Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Caroline Taylor, Founding Partner of Ignitis

All Articles

3617 Articles
Commercial

UK Funder Fenchurch Legal Joins Mintos

Investment specialist Mintos is joining forces with UK litigation funder Fenchurch Legal. This is expected to create new opportunities for investors, particularly those looking to enter the legal funding arena. Mintos explains that Fenchurch Legal offers a unique product that emphasizes aiding ordinary consumers as opposed to the massive corporates many funders focus on. Fenchurch’s main clients are firms that take on cases such as pension mis-selling, personal injury, and housing disrepair claims. By focusing on smaller, socially relevant claims, more cases can be funded—diversifying risk. Fenchurch launched in 2020 with a deliberate focus on ‘After the Event’ claims. All Fenchurch disbursements are backed by an ATE policy. It fills a gap in the addressable market for small-ticket cases in the UK, where the legal funding market has more than doubled over the last three years—even before COVID changed the legal landscape. The cases that Fenchurch funds result in one of two outcomes: Winning claims see the loan repaid by the defendant, while losing claims are covered by ATE insurance. This creates an extremely attractive opportunity for funders and those who invest in them. The funding market is expected to continue its growth, particularly in the UK and US. In fact, the market is predicted to reach EU 18.3 billion by 2027. Managing Director of Fenchurch, Louisa Klouda, expressed delight at joining the Mintos platform. She is confident that the venture will help Fenchurch achieve its goal of becoming the leading expert in third-party funding in the UK.
Commercial

ASIC Addresses Concerns of Third-Party Legal Funders

A new consultation paper from ASIC details multiple areas likely to change in response to concerns from the litigation funding industry. Does this indicate a relaxation of governmental attempts to hobble the legal funding industry? Investor Daily explains that while a requirement for litigation funders to hold an AFSL became law in 2020, not all provisions were upheld immediately. This relief is scheduled to expire in April of next year. A total of 31 recommendations have been made, including relief from equal treatment duty in MIS distributions, and from requiring disclosure in some commercial cases. The government has expressed that it will consult on the new recommendations this year. The expectation from ASIC is that their paper will establish definitions for oft-used terms within MIS regulations.
Commercial

Insurers Remain Wary of Third-Party Litigation Funding

Litigation funders and insurers may never see eye to eye. After all, third-party litigation funders make it their business to hold insurers accountable—literally. By funding cases for average citizens against corporations, legal funding helps average citizens who would not otherwise have their day in court. Business Insurance explains that insurers insist that funding leads to larger claims and higher premiums. Funders, some say, are often allowed to fund cases surreptitiously, leading to potentials for conflicts of interest. Funding is similar to contingency fee arrangements, with one distinct difference. Plaintiffs don’t pay if a case loses in either situation, but if a case is successful, funders are repaid and given a share of the recovery. Funding is helpful to plaintiffs, and also to law firms who may be unable to take on meritorious cases due to lack of available resources. Third-party funding is gaining popularity around the world, and many insurers are not pleased. One director at AM Best explains that funding drives the size of awards and settlements, creating an untenable situation for insurers and those seeking new policies. If funders have direct control over the cases they fund, this problem can become exponentially worse. Laura Lazarczyk, EVP at Zurich North America, refers to ‘abusive practices’ by funders, including funding frivolous litigation. To avoid conflicts of interest, some US courts now require third-party funding to always be disclosed. Efforts to expand this requirement nationwide have not picked up much traction. Funders claim that funding is not relevant in all cases, and no jurisdiction openly permits funders to retain control over decision-making in the cases they fund.
Announcements Commercial

Liti Capital Announces New $5 Million Investment to Acquire New Assets

Liti Capital SA , the blockchain litigation finance company, announces an investment of $5 Million. This $5m will be used to purchase assets worth up to a potential $50m. Of the initial private raise of $12m, $10m was used to secure assets worth up to $100m of potential asset value. Once this new $5m is deployed in an asset purchase, the combined $150m potential value dwarfs the current market cap of $25m. Those assets are what back the LITI equity token. Litigation finance is the practice of purchasing a percentage of a lawsuit to help fund the effort and then helping to win the case in order to collect that same percentage of the award. The $5M investment will be used to purchase these litigation assets. As one of the highest ROIs of any asset class, the returns are not dependent on the state of the financial markets. This short video illustrates the value proposition. “Liti Capital is a company, not a cryptocurrency. Therefore, increasing our Market Cap is a good thing for our investors because it means we are putting new money to work to buy assets and create profits,” says CIO David Kay.“We were able to invest our first $10M and turn it into assets valued around $100M. We expect to use this new investment to produce similar results.” Liti Capital launched its LITI equity token on June 24th and it wrapped LITI token, the wLITI, on June 29th. LITI tokens are available on liticapital.com and wLITI on uniswap.org. Liti Capital tokenized its equity shares with the goal of providing retail investors with investment opportunities previously only available to the top 1% of investors. Tokens lower the barrier of entry for smaller investments and reduce costs and increase security for both investors and the company. Additionally, tokens provide liquidity to an asset class that has traditionally been firmly illiquid. Liti Capital's belief is“private equity for all.” Additional long-term goals include helping to protect the crypto community, prosecute scammers, and return the lost funds to the token holders with the hopes of preventing these activities in the future and ensuring a safe environment for investment and innovation. Liti Capital will spend between 5 and 10% of its investment capital investigating and funding litigation against these crypto con artists and scammers. Join the company's Telegram Channel, t.me/Liti_Capital_Official , for updates and live chats. About Liti Capital Liti Capital is a Swiss Limited Liability company specializing in Litigation Finance and FinTech based out of Switzerland. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and then helps the plaintiff win the case. By tokenizing shares, the company lowers the barrier of entry for retail investors, gives token holders a vote in the decision-making process, and distributes dividends to token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Co-Founder Jonas Rey heads one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland, Athena Intelligence. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado bring innovation entrepreneur experience and blockchain expertise to round out the leadership team. David Kay, CIO, ran a billion-dollar private equity litigation finance firm before joining Liti Capital.
Commercial

Pure Funders vs Professional Funders – What’s the Difference?

The subject of costs is a contentious and evolving topic. A recent ruling by Judge Marcus Smith has turned some heads in the funding community. It involves a third-party cost application brought against Colosseum Consulting, by Laser Trust. Colosseum was the funder of a case between Laser and CFL Finance—which had an outstanding costs order against it for nearly GBP 330,000. Colosseum faced an order for costs. Omni Bridgeway explains that according to the funding agreement, Colosseum had an inappropriately high degree of control over the case. Judge Smith called the agreement close to absolute control. It was not determined how much control was ultimately exercised by Colosseum, but the larger issue was that neither Colosseum nor CFL was forthcoming about the terms of the agreement. With that in mind, Colosseum was ordered to pay the assessed costs—without the Arkin cap. Some have suggested that removing the Arkin cap was excessive, even punitive. Part of the ruling relates to Colosseum’s status as a “pure funder,” as opposed to a “professional funder.” The difference here was determined in Hamilton v Al Fayed 2002, a Court of Appeal case. A “pure” funder does not seek to control the funded case, has no personal interest in the litigation at hand, and does not stand to benefit. Pure funders rarely have cost orders made against them. However, funders that exercise control or seek to increase their payout are far more likely to see costs orders. The facts of the case between Laser and CFL are highly complex. Suffice to say that everyone involved should have known it was not well-suited to a professional funder. Though it’s unclear how much control Colosseum exerted over the case, the agreement terms are evidence that Colosseum’s motive was financial gain rather than charity. As such, they were not a “pure funder,” and could therefore be ordered to pay costs.
Commercial

On the Use of Liquidator Documents in Funded Litigation

Litigation funders may purchase claims from liquidators, keeping a portion of the recovery. But there are practical questions that need answers here—such as whether funders may use evidence from previous examinations of the insolvent company’s affairs. In the instance of LCM Operations Pty Ltd; 316 Group Pty Ltd, LCM bought claims from a liquidator, who would receive 15% of any proceeds collected. According to an article published on LCM’s website, ASIC approved the funder’s request for examination documents. There were no objections or challenges. Armed with evidence, LCM filed suit against Rabah Enterprises. Rabah countered with a complaint alleging that the use of the examination documents was a breach of the Harman undertaking—which states that documents obtained in court proceedings must not be used in unconnected proceedings. LCM then applied to Federal Court to affirm that using the documents was not a breach of Harman. The court determined that there had been no breach—as the focus of the examination was to gather evidence for claims. Rabah’s assertion was that litigation funders and liquidators are not on an equal legal footing in the use of examination documents. He also claimed that the examination itself was a potential abuse of process under terms of the Corporations Act. Yet this act also allows liquidators to assign claims to other parties. Those other parties then enjoy similar standing to the liquidator, without court approval. Because the claim against Rabah could have totaled more than $14 million, it’s clear that the liquidator was poised to benefit financially. However, Rabah still maintained that LCM required leave that should not be given by the courts—because LCM’s predominant purpose was the 85% in the agreement. Ultimately Justice Stewart determined that ‘predominant purpose’ may include other goals, such as a partly private purpose. In this case, LCM benefited, but so did the liquidator. Rabah’s objectives were ultimately unconvincing, and Justice Stewart found for LCM.
Commercial

Litigation Funding in the Middle East & North Africa

It’s clear that the COVID pandemic has changed the way we communicate around the globe. Still, international disputes are still happening and need resolution. Third-party litigation funding is becoming an increasingly mainstream practice that addresses new and ongoing issues alike. Omni Bridgeway explains that the practice is gaining acceptance in the MENA region, which includes the middle east and north Africa. Abu Dhabi Global Markets and the Dubai International Financial Centre have embraced legal funding. The current growth in this region is necessitated by the high cost and complex nature of international arbitration, coupled with communication issues caused or exacerbated by COVID. While third-party legal funding is known for increasing access to justice for those who can afford it least, legal firms and corporates also use funding to manage costs and risks, while monetizing assets like IP or pending litigation. For businesses impacted by COVID, non-recourse funding makes a profound difference. Some businesses find that even if a funded case is unsuccessful, they were still better off taking the non-recourse funds and investing their own money back into operations. So far, the MENA region has been slower than expected to embrace third-party funding. This may be due to champerty concerns or misconceptions about the fairness or transparency of funding agreements. In time though, it’s likely that the value of litigation funding will demonstrate itself. This region has several well-established markets for litigation and arbitration. So it’s likely that the practice of third-party litigation funding will only expand—inviting new entrants into the market. With that will likely come new regulation, as it has with Europe, Australia, and the US among others.
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Raises Over $2MM with Joint Venture Partner to Fund Personal Injury Claims

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding reports an expansion to their capital needs now that funding applications are on the rise. The entire legal system had practically ground to a halt due to Covid-19, which caused massive delays in the courts. But now that life is starting to return to normal, backlogged dockets are being addressed. With renewed activity, Legal-Bay is seeing an increase in applications for settlement funding. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We are pleased to report that with our acquisition of over $2MM in cash and conversion of another $1MM in old notes that we are poised to ring in a new post-Covid era of funding with a $3MM capital base. With courts slowed due to the pandemic, our industry has seen a downturn of funding volume, but Legal-Bay is now positioned to fulfill our origination volume expected over the next few months. Our ultimate goal is secure a minimum of $10MM in new capital to fill our business needs over the next twelve-month period and beyond. We have entered discussions with key institutional groups, and now with the pandemic behind us—as well as an exceptional seven-year track record of settling funding claims—we believe the future looks bright once again." Legal-Bay is a direct funding source and considered one of the best lawsuit funding companies in the industry. Their turnaround time is lightning fast, and their customer service is top notch. They've been in the pre-settlement lawsuit funding business for over a decade, so their experience is extensive. If you would like more information about Legal-Bay, please visit their website HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405 for any other questions. Legal-Bay funds all types of lawsuits including commercial litigation, personal injury cases, dog bites, car and truck accidents, medical malpractice, Purdue OxyContin cases, Boy Scouts of America or clergy abuse cases, workplace discrimination, wrongful termination or conviction, and many more.
Commercial

LCM Agrees to Fund Competition Case Against Govia Thameslink Railway

Litigation Capital Management, an AIM-traded firm, announced that it is funding a collective action against Govia Thameslink Railway and its parent companies. Sharecast details that the case asserts that BTR abused its leading position in the rail services market, thereby breaching the Competition Act 1998. Such cases are increasing in the UK, owing to the proliferation of third-party litigation funding. GTR operates in London and the SouthEast of England, operating regional and commuter services. LCM executive vice-chair Nick Rowles-Davies affirmed the company’s commitment to facilitating cases that help the communities they serve.