Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities. The initial panel discussion was titled "State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook." The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:

• Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
• Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
• Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
• Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital

The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in: Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before. Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential. Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before. The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table. In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here. At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims. The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here. Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow. The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on "How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey," featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs. Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value. MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services. All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

The LF Dealmakers conference kicked off this morning with a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The address was titled "Litigation Finance: Survey of a Shifting Landscape," and covered four main issues: ethics, fee sharing, disclosure regulations and privileged communications between funder and attorneys. Judge Scheindlin began on the topic of ethical issues, the three most common of which boil down to competence, confidentiality and truthfulness. She explained the common pitfalls that funders need to be aware of, including how different states treat confidentiality issues, for example. Scheindlin asserted that the ethical concerns most have about the industry do not pose any serious threat to its future growth potential. In terms of fee sharing, Scheindlin pointed out how bar associations play a critical role in drafting and interpreting codes of conduct, which are then adopted by the states. She noted the New York bar's opinion on Rule 5.4, which found that litigation funding violates the fee sharing restriction. This was a controversial opinion, for obvious reasons. In fact, there was such an outcry, that the city bar created a working group around litigation funding, to make recommendations around ethics and principles. The working group addressed the realities of litigation funding, and whether disclosure of funding should be required in litigation and arbitration. In the end, the working group offered two proposals. The first being that the funder can share fees with the client, provided that the funder remains independent and does not influence case decisions by participating in the claim. The second being that the funder can participate in the claim, if it benefits the client. And the client can provide informed consent to disclose confidential information to the funder (Scheindlin noted that she favors the second proposal). Neither proposal has yet been adopted, though Judge Scheindlin believes Rule 5.4 regarding fee sharing will be modified in NY, based on these recommendations. It remains to be seen which proposal will win out. On the issue of control, which is related to fee sharing, Scheindlin explained that many funding agreements give the funder the right to approve the selection of counsel.  Some may view this as control, but really the funders just want to ensure the counsel is adequate to handle the claim. In terms of disclosure, Scheindlin pointed out how 12 states have passed legislation on litigation funding, with another 11 proposing legislation. Most involve consumer funding. Only Wisconsin specifically includes financing of commercial claims. So it's clear the focus is on consumer cases, but no one knows where this will go.  There is a robust debate on the subject of disclosure, with many industry opponents pushing to reveal the identity of the funder, as well as the terms of the funding agreement. There is a lot of disagreement on the various avenues that can be taken regarding the issue of disclosure, so it will be interesting to see how this issue will develop. On privilege, Scheindlin noted the common interest exception in regard to sharing privileged information, and how courts are split as to whether this applies to litigation funders. Is a shared commercial interest the same as a common legal interest? This is the question at hand.  However, most courts have found that privileged documents are protected by work product, where a funder is concerned. Ultimately, though, an NDA or confidentiality agreement is likely needed here to ensure that work product applies. So while there are plenty of minefields, in terms of issues that could upend TPLF, Judge Scheindlin feels confident that funding will prevail in the end. To quote Judge Scheindlin: "There are always those who will oppose new ways of doing things.  Those who seek to restrict TPLF… are in my opinion, merely afraid of the level playing field that such funding creates. I don’t think they will succeed. TPLF is now an accepted part of the legal landscape, and is here to stay."

GetSwift Technologies Limited (NEO:GSW) ("GetSwift" or the "Company"), a leading provider of last mile SaaS logistics technology, today as a result of market regulatory requirements announced that has disclosed details of its previously announced Heads of Agreement (HOA) for a settlement with law firm Phi Finney McDonald and Therium Capital Management (Australia) Pty Ltd. and Mr. Raffaele Webb (the "Applicant") in connection with the class action proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia (the "Court"). GetSwift’s Board of Directors, including each independent director, believe the terms of the proposed settlement under the HOA are in the best interests of The Company and its shareholders. The HOA contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by GetSwift Limited or Mr. Joel Macdonald, a President and Director of The Company, and neither GetSwift Limited nor Mr. Macdonald or any of its executives acknowledges any liability or wrongdoing by entering into the HOA. GetSwift expects that the HOA and the final settlement will enable The Company and its current management to focus on growth, innovation, product launches, and market capture. The terms of the proposed settlement are expected to eliminate uncertainty and expense associated with this litigation matter and ideally realize an appropriate market capitalization for The Company, enabling it to use resources that would otherwise have been devoted to litigation for continued expansion, benefitting all stakeholders including shareholders, clients, partners, the class and employees. Terms of the settlement are as follows: The Settlement Sum to be paid by The Company is the aggregate amount derived from the following Settlement Formula, with each component amount ("settlement payment"), if payable, to be paid at or by the dates and times set out below. A reference in this Schedule to an event occurring on or by a particular date means on or by 5pm in New York, New York, United States of America, on that day.

1. A first settlement payment of AU$1.5m, to be paid in instalments as follows:
   1. AU$500,000 within 7 days of the date of execution of the Deed;
   2. AU$500,000 due by 7 October 2021; and
   3. AU$500,000 due by 7 January 2022.
2. During the term of 3 years from the date of the parties executing a Deed of Settlement ("Fundraising Term"), settlement payments equaling 8% of any funds raised by The Company by way of capital raising, with each such amount to be paid within 6 weeks of the amount being collected by The Company.
3. During the Fundraising Term, The Company is to raise capital equivalent to 10% to 20% of its pre-raising market capitalisation at the point in time that:
   1. it first hits any of the following market capitalisation levels (in CAD):
      1. $100m;
      2. $250m;
      3. $400m; and
   2. the market capitalisation remains at the level in 3.a.i – iii (as applicable) on average for 4 weeks following the date it first hit that market capitalization.
4. In any of the three 12-month periods comprising the Fundraising Term, if no funds are raised by capital raising:
   1. the Respondents and/or The Company will be required to make a settlement payment equal to 5% of The Company Group’s revenue from contracts with customers ("revenue") during the 12- month period ending on the most recent quarterly reporting date prior to the conclusion of the relevant 12-month period ("revenue percentage") within 4 weeks of expiry of the period; however
   2. if 4(a) applies in respect of the first year of the Fundraising Term, the required settlement payment under 4(a) will be not be payable until the conclusion of the second year of the Fundraising Term.
5. Subject to clause 6 below, during any of the three 12-month periods comprising the Fundraising Term, for any capital raising undertaken by The Company where the amount of funds raised is less than 20% of The Company’s pre-raising market capitalisation, then:
   1. the Respondents and/or The Company will be required to make a settlement payment calculated on the same revenue percentage basis as clause 4 above within 4 weeks of expiry of the relevant 12-month period; however
   2. the amount payable will be discounted based on the amount of funds raised applying the following formula:
      1. the revenue percentage payable will be the percentage equivalent to 25% of the percentage amount by which the relevant capital raising is less than 20% of The Company’s market capitalisation; such that (by way of example);
      2. if the capital raising is 10% of The Company’s market capitalisation, the revenue percentage payable is 2.5%; whereas
      3. if the capital raising is 15% of The Company’s market capitalisation, the revenue percentage payable is 1.25%.
6. If The Company conducts more than one capital raising during any of the 3 twelve-month periods comprising the Fundraising Term, then for the purpose of the calculation of any revenue percentage settlement payment for that period, the two or more capital raisings will be treated as one capital raising. For instance, if:
   1. The Company conducted two capital raisings during a single 12-month period for amounts of 5% and 10% of The Company’s market capitalisation at the relevant times;
   2. The Company’s market capitalisation was CAD200m at the time of the first capital raising and CAD250m at the time of the second capital raising; and
   3. this resulted in raisings of CAD10m and CAD25m respectively; then
   4. the weighted average revenue payment would be calculated premised on the extent to which CAD35m (the combined amount raised) fell short of being 20% of CAD225m (the weighted average market capitalisation); and
   5. the relevant percentage per (d) would be about 15.5%, such that the revenue percentage payment for that 12-month period would be a single payment of about 1.11% of annual revenue.
7. All payments are to be made in Australian dollars. The rate of exchange to be used in calculating the amount of currency equivalent in Australian dollars is the closing exchange rate reported in The Australian Financial Review on the preceding Business Day before payment is made.

Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements contained in this news release constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking information may relate to matters disclosed in this news release and to other matters identified in public filings relating to the Corporation, to the future outlook of the Corporation and anticipated events or results and may include statements regarding the future financial performance of the Corporation. In some cases, forward-looking information can be identified by terms such as "may", "will", "should", "expect", "plan", "anticipate", "believe", "intend", "estimate", "predict", "potential", "continue" or other similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. Forward-looking Statements in this press release include statements related to the process of obtaining Court approval of the terms of the Settlement, the likelihood of entering into the Deed on terms acceptable to the parties, and the impact of the proposed settlement on the Corporation. Forward-looking Statements involve various risks and uncertainties and are based on certain factors and assumptions. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Corporation's expectations include, without limitation, the availability of the Court to approve the terms of the settlement, the determination by the Court or any party to the HOA that the terms of the settlement are not acceptable, the ability of the Corporation to negotiate the final terms of the settlement with the parties to the HOA, and certain other risk factors set forth in the Prospectus under the heading "Risk Factors". The Corporation undertakes no obligation to update or revise any Forward-looking Statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for the Corporation to predict all of them, or assess the impact of each such factor or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any Forward-looking Statement. Any Forward-looking Statements contained in this press release are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. About GetSwift Technologies Limited Technology to Optimize Global Delivery Logistics GetSwift is a technology and services company that offers a suite of software products and services focused on business and logistics automation, data management and analysis, communications, information security, and infrastructure optimization and also includes ecommerce and marketplace ordering, workforce management, data analytics and augmentation, business intelligence, route optimization, cash management, task management shift management, asset tracking, real-time alerts, cloud communications, and communications infrastructure (collectively, the "GetSwift Offering"). The GetSwift Offering is used by public and private sector clients across industries and jurisdictions for their respective logistics, communications, information security, and infrastructure projects and operations. GSW is headquartered in New York and its common shares are listed for trading on the NEO Exchange under the symbol "GSW". For further background, please visit www.getswift.co.