Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding: A Quiet Force Driving Innovation and Economic Welfare

All Articles

3771 Articles
Case Developments Commercial

US Magistrate Judge Denies Facebook Request for Litigation Funding Info

It appears that Facebook will not receive discovery information from an AI startup after all. In the case of Neural Magic Inc vs Facebook Inc, US Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler struck down Facebook’s motion for discovery. Reuters reports that Facebook’s motion sought information on the litigation funders backing Neural Magic in their case against the social media giant, including the funder’s identity and specifics about the funding agreement. The judge in this case, as in many similar cases, ruled that the information requested was irrelevant to the case. Facebook has advanced the theory that it wants funder information to dispel the perception of a ‘David v Goliath’ conflict, which the company fears will prejudice a jury.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Unpredictable Nature of Case Times

Even with new technology available to funders, solid estimates for the amount of time it might take for a class action to reach completion remain elusive. One way to shorten the start-to-finish length of a class action, is to follow an opt-out plan rather than one that requires book building. Law Gazette details that collective proceedings may require a long wait to reach an award or settlement. Sometimes, several resolutions can drop in rapid succession. Three collective proceedings orders have been approved in rapid succession after a six year wait. In Merricks vs Mastercard, the court pointed to opt-out CPOs as a means for consumers to get justice when anti-competitive conduct harms consumers en masse. In fact, the court’s reasoning included the idea that it makes no financial sense for individual consumers to seek justice one by one. The outcome in Merricks vs Mastercard is considered a landmark verdict, one that may pave the way for opt-out proceedings. That’s good news for legal funders and claimant legal teams, who prefer opt-out proceedings that do not require a lengthy and complicated book build. Two subsequent cases, Gutmann vs First MTR South Western Trains & Others, (class members backed by Woodsford Litigation Funding) and Justin le Patourel vs BT Group plc (class backed by Harbour Litigation Funding), affirmed that a trend is growing in favor of opt-out CPOs as an efficient and suitable method for customers to seek redress. Perhaps those who suggested that Merricks vs Mastercard would open the floodgates to widespread use of CPOs are correct. According to third-party litigation funders, claimant lawyers, and consumers who have been taken advantage of by anti-competitive actions, that’s just fine. At the same time, Lloyd vs Google suggests that some situations are not appropriate for opt-out proceedings. The ruling denying an opt-out model implies that further clarification is on the horizon.
Commercial People Moves

Philip Holden Joins Asertis

Asertis, said to be the United Kingdom’s fastest growing litigation funding firm, is proud to announce that Philip Holden is joining the group.  Mr. Holden is a respected attorney who will support the Asertis team in negotiating new litigation finance deals.  Asertis is proud to announce that Mr. Holden is, “A Fellow of the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, Philip was an equity partner with a major law firm (DLA) before moving to become Head of Financial Recovery at the insurance market Lloyd’s, subsequently establishing his own independent business specialising in litigation management, advisory and insurance run off which was sold to a listed PLC in London in 2005”
Announcements Consumer

TRIBECA LAWSUIT LOANS NOW OFFERS LITIGATION FUNDING TO WRONGFULLY FIRED WORKERS

Victims of wrongful termination often suffer a one-two punch. Explains Rory Donadio, founder of Tribeca Lawsuit Loans, "Not only do they face a confusing maze of government claim procedures and lengthy court cases, but their financial security is also compromised." Anecdotal evidence suggests that many unlawfully fired employees fail to pursue claims because they have to invest their energy into simply providing for themselves and their families.
A readily available resource to help alleviate that uncertainty is presettlement funding from Tribeca Lawsuit Loans.
Wrongful termination, also called wrongful discharge or wrongful dismissal, occurs when an employer unlawfully discriminates against an employee, when it violates public policy, or when it fails to follow its own established procedures. Common allegations include
  • many forms of discrimination: racial, color, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and disability
  • retaliation for seeking worker's compensation after being hurt on the job
  • violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act
  • violation of wage and hour laws
  • retaliation for exposing an employer's illegal activity
No one knows how many terminated employees file lawsuits that allege wrongful termination. We can surmise that the number is substantial because we know that many begin as a claim, called a charge, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal law requires that people with discrimination or retaliation claims file EEOC claims. Some 67,448 of those claims were filed in 2020. If the parties cannot resolve their differences through the EEOC charge process, the claimant can bring a lawsuit. But that number only hints at the total number of wrongful terminations in this country. Like those for wage and hour violations, many other claims can bypass the EEOC altogether. The patchwork of procedures and remedies available under state law further obscures the extent of the problem. In most cases, the only adequate remedy is a monetary award, which can include back and future pay, the value of lost benefits, emotional pain and suffering, and punitive damages. According to Tribeca's Donadio, "When a plaintiff sues for money damages, Tribeca can help the victim to rally the resources to continue the good fight when times are tough. A Tribeca lawsuit loan allows a plaintiff to borrow against the expected recovery long before the parties reach a settlement. Furthermore, there is no risk to the claimant. Fired employees who fail to win their cases are never liable for repaying the lawsuit loan." If you have filed a lawsuit for money damages to compensate you for wrongful termination, or you have filed an EEOC charge that has not yet been resolved, let Tribeca help level the playing field. Contact Tribeca Lawsuit Loans at (866) 388-2288 or through our website at tribecalawsuitloans.com to apply for presettlement funding. If you have not yet filed a lawsuit, schedule a visit with an employment attorney who will evaluate your case, often for free. The sooner you act, the sooner Tribeca Lawsuit Loans can help. Contact: Rory Donadio CEO
Email: rory.donadio@tribecacapllc.com
Phone: (866)388-2288 SOURCE Tribeca Capital Group, LLC
Commercial

Trends & Perspectives in Litigation Finance: Interview with Peter Petyt

Peter Petyt, Founder and CEO of litigation funding advisor 4 Rivers, discusses recent trends in the litigation funding space, including portfolio funding, due diligence efforts, and the attorney-client relationship. Below are some key highlights from Petyt's YouTube Q&A, hosted by the Beverly Hills Bar Association: Q: Can you tell us a bit about the difference between commercial litigation funding and consumer litigation funding? A: Actually, Litigation Finance can be applicable to both consumer and commercial cases. There’s a certain number of funders who will only do commercial case and some that will only do consumer cases. So there’s two different markets there that are equally served by the finance communities. I think the commercial finance community, which is what we spend most of our time on, are looking at the mainstream litigation cases, the international arbitrations, the domestic arbitrations—those sorts of cases. Whereas the consumer often is, as you say, PI focused and perhaps a higher volume of cases with a lower average value. Q: Litigation funding isn’t just for situations in which a litigant can’t afford fees of a firm, it’s also an important tool to have in the arsenal of of any law firm. Can you tell us why that is? A: Well, I think it’s very interesting, particularly in the current period where of course because of the pandemic, businesses in particular are facing challenges that they weren’t a year or two ago. It does mean that cash is very much at a premium and certainly we’re seeing a number of businesses now that are looking to finance their litigation externally whereas perhaps previously they would have funded it from their own resources. So I think cash is definitely a main driver. Most of the cases that we look at, the claimants are looking for a solution from a cashflow point of view. They either don’t have the cash to pay for the legal fees and expenses of running a case, or if they do have the cash, they’d rather use that cash for their core business. And I would say that’s the majority of requirement. However, sometimes a business may well decide that there are other reasons for bringing in a third-party funder. Such as accounting, so you can keep transactions off your balance sheet so the risk is not there. Q: You’ve mentioned the single versus the several case portfolio. Can you tell our viewers what the difference is? It’s probably self-explanatory but hearing it from an expert like you would be better. A: Yeah, well, single cases are difficult to finance. Let’s start off with that because the thing about a single cases is that you’re either going to get a win or a loss from the single case and you can’t diversify that. It is what it is. In a portfolio, you can spread the risk over a number of cases. And the great thing about that is that then the price of the finance is significantly reduced because if one case doesn’t go the right way then you can get the win from the second case or the third case or however many cases there are in the portfolio. So funding a portfolio is going to being the cost of the finance down. But it’s also quite challenging to get a portfolio funded because the portfolio needs to be structured in a certain way. It needs to be balanced, in some cases a mix of types of cases that are part of the portfolio. One of the things we are doing, that I’m personally doing, is some part-time doctoral research on how portfolios should be structured with regards to a law firm. Q: What can we as lawyers do with respect to the due diligence and the assessment process as well as funding and the post funding that they can make this go a lot more smoothly? A: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think that from the attorney’s point of view, where I would start is that your expertise is in running these cases. And using your great judgement to assess cases and to advise your clients on the best way forward. Certainly one of the things funders need is a proper legal assessment from you guys as to the merits of the case, what chances of successes does it have, what strengths, what weaknesses, are there that you perceive in the case. And that I think is the most important part that the attorney plays in the initial due diligence for a funder. Q: Sometimes a firm can lose out on a client altogether, if they’re not prepared to discuss, and don’t consider litigation funding as an option. Can you tell me a bit about that? A: Yeah, I think it’s very important that you as an attorney advise your clients as to what the options might be, because certainly sometimes there are clients out there who as we mentioned earlier might have the money to pay for legal fees and expenses for a case, but might prefer to keep their cash for other purposes. So if they’re not aware that litigation funding exists, if you as an attorney don’t advise them and they go and talk to some other attorneys that do advise them, then the chances are they may well end up with the other attorney. So I think it’s very important to make them aware that this option is available.
Commercial Legal Innovation

Hemp Grower Apothio Tokenizes Shares in Funded Case

Noted hemp producer Apothio recently raised $330,000 on the Republic funding platform. The funds are expected to go toward a lawsuit in Kern County, CA. Investors supporting the case will be issued AVAX (Avalanche) digital tokens located on the blockchain. Upcoming News reports that this Initial Litigation Offering is a first on the Republic platform—which was launched in 2016 as a path for equity fundraising. The case itself has Apothio seeking damages allegedly caused when California Fish and Wildlife destroyed 450 acres of hemp crops valued at about $1 billion. ILOs offer a way for cryptocurrency to have real-world impact by funding lawsuits in a way that increases access to justice. Kyle Roche, lawyer for Apothio, explains that while the justice system is effective, it’s costly to the point that not everyone can afford to have their day in court. With an ILO, investors receive digital tokens which then entitle funders to a portion of any damages received by plaintiffs. Typically, these tokens are frozen for 90 days, at which point they will become transferrable.
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Burford Capital hires arbitration expert and legal finance industry veteran Mick Smith for senior European role

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that arbitration expert and legal finance industry veteran Mick Smith has joined as Principal in its London office. He will join over 40 colleagues in London, and more than 140 globally. Smith will focus predominantly on the continued expansion of Burford’s business in Europe and especially its industry-leading role in global arbitration matters.

Mick Smith co-founded Calunius Capital in 2006. Prior to this, he practiced law at Freshfields in both London and Madrid and was an investment banker at JPMorgan Chase, Credit Agricole Lazard and Dresdner Kleinwort. Smith earned a degree in Mathematics and Law at Cambridge University, followed by postgraduate study in Law. More recently, he has also completed MSc modules in Data Science and Mathematics.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said: “I’m delighted that Mick is joining Burford in a senior role to help with the continued growth of our European and arbitration businesses. Burford already has a $1.2 billion European portfolio and is the world’s largest arbitration funder, and we are excited about Mick growing those numbers further. I have known Mick for many years as a collaborator and friendly competitor and am very pleased that he has decided to join the world’s leading legal finance platform.”

John Lazar, Managing Director of Burford Capital in London, said: “We are truly excited to welcome Mick to Burford’s London office, and I am personally looking forward to being able to work with him side by side after spending many years collaborating on a number of opportunities. Mick will serve in the senior role of Principal, where he will be focused on all aspects of our UK and European business. Mick adds to our over 40 employees in London, in addition to those in the DACH region, as we continue our investment growth both geographically and in scope.”

Mick Smith, Principal of Burford Capital in London, said: “I am thrilled to be teaming up with Chris, John and other colleagues, many of whom I have known and worked with for years. The opportunity to join Burford, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, was too good to forgo and I look forward to playing a role in its continued expansion in Europe.”

Smith’s start date is 5 January 2021.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, Singapore and Sydney.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Case Developments Commercial

$1M+ Divorcee Litigation Funder Clawback

Litigation finance is a tool for justice, even in divorce. But, when a divorcee bypasses the funder, justice will follow the failed nuptials all the way to the bank.  Lawgazette.co.uk reports that a litigation funder lent capital to a spouse who needed help disposing of her $3M+ marriage. But, her husband countered, and the obligation of the court was to entertain the proceedings. Then, the husband submitted a last minute deal to absolve himself of the situation.  All the while, negotiations were structured to leave the soon-to-be ex-wife without access to liquidity to navigate the split. A funder helped her in her time of need, seemingly a successful venture given the ex-husband’s folding under pressure.  However, given the complexity of the matter, it would appear that the successful party to the claim is not returning the funder’s favor. Now, the court is taking another gander at the outcome, deliberating if the funder is due its fair share.  
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Truckers Cheer Highway Fairness Act 

Louisiana truckers pay the highest premiums, according to a new report on trucking litigation finance. The 2021 Highway Fairness Act is hailed by many long-haulers on America’s highways. ‘Justice driving litigation’ is the phrase everyone is talking about, in reference to the act.  Trucking.org profiles the act as a curb to third party litigation abuse, which is rampant across the industry. Primping the National supply chain pump is the key to keeping people happy across America. The act is sure to tip the balance of fairness in trucking litigation.  The aim is to squash hazards on the highway and protect trucking operators from the deliberation headaches of questionable claims. However, the litigation funding in support of North American trucking is not going to dry up anytime soon.  The Act prompts the trucking companies to consider the following:
  • Legitimate trucking litigation shall support accident victim compensation 
  • Federal courts shall embrace no regulatory arbitrage tricks for claims across state lines  
  • Supply chain harmony is key to keeping the trucking industry profitable, hence no funny business should be promoted leading to litigation finance fraud 
  • Litigation finance firms should champion transparency in trucking claims, setting a new standard for the industry
The Act is especially important to protect insurers from defending dubious claims resulting from staged incidents. Likewise, the Act is expected to protect law enforcement from the headache of rogue truckers gaming the system.