Trending Now

All Articles

3387 Articles
Commercial

Litigation Finance Sees Regulatory Changes in Germany

The Legal-Tech Act has recently been passed in Germany and will take effect in October of this year. Essentially, it allows attorneys more flexibility with regard to contingency agreements. This act is the opening move in a series of planned reforms to Germany’s legal service market. Pinsent Masons details that the intent of the Legal-Tech Act is to address discrepancies in how legal tech companies are regulated, as opposed to how laws are applied to lawyers. Debt collection out of court is typically handled by legal tech companies—and they are treated differently than lawyers even when seeking to accomplish the same goals. This means that debt collectors aren’t subject to the same set of rules as attorneys. The Legal-Tech Act addresses this in several important ways. Contingency fees may now be used in out-of-court collections cases. Lawyers can make agreements to take on the costs for collections. This applies only to our court collections and judicial dunning (a German-specific rule that makes enforcement easier). This differs from the proposed act, which would have allowed litigation funding for all monetary claims under EU 2,000. These changes necessitate new disclosure, so the Legal-Tech Act covers that too. Debt collection companies are required to tell clients about other options, and to explain why collection agencies seek out contingency agreements. Debt collection agencies, in general, will face more scrutiny in Germany under the new law. Registrations will be required, and German authorities will confirm that their stated business model adheres to the new guidelines. The German government is confident that consumer protections will be strengthened by the Legal-Tech Act. Transparency will increase, particularly in collective actions. One litigation expert expressed concern, however, that the German parliament’s decision is reactive and incomplete. As it is only the first in a list of upcoming changes, any shortcomings in the Legal-Tech Act will soon be addressed.
Announcements Commercial

Litigation Capital Management agrees to fund Comet liquidation claim

Dispute financing solutions provider Litigation Capital Management said it had agred to provide litigation funding to Geoffrey Carton-Kelly, a partner of FRP Advisory, additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Ltd, formerly known as Comet, seeking to recover £83 million from Darty. Kelly alleges that a transaction with Darty - a subsidiary of FNAC Darty, a multinational electrical retailer based in France. - that occurred prior to Comet entering into administration had reduced the amounts that would otherwise have been available for Comet's creditors. The litigation finance agreement would cover proceedings issued in the High Court against Darty.
Announcements Commercial

Longford Capital Teams up with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP to Offer Litigation Funding to Willkie’s Clients Involved in Commercial Disputes

Longford Capital Management, LP today announced that it has entered into a $50 million funding agreement with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP to provide equity capital to fund attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, and to monetize the value of meritorious legal claims for Willkie’s clients involved in commercial litigation cases handled by lawyers based in Willkie’s Chicago office.

Willkie is an international law firm of approximately 850 attorneys with offices in New York, Washington, Houston, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Chicago, Paris, London, Frankfurt, Brussels, Milan, and Rome.

The agreement provides Willkie’s clients with an alternative method of funding litigation and enables clients to treat meritorious legal claims as corporate assets capable of being monetized.  Longford provides funding for disputes in several areas of law, including antitrust, patent, trade secrets, subrogation, health care reimbursement, and a variety of contract and fraud claims.

In addition, Craig C. Martin, Chairman, Midwest, a member of Willkie’s Executive Committee and a partner in the firm’s Litigation Department, will join Longford’s board of Independent Advisors. For many years, Mr. Martin has known and worked with members of the Longford legal team, including William P. Farrell, Jr., co-founder and managing director, and Justin A. Maleson, director.

Mr. Martin said, “Our new agreement with Longford will provide our clients with an alternative funding model for high-stakes commercial disputes, especially those with outcome determinative trials, for businesses as plaintiff or as defendant.  We have a talented group of trial lawyers with diverse skill sets and believe this is a tremendous opportunity for the firm to offer corporate and private equity clients a new level of service.”

Mr. Farrell said, “We have known Craig Martin and his Chicago-based trial team for many years. They are successful litigators and trial lawyers representing sophisticated clients.  We look forward to assisting Willkie by providing its clients with attractive financial options in connection with commercial disputes.”

About Longford Capital

Longford Capital is a leading private investment company that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, research universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes.  Longford was one of the first litigation funds in the United States and is among the world’s largest litigation finance companies with more than $1 billion in assets under management.  Typically, Longford funds attorneys’ fees and other costs necessary to pursue meritorious legal claims in return for a share of a favorable settlement or award.  The firm manages a diversified portfolio and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, claim monetization, insurance matters, and a variety of others. For more information, please visit www.longfordcapital.com.

Commercial

Scotland’s New Rules for Personal Injury Claims

A new court rule in Scotland takes effect on June 30th of this year. The rule allows for QOCS, or qualified one-way cost shifting in personal injury cases. Scotsman explains that until this rule goes into effect, losers in a personal injury case pay costs to the winner. With QOCS, the claimant is not required to pay costs for the defendant, even if the case is unsuccessful. The defendant will pay their own legal fees unless the plaintiff has acted inappropriately in the case. Fees will be capped at a percentage of any award. A spike in new cases taking advantage of this rule is anticipated. More law firms representing plaintiffs are expected to move forward with cases they would not have, prior to the rule being enacted. QOCS is part of a larger spate of civil procedure reforms currently taking place in Scotland, as a move to welcome third-party funding, collective actions, and damages-based agreements. Together, these reforms will no doubt level the playing field between large corporates and common citizens—widening access to justice for those who need it most.
Commercial

Litigation Finance—Helping Plaintiffs Against a Bankrupt Defendant

Is a positive verdict enough once a defendant declares bankruptcy? It may not seem like it, but in fact, plaintiffs may find bankruptcy court a more expedient option in some situations. Omni Bridgeway explains that the focus in a bankruptcy court is on speedy, fair resolutions. Mediation is possible, though less common. Working with a litigation funder is a great move for plaintiffs. Experienced funders can devise ways to lower costs, reduce risk, and may even recommend the best attorney for the situation. Omni Bridgeway’s latest podcast covers these issues and more, including:
  • Settlements under Rule 9019
  • The role of funders in maximizing recoveries
  • Why bankruptcy-specific counsel is so important
  • How bankruptcy court may be the best venue
  • Rule 2004 exams to help assess whether a judgment can be collected
  • Pre-bankruptcy litigation counsel
Commercial

The Impact of Global Inflation on Litigation Funding

Is post-pandemic global inflation a certainty? Probably not. But it’s worth noting that pandemic alleviation spending, quantitative easing by the Fed, and a sizable budget deficit are creating similar conditions to the last large inflation peak—way back in 1947. There are other factors to consider, some of which are difficult to predict. Consumers are excited to spend, travel, and do all of the things the pandemic prevented them from doing. What does that mean for litigation funding? Exton Advisors suggests that we could be looking at a sweeping change in global investing. As the world economy readjusts after COVID, investors may become intensely risk-averse. As interest rates rise and liquidity becomes scarce, capital invested into third-party legal funding could drastically reduce. A dramatic rise in litigation is expected as COVID winds down and businesses reckon with insolvencies. But as liquidity shrinks, funders with the most available cash on hand for deployment may emerge big winners. At the same time, big cases with the potential for massive awards may diminish, shrinking the pool of potentially profitable cases. If inflation continues and borrowing rates stay high, legal funding can come to the rescue of corporates that need to monetize illiquid assets without waiting years for a complicated case to reach its conclusion. As always, litigation funding is poised to adapt to the needs of the modern world.
Commercial

Cladding Class Action Halts as Litigation Funder Withdraws

A sizable class action against Carter Holt Harvey ended abruptly when offshore third-party funders voided the funding arrangement for unspecified reasons. Law Fuel details that the case, which revolved around faulty cladding materials, could have ended in an award of $40 million or more. As of now, Carter Holt Harvey is seeking costs, and has made no offer to those impacted. New Zealand’s Ministry of Education sought compensation upwards of $1 billion over defective materials in more than 800 public schools. The case settled—terms of which were undisclosed. While the case was not thrown out, Justice Matthew Downs determined that Adina Thorn made several misleading statements about potential award size. We will keep an eye on this case and continue to report on it as it develops. 
Commercial

LexShares Seeks Investors for Legal Finance Fund

Having closed its $25 million LexShares Marketplace Fund in January of 2018, LexShares’ second fund—targeted at $100 million, is well underway. Crunchbase recently spoke to Jay Greenberg, founder and CEO of LexShares. Greenberg described the value and adaptability of litigation finance, explaining that meritorious cases can be pursued even when plaintiffs lack the resources to fund them. LexShares uses innovative technology to source cases. A single piece of software curates cases for the company—roughly ¾ of all new cases funded by LexShares are sourced using this AI software. Not surprisingly, LexShares and other legal funders have seen a spike in demand from businesses seeking to monetize pending litigation, or open cases without decimating balance sheets. It will be interesting to keep an eye on LexShares' unique approach as the litigation funding market continues to heat up. 
Commercial

Should Litigation Funding Agreements Always be Discoverable?

Do both sides of a case need to know when third parties have an interest in the outcome of their case? David Levitt of Hinshaw & Culbertson says yes. He has proposed changing the rules in the District of New Jersey to require plaintiffs and defendants alike to disclose information about TPLF agreements. Bloomberg Law explains that the District Court of New Jersey is considering implementing a rule requiring that TPLF agreements be discoverable. Notably, the local rule would allow plaintiffs to self-describe their own agreements. Specifically, the rule would require disclosure of information about funding for attorney fees and expenses. Also, it requires disclosing specifics of any contingent financial arrangements based on any award or settlement amount, or any non-monetary result. Levitt suggests that this proposed local rule doesn’t address mutual discoverability fully enough. He believes that all jurisdictions should mandate the discovery of TPLF agreements. Self-description of funding agreements by plaintiffs may also prove to be inadequate, according to Levitt. He cites the fact that insurance disclosures require producing actual documents for discovery, rather than a vague description. It’s been asserted that like insurance agreements, TPLF agreements don’t have to be relevant to be discoverable. Yet some, including Levitt, have suggested that third-party funders increasingly exert influence over the cases they fund. Although Levitt did not cite any evidence to back up his claim, he maintains that strong public policy should provide both sides of a legal dispute access to comparable information about the other parties, so attorneys will know when non-parties are influencing a legal case based on their own financial interests. Clearly, the disclosure debate around third party legal funding isn't abating any time soon.