and AC will be able to offer a comprehensive suite of financing options to law firms of all sizes. In addition, the two companies will be able to share knowledge and best practices, giving both organizations a competitive edge in the legal finance market.“Bill Tilley is a pioneer and seasoned expert in the settlement finance market” stated Peter J. Speziale the Company’s CEO and President. “We believe this partnership will make both companies stronger and will allow law firms to pursue financing with industry-leading terms.”About Rapidfunds:RapidFunds® was co-founded in 2004 by attorney Peter J. Speziale, as a solution to the cash flow problems contingent fee attorneys face. Running a law firm takes a lot of capital. Traditional lending institutions are generally not comfortable lending on contingent fee cases, and typically not to the extent necessary to resolve cash flow problems. Unlike these institutions, Rapidfunds fully understands the value of the assets contained in a law firm’s inventory of cases.About AMICUS Capital:More than two decades ago, Bill Tilley had a vision to mitigate the most systemic business challenge for law firms: wildly fluctuating cash flow. His solution was to apply business and finance philosophies to the legal industry, and in doing so, he ignited the litigation finance industry. Today, Amicus Capital Group is a leading provider of capital to law firms and attorneys, and Tilley’s pioneering work continues to shape the way that legal services are financed. By providing much-needed stability to the industry’s cash flow, Tilley has helped countless law firms to grow and thrive. In the process, he has changed the landscape of legal finance forever.AMICUS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC is a private finance company dedicated solely to the provision of innovative litigation finance and business services for trial lawyers. They are focused on stabilizing cash flow to increase growth, sustainability, and profitability. Amicus Capital Group offers savvy solutions at every stage of business, from financing litigation to managing expenses. By providing capital and expertise, they help law firms overcome the challenges of operating in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Whether you’re looking for working capital to grow your practice or ways to improve your bottom line, Amicus Capital Group can help.
Multinational technology companies are appearing as targets for antitrust lawsuits in several jurisdictions, with these tech giants facing scrutiny for how they may be misusing their dominant market positions. Whilst these antitrust cases have historically found more welcoming legal frameworks in Europe, an impending lawsuit against Google looks to follow that trend in the U.S.Reporting in CNET explains that the Department of Justice is bringing a lawsuit against Google in federal court, alleging that the company used its monopoly position to unjustly dominate the digital advertising market. This case follows similar legal actions in the UK and Europe, with Google accused of using anti-competitive practices to harm advertisers and publishers, as well as smaller competitors.CNET also reports that Google had sought to dissuade the Justice Department’s latest lawsuit by alleviating the concerns raised, having suggested that it would be “willing to split off its ad business.”This legal action has also drawn the attention of litigation funders, with LitFin announcing via LinkedIn that they are funding a group action against Google, and looking to represent media houses and publishers who have been damaged by Google’s actions.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.