Trending Now

All Articles

3319 Articles
Commercial Deals

Woodsford Research on Innovative and Offensive ESG Litigation

ESG litigation is becoming a hot topic for global litigation financiers. Bob Koneck (Director of Litigation Finance and Legal Counsel at Woodsford) suggests companies approach ESG litigation proactively rather than passively. Mr. Koneck claims that corporate lawyers may find value in offensive ESG litigation to further finance business goals.  Koneck says that meaningful ESG awards can be captured by aggressively protecting firm business lines from ESG abusers. Mr. Koneck suggests that ESG litigation should be approached as a profit center, rather than a balance sheet liability.  Litigation Finance Journal has collated 16 highlights to Mr. Koneck's research as an added bonus. 
Commercial Fundraising

The Baltic Litigation Fund and Arbitration Finance Innovation 

The first arbitration fund of the Baltic States has been launched, dubbed the Baltic Litigation Fund. Licensed by the Bank of Lithuania, the Baltic Litigation Fund will focus on developing strategies for arbitration across Eastern and Central Europe.  Verslo žinios UAB reports that the Baltic Litigation Fund aims to invest up to €1M in 10 arbitration negotiations over the near future. The fund’s management expects to consider cases involving fraud, Middle East and offshore investments along with delinquent credit agreements.  The Baltic Litigation Fund forecasts that investors may see a return on their investment within the 2025 time-frame.
Commercial

VWM Capital’s Six Litigation Finance Guides

London's VWM Capital has composed a group of six litigation finance handbook guides, covering the ins and outs of the modern third party investor. VWM also covers topics such as attorney ethics and best practices for the future of litigation finance innovation.  The six guides also include a historical timeline of key dates that have shaped the global litigation finance ecosystem. Additionally, VWM shares insights into what the future of litigation investment may look like, with the engagement of technology such as AI and other logic-based systems and processes.  The set of VWM guides offer attorneys with ample resources to help educate potential claimants on the value proposition of litigation investment.
Commercial Deals

Global Mining Bosses Seek Liquidity and Legal Enterprise Portfolio Building 

With the rapid development of litigation franchises around the planet, savvy litigation investors are researching litigation opportunities in the mining sector. Jeffery Commission (Director at Burford Capital) explains how his enterprise is shaping international mining claims inside a legacy fund portfolio.  Mr. Commission says that numerous sovereign mining contracts will be forced to renegotiate terms and conditions. Many fear that opportunistic adversaries may seek to defraud individuals and group investors.  Burford's research notes that between 1966 and 202, 25% of global arbitration at the International Center for Settlement of Investor Disputes has oil, gas and mining companies seeking resolutions.
Commercial People Moves Regulatory Issues

The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy on Global Trends in ESG Litigation 

Litigation Finance Journal has collated 107 highlights to Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham's international ESG research published by the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. In summary, all indicators signal a decade of cross-border climate litigation ahead for humanity as a whole.  Key themes from the Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation include a significant increase in strategic litigation focused on market makers in New York. According to sources used by Setzer and Hingham, financial markets in the United States have yet to meet a group like ClientEarth, which has dominated the European ESG litigation scene.  Further emphasis is being placed on clumsy climate funds front-running ESG strategies. Al Gore and Apple's latest fund could be impacted, according to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
Commercial Fundraising

Experity Ventures Secures $32M from Brean Capital 

Experity Ventures is widely known for its work to provide non-recourse loans and litigation finance products to medical claimants as well as medical professionals. Experity has announced a $32M capital infusion by Brean Capital.  Experity's chair and founder Joseph Greco explains that his firm has developed a dynamic litigation finance platform. Mr. Greco suggests that the medical litigation investment marketplace is prime for consolidation. Greco says that the new investment will add value to Experity's industry consolidation efforts.  Click here to read more.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

New Zealand Commission Recommends Changes To Class Action And Funding Regulations

An advisory body in New Zealand has provided updated guidance and recommendations for new legislation to regulate class actions and the litigation funding industry. The Law Commission, an independent Crown entity, has put forward a range of proposals including a new Class Actions Act, which aims to strengthen access to legal redress by removing restrictions on the types of claims or legal jurisdictions under which actions can be brought. The recommendations also include an array of suggestions for improving and regulating legal funding. Providing insights for Bell Gully, Sophie East and Tim Shiels highlight that the commission’s approach focused on both tightening regulation of the industry, whilst also recognizing that litigation funding has been key to expanding access to the class actions process. Among the proposals focused on litigation funding are measures to ensure all funding agreements are approved by the court, that claimants must disclose these agreements, and provide the courts with the power to implement cost orders on the litigation funders. Finally, they note that in a separate move, the commission recommends the creation of a publicly-funded class action scheme to avoid potential claimants being left behind if their actions would not be commercially profitable for a third party funder.
Case Developments Commercial

Apple And Google Face Class Action Suit Over Anti-Competition Allegations

Tech goliaths Apple and Google are under the spotlight in Australia, as they face a twin class action suit alleging that they breached consumer law by using their dominant market share to force out competition and price gauge both consumers and developers in their app stores. The case is being brought by Phi Finney McDonald, whose case is being backed by Vannin Capital, a UK-based fund. According to Australian Lawyer, the case hinges on the claim that Apple and Google took advantage of their power by forcing developers to utilize their own payment platforms whilst mandating commissions of only 30%, or sometimes even lower.  Google has argued that it strongly supports competition in the market, however, both companies are also accused of employing non-negotiable contracts with developers through which these entities would then have no control over future contract changes.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

High Court Ruling Suggests Funder Liability Is Broader Than Expected

The extent and scope of litigation funding liability is being questioned, after a High Court ruled the funder was liable for costs predating the litigation funding agreement (LFA).  In analysis for Lexology, Jodie Gittins and Chris Ross of RPC noted that this is a signal to funders to not assume their liability in unsuccessful claims will be measured against their portion of funding contributed, nor will it be limited by the start date of their funding agreement.  In the case of The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors, the claimant had entered into an LFA with Therium in September 2019, to fund the action and partially cover costs that The ECU Group had accrued since November 2018. After the Commercial Court had dismissed all claims and ruled that ECU must pay the defendant’s costs, HSBC asked the court to order Therium to be jointly liable for all costs dating back to the start of proceedings. Mrs Justice Moulder ruled that Therium was indeed liable for these costs as they had (in part) covered these costs for ECU. As the courts have a breadth of options when deciding costs orders, funders should be mindful that in cases where they have the potential to reap a large reward if successful, they may face an equally significant loss when the outcome is reversed.