Trending Now

All Articles

3403 Articles
Commercial

NYSBA Seminar, Litigation Finance In 2022

On Thursday February 3, 2022 the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) will host a seminar titled, “Litigation Finance In 2022: Ethical Considerations For Attorneys And Current Marketplace Trends.” The discussion will be hosted by Lexshare’s CEO Cayse Llorens and Vice President of Business Development and Investments Matt Oxman. Both will explore ethics behind litigation finance business innovation. The discussion aims to correlate maxim client value with attorney ethical decorum. The seminar will survey developments to New York’s rapidly evolving litigation finance community.  NSBA will be issuing 0.5 Ethical and Professionalism credits for attendance. Tuition assistance is available for those in need.
Commercial

Video: Third Party Funding Enforcement

Olivia de Patoul, Senior Legal Counsel for the Asia-Pacific region at third-party funder Deminor, recently discussed enforcement issues with third party funders.  In a new video, De Patoul shares some background since opening her Hong Kong office in 2018. Deminor saw opportunities in Asia, specifically, Hong Kong and Singapore, which have both been a focus of Deminor’s as third party funding investment opportunities expand.  De Patoul notes that the market still needs to familiarize itself with new ways of pursuing third party claims; she expects third party investment to be more commonly pursued over the coming years.  The video comments are part of an update to Conventus Leadership’s essay on drivers to Asia’s adoption of third party funding.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

What is Federal Rule 26? And Why Does it Matter?

Federal Rule 26 serves as general guidance to the duty of disclosure during discovery proceedings. The question is, should litigation finance agreements fall under Federal Rule 26’s purview? Significant effort has been invested in various proposals requiring litigation funding information to be made available under Federal Rule Rule 26.  AboveTheLaw.com reports that a recent effort to amend Federal Rule 26 with a “one size fits all” provision requirement for litigation finance agreements has failed. The Federal Rules Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has upheld the notion that the decision to disclose litigation agreements resides with the litigant.  Proponents of amending Federal Rule 26 have petitioned for a Third Party Litigation Finance pilot project through an amendment to Fed. R. 26(a)(1)(A). Federal Rules Advisory Committee members signal no intent to approve any such measure, anytime soon.  Check out AboveTheLaw.com’s full deep dive into the latest news on Federal Rule 26. 
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Fifth Circuit Rejects LitFin Challenge for Lack of Standing

Anyone seeking to challenge a litigation funding agreement got a severe message from the Fifth Circuit court in December. The message is: You’d better have standing. An opinion by Judge Jacques L Weiner Jr. explained that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean did not have standing to challenge a funding agreement that had already been approved by a Texas bankruptcy court. Omni Bridgeway explains that the Fifth Circuit ruled that the debtor would not be impacted, either directly, financially, or adversely, by the funding agreement. This means that the court utilized the ‘person-aggrieved’ test to determine if the creditor was legally able to appeal an order from a bankruptcy court. The Fifth Circuit opinion was unanimous, and was joined by Judge James C Ho and Judge James E Graves Jr. The Texas case began with a voluntary Chapter 7 filing in US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. Scott Seidel was appointed trustee, and saw that he did not have the funds to pursue claims on behalf of creditors. He then entered a litigation funding agreement with Reticulum Management LLC. When Dean challenged the funding agreement, Seidel explained that funding was the best alternative since he couldn’t find a law firm who would take the case on contingency. Dean’s challenge centered around the idea that the agreement would disrupt the legal order of payment to creditors—putting the funders first in line. Ultimately, the ruling is good news for funders in the bankruptcy space, and good news for anyone pursing avoidance actions, breach of duty matters, tax recoveries, and insurance disputes.
Commercial Legal Innovation

Burford Capital’s Chris Bogart: Litigation Funding Innovator

After a notable career with Time Warner, Chris Bogart co-founded Burford Capital, now the global leader in litigation finance. It began with a simple idea: develop a third-party funding company that finances firms and individual claimants in exchange for a share in any settlement or award. As a moneymaker for investors and a way to increase access to justice—it’s a win-win. Carrier Management details that Bogart’s time with media giant Time Warner gave him considerable insight into the challenges of corporate legal departments. While the company had ample funds, spending on a legal budget seemed counterproductive. After drafting a contingency fee agreement for the Time Warner / AOL merger, Bogart realized there had to be a better alternative to paying lawyers by the hour. Burford Capital debuted on the London Stock Exchange in 2009. In October 2020, Burford became the first legal funder to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Since Burford’s formation, the insurance industry has leveled endless criticism at the funding industry. It’s no wonder, since keeping insurers honest is a common focus of funded cases. Insurers have asserted that funded cases take longer to litigate, lead to higher awards and greater expenses—all of which become ‘social inflation.’ This is what insurers cite as a reason to raise premium prices, negatively impacting policyholders. Bogart responds to this kind of criticism with a reminder that both funders and insurers are equally interested in fairness and efficiency, since they both work in the same litigation ecosystem. Litigation Finance has come a long way from its humble beginnings in feudal France. Today, funding alleviates the disparity between haves and have-nots in litigation. No longer can big businesses drag out funded cases to drain their opponents' resources. Gone are the days when class action plaintiffs are forced into accepting lowball offers because they lack the funds to move forward.
Commercial Fundraising

Crowdfunded Litigation Catches on in Scotland

Nearly 78,000 people have donated in an effort to crowdfund cases in the Scottish courts. A study published in Edinburgh Law Review details that The People’s Action on Section 30 has raised the most money of any crowdfunding campaign in Scottish legal history. Dr. Andrew Tickell led the analysis. Scottish Legal News explains that Martin Keatings, a pro-independence activist, secured over GBP 68,000 from nearly ten thousand people for his case centered on a hypothetical independence referendum bill, and whether such a bill would be under the purview of Holyrood. This is not the first successful legal crowdfunding venture. In 2019, a fund of more than GBP 207,000 was amassed in an effort to challenge Boris Johnson on the lawfulness of his prorogation of Parliament. Dr. Tickell affirms that legal crowdfunding is a viable and accepted form of legal finance.
Consumer

How Litigation Funding Benefits a Personal Injury Plaintiff

Litigation funding for personal injury plaintiffs is increasingly common, due to the myriad benefits it affords those heading into a costly legal battle. However, funding isn’t just about the money. Legal Scoops details the main benefits of pursuing legal funding for personal injury plaintiffs:
  • Justice. One of the most valuable aspects of third-party legal funding is that it increases access to justice. Funders allow more people to access the legal system in a fairer and more equitable manner.
  • Protection for the public good. The credible threat of lawsuits for illegal or unethical behavior is bound to keep businesses and insurers honest. Without backing from funders, even plaintiffs with strong cases may fall victim to lowball settlements.
  • Managing Risk. Experienced funders can advise on legal strategy and tend to have more experience when it comes to litigation, insurers, experts, and may be better equipped to navigate your case type. At the same time, funders have no decision-making power in the cases they fund—so the plaintiff makes the calls.
  • Efficiency. Funders know how to reduce the time duration of cases and how to best minimize costs.
Third-party legal funding is an innovative way to pursue a personal injury matter, and may have even more benefits than pure financing.
Commercial Deals

L&F Acquisition Corp Defies Expectation with Acquisition Target

All eyes are on L&F Acquisition Corp, launched by former chair of Kirkland & Ellis, Jeff Hammes, and CEO of Keller Lenker, Adam Gerchen. It was assumed that the SPAC would focus on acquiring a legal tech firm, however, the pool of potential targets expanded to include companies focused on Governance, Risk, and Compliance. Law.com details that it was then that Gerchen and Hammes reached an agreement with ZeroFox to take the company public. The expected valuation is about $1.4 billion. The complex and ambitious deal will also include acquiring IDX—a data breach response and digital privacy protection firm. This will enable the company to offer solutions for privacy and protection from cyber-attacks. It’s been suggested that time is a key factor in this deal. A SPAC has only two years from inception to securing a deal—otherwise, it can face liquidation. Since no one wants to risk that, it makes sense to expand the options for acquisition. According to Scott Mozarsky, formerly of Bloomberg Law and Vannin Capital, getting a good deal done requires a willing buyer and seller—plus impeccable timing. Mozarsky suggests that Hammes and Gerchen could have focused solely on the legal market and come up with a deal—but seem to have stumbled into the existing deal instead.
Case Developments Commercial

Billionaire Leon Black Accuses Co-Founder of Malicious Smear Campaign

Is Josh Harris, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, engaged in a plot to take down his former partner? Leon Black thinks so. He’s currently fighting a civil claim from his former mistress, Guzel Ganieva, who has accused him of sexual assault. Black is adamant that she is extorting him and that the years-long affair was consensual. Fortune explains that Black has filed a countersuit against his former lover, saying that an unnamed litigation funder and an as-yet-unidentified public relations team have joined forces, specifically to malign him publicly. Allegations against Harris assert that he used a PR firm to spread misleading information about Black’s business relationship with criminal sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Black was cleared of wrongdoing by a review commissioned initiated by Apollo, and appointed Marc Rowan as CEO last year. This effectively left Harris in the cold, possibly spurring his alleged campaign of harassment. How likely is it that a litigation funder would engage in a coordinated effort to smear someone? Surely such a gamble could reflect poorly on everyone involved, regardless of the outcome. We will keep an eye on any further developments.