Trending Now

All Articles

3220 Articles

Liti Capital Launches Staking for Token Holders

Liti Capital SA, a Swiss-based litigation funding provider that has opened up private equity investing to the masses through blockchain technology, is launching staking for its wLITI token.

Starting on September 13, wLITI token holders will be able to stake their tokens and receive wLITI in return. “Staking is a crucial tool to be attractive in the DeFi space and to reward our community for supporting us long term,” says Jonas Rey, Liti Capital’s co-founder. Token holders can stake their tokens by heading to the Liti Capital app, on the Liti Capital website, connecting a compatible wallet and selecting staking. The product does not require holders to go through any know-your-customer (KYC) checks. At launch there will be three options for users to stake their wLITI tokens:
  • 4% APY for 30 days
  • 6% APY for 60 days
  • 9% APY for 90 days
Users will be able to withdraw their tokens whenever they need to. If a user decides they want to un-stake their tokens, instead of losing all the rewards, the system calculates how much interest the user has accumulated and issues the relevant amount back to the token holder. “The community is one of the most important factors in the success of blockchain projects,” says Jaime Delgado, Liti Capital’s chief technology officer. “The staking program is one of the mechanisms by which the community is rewarded for its fidelity to the project and at the same time reduces the market share of wLITI in circulation which is beneficial for both the holders of wLITI and the company,” Delgado continues. More information on the staking program can be found at: https://liticapital.medium.com/liti-capital-launches-staking-rewards-61fef8437317 Liti Capital is spearheading an arbitration lawsuit on behalf of a group of traders who lost millions of dollars of trades on 19 May 2021 when Binance inexplicably froze their accounts for approximately one hour. It is believed that this case — the first ever group action case in the crypto sector — will be a landmark event in defining how organisations operating in the industry behave and treat their customers. Since the company’s launch in early 2021, it has raised USD 19 million to secure assets of up to USD 200 million, which if successful, will pay out a dividend to token holders.

About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss limited liability company specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provides a complete strategic solution along with connections to top law firms to help clients win their cases. Tokenized shares of the company lower the barrier of entry for retail investors and give token holders a vote in the company’s decision-making process. Dividends are distributed to LITI token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Jonas Rey, co-founder of Liti Capital, also heads Athena Intelligence, one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado, bring operational, innovation and technical skills to round out the leadership team.

Liti Capital recently onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as chief information officer and executive chairman. Boasting more than a decade of experience as funding partner and portfolio manager of a billion-dollar private equity fund in the litigation financing space, Kay successfully enforced what was at the time the largest international arbitration award in history, bringing in over $1 billion in cash and securities.

For project information, please read the Whitepaper. For token distribution, please read Tokenomics. Liti Capital Official Channels Liti Capital Website: https://liticapital.com Liti Capital Telegram: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official Liti Capital Telegram Announcements: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official_ANN Liti Capital LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liti-capital Liti Capital Twitter: https://twitter.com/liticapital Liti Capital Medium: https://medium.com/@liticapital Liti Capital Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/liticapital
Read More

Pretium Launches Legal Investment Group

Pretium, a specialized investment management firm with more than $26 billion in assets, today announced that it has established a legal opportunities investment team. Pretium's legal opportunities team will work with corporations and law firms to identify and invest in legal and commercial opportunities where its team has deep knowledge and experience and that offer attractive return potential for investors.  Areas of investment will include high value complex disputes between businesses, arbitrations, antitrust, patent and intellectual property, bankruptcy, distressed debt and insolvency and monetization of judgments and awards.  Pretium will not be investing in consumer litigation finance. Don Mullen, founder and CEO of Pretium, commented, "We are thrilled to further expand Pretium's capabilities into this fast-growing area of the market, where we believe our combination of scale, an exceptional team, and financial sophistication meets a growing need.  As many of today's fastest growing companies and industries mature, there will be increased demand for experienced and well-resourced firms to assist them in managing their legal risks particularly in areas of intellectual property, patents and technology.  With the expertise of our legal strategies team, we are excited to offer investors a diversifying investment with attractive returns that are minimally correlated to the broader economic cycle." The strategy will be led by Matthew Cantor, a Senior Managing Director who joined Pretium in May 2020 and has more than two decades of experience of creating value for investors in complex legal situations. This experience includes his tenure leading the highly successful resolution of the Lehman Brothers estate and time spent as both an investor and as a practicing attorney at leading global law firms. Also joining Pretium as a Senior Managing Director is Charles (Chad) Schmerler, who will serve as the head of Litigation Finance. Prior to joining Pretium, he was the CEO of Yorkside Capital, a litigation finance firm he founded following his tenure as a litigation partner at Norton Rose Fulbright.  He has over a decade of experience representing funders and clients seeking funding and is a recognized expert in the field. Mr. Cantor and Mr. Schmerler are joined by several seasoned investment, legal and financial professionals who bring a unique and diverse set of subject matter expertise in litigation finance, legal risk monetization, intellectual property, and forensic accounting and damages analysis that will differentiate Pretium from others in the space. Mr. Cantor added, "We look forward to working with law firms, corporations, and other sophisticated parties to utilize our deep knowledge and substantial capital to provide them with bespoke financing solutions that help them efficiently and effectively manage their legal risks and pursue commercial claims that fit within our investment criteria." About Pretium Pretium was founded in 2012 to capitalize on secular investment and lending opportunities arising as a result of structural changes, disruptions, and inefficiencies within the economy. Pretium has built an integrated analytical and operational ecosystem within the U.S. housing, residential credit, and corporate credit markets, and believes that its insight and experience within these markets create a strategic advantage over other investment managers. Pretium's platform has approximately $26 billion of assets under management as of June 30, 2021 and employs approximately 2,500 people across 29 offices. Please visit www.pretium.com for additional information.
Read More

Guido Demarco, new Director & Head of Legal Assets of Stonward Litigation Funding

Stonward Litgation Funding, boutique specialized in offering bespoke solutions to finance litigation both in Europe and the Americas, has a new director and Head of Legal Assets: Guido Demarco, a legal expert with extensive experience in debt restructuring (private and sovereign), NPL strategies and legal, banking and financial project management. Prior to joining Stonward, Guido worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as a legal advisor, where he had the opportunity to work closely with different governments and high-level stakeholders. Previously, he worked as an associate at Baker McKenzie, in the Buenos Aires office, where he worked on important cross-border operations and project transactions. Some projects that stand out in his track record include the design of a secondary market for trading NPLs in Kazakhstan, advising a large international fund on the acquisition of a majority share in a payment technology company (USD 724 million deal), and the development of a training program for judges and insolvency practitioners in Armenia. "This new opportunity is exciting. The work they have done at Stonward over the last year is fantastic and now it is our turn to continue growing along the same path. We plan to expand our team before the end of the year, deepen our focus on the Latin American and Spanish markets, where there is a lot of demand for financing, and strengthen ties with our strategic partners. In addition, we plan to expand our range of services to assist our clients in sales of non-performing loan portfolios," says Demarco about his incorporation. Stonward manages a $500 million claims portfolio and a $60 million NPL portfolio. Stonward, which has just been recognized in the Chambers & Partners directory in the Litigation Support Europe-Wide guide, has a clear vocation of service and assistance, it is a strategic ally that seeks funding to its clients and associates their demand or legal needs with the appropriate funder. With the arrival of Guido Demarco, Stonward strengthens its project, and seeks to expand its operations, with a clear focus on Spain and the Americas. Litigation funding is a legal tool whereby a third party outside the judicial or arbitration proceedings pays the costs in exchange for a portion of the recovery, previously agreed upon in a funding agreement. In the event that the claim or arbitration is unsuccessful, the funder does not recover the money invested. In addition to financially constrained claimants, litigation funding also allows companies to obtain off-balance sheet funding to monetize litigation, as well as law firms seeking to fund litigation portfolios or even the day-to-day operations of the firm. Litigation finance involves maximizing the value of legal assets - whether disputes, awards or judgments - of an individual, company or institution so that they can be monetized, while eliminating risk. Stonward, with offices in Paseo de la Castellana, Madrid, handles investment transactions in international commercial arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions and before different arbitral institutions. The process at Stonward: Stonward receives a request from a client to access the litigation funding market to cover the costs related to a claim, the monetization of awards or judgements, a portfolio of cases, a practice at a law firm, etc. We talk about financing lawyers, attorney, expert witness, fees, costs and others. All exchange of information is done under the strictest confidentiality, and once all necessary information is gathered, Stonward reviews the merits and likelihood of success of the case. If the case has strong merits, a high probability of success and of being funded, a letter of engagement is signed that includes a success fee for the bespoke services. Then, depending on the characteristics of the case, appropriate litigation funds are contacted and the case is presented and explained to them. The funder proposes its financial conditions under which it would fund the case, always conditional upon the successful completion of the due diligence. The review of documentation is exhaustive to determine whether or not a case has sufficient merit. Once the parties have agreed, the Litigation Funding Agreement is signed and Stonward closely monitors everything that happens during the procedure. Once the case is successfully concluded, the Settlement Agreement is executed, bringing the claim to an end.
Read More

Mishcon de Reya Launches LitFin Arm with Support from Harbour

London-based law firm Mishcon de Reya has announced the launch of MDR Solutions, a new litigation funding venture. The finance arm was established with support from Harbour Litigation Funding, which has promised $200 million to the fund. Reuters reports that Mishcon joins the ranks of several other law firms to begin partnerships with prominent litigation funders over the last year. Longford Capital joined forces with Willkie Farr & Gallagher in June, while LCM announced a partnership with DLA Piper in August. The fund is expected to conduct business as a separate entity. Mishcon said that MDR Solutions will work with its existing team of nearly 300 arbitrators and litigators—currently based in its Singapore and London offices. The fund has a swath of case types in its sights, including IP disputes, complex fraud cases, and asset recovery. Cases originating with Mishcon will get first priority. One Mishcon dispute resolution partner, Richard Leedham, explained that the new partnership is the result of a desire to take more financial risk—benefiting the firm and its clients. The advantages of litigation funding are obvious, particularly now that clients are flocking to funders for help. Kevin Gold, Mishcon’s executive chair, explained his hope that MDR Solutions will be the first of many comparable partnerships in the future.

International Legal Finance Association appoints Executive Director and General Counsel

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) has appointed Gary Barnett as Executive Director and General Counsel.  Launched 12 months ago, ILFA (ilfa.com) is the first-ever global association devoted to the growing commercial legal finance industry.

Previously at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Barnett served in various roles since 2017, most recently as Senior Counselor to the Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General. Barnett also served as the DOJ’s Acting Director in the Office of Victims of Crime and Acting Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. Prior to joining the DOJ, he was the Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Barnett received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.A. in History and Economics from Boston University.

Gary Barnett, Executive Director and General Counsel of ILFA said: “I am honored to have the opportunity to lead ILFA and to help shape the future of this important and exciting global industry that provides untold benefits to businesses, consumers, and societies across the world, by supporting a just legal system and the rule of law.”

Leslie Perrin, Chair of ILFA said: “We are thrilled that Gary is leading the charge on behalf of  ILFA’s members to foster the sustainable development of the legal finance industry.  His vast experience within the US Department of Justice, his global perspective and commitment to the rule of law are a huge asset to the Association and its members, as well as users of legal finance around the world.”

ILFA membership includes the world’s leading commercial legal finance firms, who are founding members—Burford Capital, Harbour Litigation Funding, Longford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, Therium and Woodsford Litigation Funding. ILFA is the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry, representing its interests before governmental bodies, international organizations and professional associations and serving as a clearinghouse of relevant information, research and data about the uses and applications of commercial legal finance. Incorporated in Washington, D.C., ILFA also has a significant presence in London, Brussels and Australia.

Since launching in September 2020, eight additional members have joined: Law Finance Group, Nivalion, Parabellum Capital, Innsworth Advisors, D.E. Shaw & Company, Fortress Investment Group, TRGP Capital and Validity Finance. Membership is open to any professional commercial legal finance firm that satisfies ILFA’s membership criteria.

Read More

Calls for Disclosure Requirements Accompany Legal Funding Acceptance

Litigation funding existed for more than a decade before anyone thought to question whether disclosure mandates were needed. After Gawker was driven into bankruptcy by a single lawsuit, legal professionals and even the media began discussing whether disclosure rules were needed. Claims Journal details that several federal court districts, notably in New Jersey and California, now maintain legislation requiring disclosure of third-party funding contracts for plaintiffs and defendants. Even in places where disclosure laws don’t exist, judges are increasingly asking for details about funders and funding agreements. In a recent Texas case, Judge Roy Payne ruled that the identity of third-party funders was not relevant—thus refusing to hear testimony about the funding. In contrast, an Arizona judge required plaintiffs to offer defendants a list of everyone with a financial interest in the case’s outcome. If anything, this illustrates a need for uniformity in legislation regarding disclosure. In 2012, the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform published a paper warning about the dangers of litigation funding. One oft-repeated “danger” is the possibility of “abusive litigation.” The idea is that lawyers will give deference to funders/investors rather than claimants—despite that being counter to established legal ethics. Another scare tactic about funding is that funders will push cases lacking in merit. This assertion makes little sense, since there’s no financial incentive in funding a case that’s destined to lose. Will disclosure requirements impede the growth of the legal funding industry? Probably not. In fact, given the fervent outsider distrust of the industry, expanding disclosure requirements add transparency, and therefore facilitate trust. Courts appear to be leaning toward increased disclosure requirements, while funders continue to argue against them. If that happens, steps should be taken to ensure that lawyers don’t inadvertently waive privilege by disclosing information to a funder—ostensibly a third party.

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 1 of 2)

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  Executive Summary
  • Despite its size, the Intellectual property (“IP”) asset class has eluded the attention of most asset managers due to its underlying legal complexities
  • The litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but is solely focused on litigation involving IP
  • A void exists in the financing market, which IP-focused Private Credit managers have begun to fill via credit-oriented strategies designed to drive value maximization
Slingshot Insights:
  • Secular shifts in the economy have allowed IP to assume an increasing share of corporate value
  • IP is an emerging asset class that has begun to garner the attention of asset managers and insurers
  • There are various IP-centric investment strategies that do not involve litigation.
  • IP-focused Private Credit funds approach IP in a holistic fashion, leveraging numerous ways that IP creates value
  • Investors need to be aware that investing in IP presents unique risks that warrant input from operational and legal IP specialists
  • IP Credit provides a different risk/reward profile for investors as compared to commercial litigation finance, which tends to have more binary risk
When I started reviewing and assessing managers for potential investment in the commercial litigation finance asset class five years ago, there were a small number of managers that would consider the most complex area of intellectual property litigation, namely patent infringement.  Oh, how things have changed!  Today, there are many litigation finance managers who will at least consider making an investment in IP litigation, although still relatively few that will follow through on providing a commitment. One of the areas in which I am intrigued is the application of credit to intellectual property (“IP”) and using the value of patents (amongst other forms of intellectual property) as security for the loan, the so-called Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) asset class.  While this is, strictly speaking, a credit asset class (as you will see from this article), it sits adjacent to, and sometimes intersects with, commercial litigation finance.  Nevertheless, I do think it is a subset of the broader intangible finance market, and since value is inherently derived from intellectual property, and on occasion, litigation, it often gets lumped in within the legal finance category. In an effort to assess the IP Credit asset class, I reached out to an established manager, Soryn IP Capital (“Soryn”), to obtain a better understanding of how the sector operates and why investors should be interested in this asset class.  Soryn is co-founded by two well-known investors in the IP space, Michael Gulliford and Phil Hartstein, who have a combined four decades of IP experience. Background Despite a major shift in corporate balance sheet asset composition from tangible to intangible in recent decades, stemming largely from the secular shift to a knowledge based (i.e. technology) economy, there has been surprisingly little growth in the number of alternative asset managers with IP-focused investment strategies.  What growth has occurred with respect to IP-specific strategies has largely been confined to the IP litigation finance space.  There, non-recourse capital is advanced from a litigation funder to a claim holder to pursue what is often single event IP litigation, featuring a binary outcome set. The result has been an mis-allocation of risk-adjusted capital to companies and academic institutions in IP-intensive sectors that either do not plan to litigate, or that will be litigating, but only as part of a holistic and diversified business and/or IP licensing strategy.  While these IP owners may seek capital to finance objectives such as non-dilutive growth, technology licensing or royalty audits and monetization, often the IP owner must choose between a litigation funder that does not specialize in broader financial solutions, or a financing source that is not specialized in IP.  Neither option threads the needle to provide what these entities are looking for: an appropriately-structured and priced capital structure solution. Recently, IP-focused managers with credit-oriented strategies have come into focus, as they are targeting this gap in the market.  In addition to Soryn, the hedge fund manager Fortress has an existing IP Credit fund, and Aon is currently raising capital for a debut IP Credit fund (which may have ulterior motives rooted in intellectual property insurance, which is not to say the two can’t co-exist and complement one another). In many ways, these funds resemble a hybrid of private debt and specialty finance, as they have the flexibility to invest across the capital structure through highly-structured debt, preferred, equity, and other bespoke financial contracts. Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property.  Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP VALUE PROPOSITION According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985.  Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce.  The primary forms of intellectual property are:
  • Patents: protect inventions and discoveries
  • Trade Secrets: protect valuable information that is intentionally kept secret
  • Copyright: protect artistic works in a fixed medium of expression
  • Trademarks: protect “signs” associating products and services to an owner
While each form of IP offers different protections, the value of each lies in its legally proscribed, exclusionary right that prohibits third parties from practicing or “infringing” the IP without permission.  It is this exclusionary right that promotes a healthy competition and innovation ecosystem by, for instance, incentivizing R&D, encouraging investment, protecting market share, and allowing the licensing of these rights to either a) promote synergistic business relationships or b) stop unauthorized copying. Several data points highlight the value attributable to IP licenses that are struck to promote synergistic business relationships, or to resolve enforcement scenarios. The following statistics help contextualize the significance of the IP value proposition. IP VALUE CREATION IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future.  When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:
  • IP rights can be licensed to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be exploited to negotiate cross-licenses that allow IP owners access to sought-after technologies;
  • IP rights can be sold to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be enforced against third parties that are practicing the underlying IP without a license;
  • IP rights can serve as the basis for significant insurance policies;
  • IP rights can be the principal basis for an M&A transaction, and are a key driver of M&A activity;
  • IP rights can be central to value creation following a business separation or spin-off transaction;
  • IP rights can facilitate the formations of JVs for co-development of new technologies, which increase enterprise value;
  • IP rights can be monetized through the sale of all or part of contracted royalty payments associated with particular IP
In turn, IP owners and managers (e.g.  companies, academic and research institutions, and law firms), can leverage these sources of IP value to raise debt and equity capital in several ways, including: Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors.  IP CREDIT IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types.  Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund.  Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition.  Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP. Investment Types Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited. Deal Structuring The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections. The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:
  • Delayed draw funding schedules and performance-based milestone provisions
  • Events of default / material adverse event scenarios
  • Minimum cash / treasury requirements
  • Prepayment protection (make-wholes, yield maintenance, non-call provisions)
  • Structural and / or contractual seniority over IP or other assets
  • Affirmative and negative covenants / financial covenants
  • Warrants or other instruments with equity-like kickers
  • IP-backed securitizations
  • Credit enhancements via IP-related insurance policies
Industry Focus While the strategy is generally industry agnostic, investments are often placed in IP-intensive industry groups, including technology, life sciences, materials sciences, automotive, semiconductors, telecommunications, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.  The hallmark of foundational IP that may serve as the basis for an IP-focused investment are assets protecting key innovations in a field, which an entrant will need to license to practice the technology. Investment Team Managers of IP-focused funds often possess a multidisciplinary IP expertise, with additional expertise in credit or distressed strategies.  Such expertise allows management teams focused on IP-specific strategies to not only appropriately measure risk and value potential, but to appropriately structure such transactions to capture value and mitigate downside.  Management’s IP experience also serves as an advantage when sourcing deals from among counterparties seeking a value-add financial partner with a deep understanding of IP.  In Soryn’s case, for example, co-founders Michael and Phil possess investment, legal and executive experience which allows them to assist counterparties with their legal, operational, and financial strategy planning with the goal of improving the risk-reward profile of the underlying investments. Deal Sourcing Because multidisciplinary IP expertise is a prerequisite for managers in the IP space, barriers to entry remain high and competition for deals is less severe than that of other asset classes.  Typical counterparties involve operating companies (both private and public) and universities that own foundational IP or revenue streams associated with such IP, as well as law firms representing such entities. Use of Proceeds IP-focused Private Credit transaction proceeds may be used for general business purposes and IP-related expenses or investments.  This is an important distinction between IP Litigation Finance and an IP-focused Private Credit, with the latter allowing for significantly greater flexibility in terms of the use of proceeds. Insurability Demonstrating the quantifiable value of intellectual property, the insurance industry has recently introduced products aimed at insuring various aspects of intellectual property.  Such products include:
  • Collateral protection insurance for credit deals where IP serves as the collateral package;
  • Judgement preservation insurance, to insure against an adverse appellate result following an IP owner trial win; and
  • IP litigation insurance, to insure against the associated costs and expenses of being sued for patent infringement.
Not only do such products demonstrate the insurance industry’s growing comfort with IP as an asset class, they also present downside protection scenarios for a variety of IP-centric financings. In the next part of our 2-part series, we will be applying the theory above into practice by reviewing a case study of two financings by a public entity. Slingshot Insights Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways.  It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives.  While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner. The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come, and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently. I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future ahead, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile. As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors. Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets.  Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts.  The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers. INFORMATION SOURCES
Read More

Claimants in Flint Water Case Cautioned Not to Take Settlement Advance

Claimants in the Flint water crisis case have been cautioned by a judge not to seek or accept deals for a cash advance on their share of the settlement. Claimants are set to share the $641 million settlement, though the agreement has not yet been given final approval. The Detroit News details that Judge Judith Levy issued the order after becoming aware of a website targeting claimants. MC Law Funding is offering advances on the expected payouts, inviting claimants to “get paid now.” MC Law has also pursued claimants via text message, according to co-lead class counsel for plaintiffs, Michael Pitt. The claimants, many of whom were personally damaged by the lead present in the city’s tap water, are being warned against excessive, and potentially predatory contracts in order to see their payout earlier. Michigan AG Dana Nessel suggested that accepting an early advance would actually inflict further hardship on those already dealing with the fallout of poisoning. Nessel expressed disappointment that an MC Law would seek to profit from claimants in this highly publicized case. According to Nessel, there are provisions within the settlement agreement that prohibit the use of legal funding for advances on the settlement. Should this type of provision catch on, it could negatively impact legal funders like MC Law Funding.

How Both Legal and Finance Teams Can Grow with Litigation Funding

When funding leader Burford Capital took a long look at the ways legal and finance teams manage legal assets for their companies, they learned a lot. Most vitally, there are three things companies can do to make better use of their legal assets. Burford Capital details that a strong first step is to develop actionable targets for the legal department. Too many companies aren’t making use of their legal assets, which can be used to enhance liquidity and financial stability. Burford, however, believes strongly in this method, and is able to partner companies with experts that can help asses current legal assets and prioritize which should be pursued. Timing is of the essence in legal cases and financial planning. Monetizing claims can allow businesses to predict and control when money comes in, so budgeting is more stable and effective. Duration risk is a real problem, but can be circumvented with monetization. Roughly half of financial officers stated that they did not pursue judgements in 2020 due to cost. Failing to enforce a judgement because of cost might make sense, unless the option exists to shift costs and risks in order to enforce worthwhile claims.