Trending Now

All Articles

3490 Articles
Commercial

East to West—Patent Cases Find a New Favorite Jurisdiction

Why are patent cases suddenly more plentiful in the Western District of Texas, when for years, the Eastern District of Texas was the reigning king? It could be the recent $2.18 billion verdict in a case against Intel Corp. The jury’s willingness to hand down such a high award is likely to attract interest in trying patent cases in the jurisdiction. Omni Bridgeway explains that the West District of Texas may be positioning itself to become a destination for patent cases. This would be good news for companies hoping to pursue infringement litigation. Over the last two years, patent cases filed in the Western District surged from 2.5% of cases to nearly 20%. Most of these cases eventually land in the lap of Judge Alan Albright. Albright is reluctant to transfer cases outside the district and has expressed enthusiasm for patent cases in general. Patent infringement claims often are not pursued for financial reasons—leaving money on the table. But litigation funders can take the risk out of patent litigation in many situations. Which means funders should have their eyes on the Western District of Texas, and the IP claims that are adjudicated there. 
Announcements Commercial

Burford Capital announces closing of private offering of senior notes

Burford Capital Limited (“Burford” or “Burford Capital”), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the closing on April 5, 2021 of the private offering of $400 million aggregate principal amount of 6.25% senior notes due 2028 (the “Notes”) by its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary, Burford Capital Global Finance LLC. The Notes are guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by Burford Capital as well as Burford Capital Finance LLC and Burford Capital PLC, both indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of Burford Capital (such guarantees, together with the Notes, the “Securities”).
Burford Capital intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, including the potential repayment or retirement of existing indebtedness. The Securities have not been, and will not be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the laws of any other jurisdiction, and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration under the Securities Act or any applicable state securities laws. The Securities will be offered only to persons reasonably believed to be “Qualified Institutional Buyers” within the meaning of Rule 144A under the Securities Act or non-U.S. persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act, in each case, who are “Qualified Purchasers” as defined in Section (2)(a)(51)(A) under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940.
For further information, please contact:
Burford Capital Limited 
Jim Kilman, Chief Financial Officer+1 917 985 9840
Robert Bailhache, Head of Investor Relations, EMEA and Asia+44 (0)20 3530 2023
Jim Ballan, Head of Investor Relations, Americas+1 (646) 793 9176
  
Numis Securities Limited - NOMAD and Joint Broker+44 (0)20 7260 1000
Kevin Cruickshank (NOMAD) 
Charlie Farquhar / Jonathan Abbott (Joint Broker) 
  
Jefferies International Limited - Joint Broker+44 (0)20 7029 8000
Graham Davidson 
Tony White 
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. This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities of Burford. This release does not constitute an offer of any Burford fund. Burford Capital Investment Management LLC ("BCIM"), which acts as the fund manager of all Burford funds, is registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The information contained herein is not, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities (including, without limitation, interests or shares in the funds). Any such offer or solicitation may be made only by means of a final confidential Private Placement Memorandum and other offering documents. PRIIPs Regulation / Prohibition of sales to EEA retail investors. The securities described in this announcement are not intended to be offered, sold or otherwise made available to and should not be offered, sold or otherwise made available to any retail investor in the European Economic Area ("EEA"). For these purposes, a retail investor means a person who is one (or more) of: (i) a retail client as defined in point (11) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (as amended, "MiFID II"); or (ii) a customer within the meaning of Directive 2016/97/ EU (the "Insurance Distribution Directive"), where that customer would not qualify as a professional client as defined in point (10) of Article 4(1) of MiFID II. Consequently no key information document required by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 (as amended, the "PRIIPs Regulation") for offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to retail investors in the EEA has been prepared and therefore offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to any retail investor in the EEA may be unlawful under the PRIIPs Regulation. Prohibition of sales to UK retail investors. The securities described in this announcement are not intended to be offered, sold or otherwise made available to and should not be offered, sold or otherwise made available to any retail investor in the United Kingdom ("UK"). For these purposes, a retail investor means a person who is one (or more) of: (i) a retail client, as defined in point (8) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/565 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("EUWA"); or (ii) a customer within the meaning of the provisions of the FSMA and any rules or regulations made under the FSMA to implement Directive (EU) 2016/97, where that customer would not qualify as a professional client, as defined in point (8) of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the EUWA. Consequently no key information document required by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the EUWA (the "UK PRIIPs Regulation") for offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to retail investors in the UK has been prepared and therefore offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to any retail investor in the UK may be unlawful under the UK PRIIPs Regulation. IN MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PERSONS WHO ARE "QUALIFIED INVESTORS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROSPECTUS REGULATION (EU) 2017/1129 IN SUCH MEMBER STATE, AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ADDRESSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS, AND NO PERSON THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT PERSON OR QUALIFIED INVESTOR MAY ACT OR RELY ON THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS. IN THE UK, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PERSONS WHO ARE "QUALIFIED INVESTORS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROSPECTUS REGULATION (EU) 2017/1129 AS IT FORMS PART OF DOMESTIC LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE EUWA IN THE UK, AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ADDRESSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS, AND NO PERSON THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT PERSON OR QUALIFIED INVESTOR MAY ACT OR RELY ON THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS. Forward-looking statements This announcement contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events. These statements are intended as “forward-looking statements”. In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as “aim”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “forecast”, “guidance”, “intend”, “may”, “plan”, “potential”, “predict”, “projected”, “should” or “will” or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are forward-looking statements, including in our periodic reports that we file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, other information sent to our security holders, and other written materials. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on  numerous assumptions and that our actual results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from (and be more negative than) those made in, or suggested by, the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement. Significant factors that may cause actual results to differ from those we expect include those discussed under “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. In addition, even if our results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or developments in subsequent periods. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise.
Announcements Consumer

LFJ Hosts a Special Digital Conference on “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding” 

Litigation Finance Journal has announced an upcoming roundtable discussion on third-party legal funding. A panel of institutional investors will discuss their thoughts on Consumer Legal Funding as an asset class. This special event will be held April 13 from 11:30 am-12:30 pm EST. Tickets can be found here.  This digital conference will be moderated by Dan Avnir, Managing Director of Bryant Park Capital. Featured panelists include Ben Kaplan, Co-founder of C9 Partners, Don Plotsky, Co-Founder of Uinta Investment Partners, and Michael Morris, Managing Director of Northleaf Capital Partners.  Topics to be covered will include:
  • The unique challenges of investing in litigation
  • How do institutional investors vet fund managers?
  • Expected returns, risk/reward profiles, and manager best practices
  • Predictions for the future of the industry
There will also be a Q&A with attendees after the panel discussion. Tickets are available now.  Please note: The event will be recorded, and all who purchase a ticket will receive a link to the recording. 
Commercial

COVID as a Factor in Securities for Costs

An order for securities for costs is meant to ensure that defendants can receive remuneration from an unsuccessful plaintiff. Monies are verified or set aside until the case is completed. If a securities for costs order is not met, a case may be dismissed. For the courts, deciding whether this is necessary can be a balancing act that weighs the hardship of a defendant who cannot recover costs, versus the financial burden to the plaintiff. LCM details one case that illustrates the precarious nature of this balancing exercise. The case is Grocon Group Holdings Pty Limited v Infrastructure NSW (2020) NSWSC 1194, which involves accusations of deceptive and misleading conduct during the bidding for the Central Barangaroo Development. INSW requested that Grocon be ordered to put up security for costs. The law says that to ask for securities for costs, the defendant is responsible for demonstrating that the plaintiffs may not be able to pay the costs if necessary. INSW used Grocon’s own financial reports that demonstrated more liabilities than assets. Grocon declined to provide evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the judge did say that the impact of COVID might have influenced his order for securities for costs if Grocon had submitted evidence to that effect. Another recent case referenced by the judge held that if a business is significantly disrupted due to COVID, a securities for costs order could hurt the business even further—and is therefore not in the interests of justice. Security for costs orders are largely left to the judge’s discretion. A judge does have the discretion to decline to order securities for costs if there is a legitimate financial reason. But in this instance, the judge wanted evidence that Grocon was in financial peril—and not merely unwilling to put up securities for costs. Ultimately, the judge ordered Grocon to pay security for costs.
Commercial

Burford CEO Purchases Company Stock

It’s always a good idea to keep an eye on which CEOs are buying shares of their own stock. Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital just made a sizable stock purchase—GBP 46,000. Simply Wall St explains that this marks the second time Burford insiders bought company stock this year, after a stock purchase of GBP 242,000 occurred earlier this year. Yet these stock purchases may not be as telling as they seem. While it’s a good sign to see company insiders purchasing shares, many analysts find the circumstance a less meaningful indicator of a company’s wellbeing when the stock price is historically low, as is the case with Burford shares currently. It is noteworthy, however, that no Burford insiders sold any shares. Strong insider ownership is generally a good sign for any company. It’s also indicative of a company’s dedication to shareholders.
Commercial

Pioneering Litigation Funder Now in Legal Battle in TARS Scandal

Timothy Scrantom was once considered a pioneer in the litigation funding community. These days, the chatter is less flattering. Scrantom, as well as Kenneth Elder and others, are ensconced in a legal battle to prevent them from seizing control of Total Asset Recovery Service. Legal Newsline reports that Ferraro Law Firm believes Scrantom and Elder are in league with Huddleston Capital VIII, a firm that recently pursued action to gain control over the existing TARS cases. The case itself suggests that life insurance companies failed to hand over unclaimed policies to the state—as dictated by abandoned property laws. What followed was a convoluted series of events involving failed qui tam litigation led by Elder and litigated by Ferraro Law, and the formation of TARS in 2009 for the purpose of pursuing escheat and insurance litigation. TARS ultimately hired Scrantom as a consultant at the behest of Elder, but not before relationships soured between both men and Ferraro Law. Now, Ferraro Law suspects that Elder and Scrantom are in league with Huddleston Capital—and states as much in their lawsuit. Though these are mere allegations at this point, Huddleston reps have sent default notices and collection letters to TARS.  Elder and Scrantom have thus far not responded to the lawsuit. And it remains unclear what evidence Ferraro has at its disposal, though given the complex nature of events, this case is likely to drag on for some time.
Commercial

Therium Funds Kazakhstan Oil Claim

A recent shareholder update from Victoria Oil & Gas PLC brought new details about the claim, which included steps taken after a small COVID outbreak, and a vetting process for the West Medvezhye license. Victoria Oil & Gas PLC also offered updates on its decade-long legal skirmish with the Republic of Kazakhstan. The dispute itself stems from alleged actions and omitted facts that were withheld by the Kazakhstan government. Ultimately, this led to the loss of the investment in an Atyrau Oblast oil field—Kemerkol Field. Near the end of last year, VOG informed the Kazakhstan government of its intention to move forward with a legal claim. This, after good-faith attempts were made by VOG to reach what they term a fair and amicable settlement. VOG now intends to pursue investment arbitration under the terms of the Energy Charter Treaty. Noted third-party funder Therium is fully funding VOG in this action. That could make for a sizable payday, given that VOG is seeking damages for monies invested, assets seized on-site, as well as the revenue VOG expected from the project.
Commercial

Podcast Episode Covers Dispute Funding for Companies in Financial Distress

David Prager of Duff & Phelps, Howard Brod Brownstein of The Brownstein Corporation, Tatiana Markel of BakerHostetler, and Ken Epstein of Omni Bridgeway engaged in a virtual discussion on dispute funding for financially distressed companies. This two-part podcast was produced by Turnaround Times.  Below are some key highlights from part 1 of the Turnaround Time podcast, which can be found here.   DP: What makes litigation funding such a breakthrough opportunity? HB: I’m a turnaround pro, so I get called in when a company has some degree of distress—the company may not even know how much distress until we start to dig. If there’s distress, there is neither the appetite nor the resources available to prosecute claims. It’s a potential asset for the company—but they may not have the wherewithal to realize. In the context of bankruptcy, there’s an inability to pay obligations. Litigation funding provides an opportunity to create a level playing field. Companies can recover assets, pursue cases, etc. DP: As you counsel your clients, when do you bring funding into the mix? What’s exciting to you about this structure? TM: I work at a big law firm. Litigation funding and contingency were not really something Big Law firms did—and traditionally don’t do. Five to ten years ago we talked about litigation funding, but only recently have we begun doing these deals in earnest. Our firm is a risk-averse midwestern firm. Litigation funding allows us to bridge the gap between large cases with huge potential recoveries, and the firm’s reluctance to accept that much risk. The sweet spot is a large-damages case, but it will take a long time and be costly. All in all, I’m a fan of litigation funding—we’re grateful for the industry. DP: We talk about plaintiff work—a small guy with a claim as a wronged party. Is that the limit of litigation funding, or are you looking at other things? KE: There is single case funding, and then portfolio case funding where you can fund a law firm, or several contingency cases. There’s also client-side funding, you can provide funding to a trust—which provides a lower risk profile.  DP: There’s been discussion about ethical issues with fee sharing, or confidentiality issues. What are your main ethical concerns? TM: From the perspective of what a funder needs to consider when assessing a deal—from an attorney perspective—attorney-client privilege. When assessing a case, a funder needs to review the underlying documents. While privilege doesn’t attach to discussions with a funder, but funders don’t need to see privileged documents. The laws in that are a bit unsettled. DP: So what safeguards do we take? Sign an NDA. Funders have their own form, which is similar and ironclad, to provide for the common interest. This confirms the intent for documents to be confidential.
Commercial

The Problem with Origination Credit—and How In-House Clients Can Address it

The gender gap in the legal industry is easy to recognize, thanks to Burford’s 2020 Equity Project study. But recognizing the problem is only half the battle. Origination credit continues to be a sticking point—as women consistently receive less than their fair share. This fuels a cycle of inequity that can reverberate through a law firm and beyond. Burford Capital reveals its 2020 Equity Project study surveyed General Counsel and senior in-house lawyers. Of the respondent pool, a staggering 52% had no idea how origination credit was awarded at the firms they utilized. Why does that matter? Because money flows in via those GCs, which gives them considerable power to influence the firms they hire. The problem began when male lawyers inherited clients from their predecessors. Senior male partners mentor male lawyers more often than female lawyers. This leads to female lawyers receiving lower-then-average compensation almost 80% of the time. And 67% of senior female lawyers state that they’ve experienced gender bias that has impacted their business development. The simple act of asking about origination credit can bring needed attention to the issue. More than 150 GCs wrote to their law firms in January of 2019, demanding that they close the gender gap. These included Microsoft and Coca-Cola, among other heavy hitters. That’s a positive step forward—but the progress must be more widespread in order to inspire lasting change. It’s been speculated that more GCs don’t ask about the gender gap or origination credit simply because it doesn’t occur to them. It’s also likely that many law firms don’t share what they consider insider information. If this issue is to be adequately addressed, habitual changes must be implemented.