All Articles
3458 ArticlesThe Future of Representative Actions in the UK
A recent panel discussion held by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law included partners from Hogan Lovells Matthew Felwick and Valerie Kenyon, along with Augusta Maciuleviciute of BEUC, Rhonson Salim of Ashton Law School, and Therium Capital Management’s Neil Purslow. Together, they discussed the EU Representative Actions Directive. JD Supra details the finer points of the panel, which focuses on the immediate future of representative actions (which vary in several ways from class actions) in the EU and UK. The first issue was the availability of qualified entities to bring claims under the new directive. Neil Purslow noted that litigation funders may find the qualifications too narrow for compliance. Insisting on a qualified entity may result in a bottleneck that impedes access to justice. The issue of ‘forum shopping’ was also discussed, relating to the Brussels I Regulation which is expected to limit how much forum shopping is permissible. Many speculate that data breaches and warranties will be focal areas for the new directive, and that the new directives on representative actions may see the biggest impact in places like Germany, which has no existing framework for collective cases. Most notably for litigation funding, the directive contains language meant to prevent funders from exerting influence over litigation or settlement decisions. These provisions will vary from one member state to another, but there appears to be a widespread commitment toward limiting the influence of third-party funders. Of course, funders are mainly interested in cases where a worthwhile recovery is possible. In jurisdictions where awards may only cover material damages, claimants might find a dearth of funders willing to sign on. Finally, the pros and cons of publicity on specific representative actions were discussed. Obviously, there are plusses and minuses on both sides. The main caveat being whether publicity could damage an entity whose liability has not been proven.
Exton Advisors launches ‘special situations’ disputes finance service
Exton Advisors, a leading financial advisory firm in litigation, is launching a unique range of ‘special situations’ services designed to help companies look at their disputes in an entirely new way. The move is in response to the increasing economic uncertainty brought about by the global pandemic and sees the firm creating a range of advisory service lines designed to help corporates and their legal teams find the right funding products to support their litigation and unlock potential working capital at a critical time. Established in 2018, Exton Advisors is comprised of consultant practitioners from litigation finance, law, insurance, insolvency and financial structuring. Responding to the rapid growth of litigation funds in the UK in the past few years, the firm was created to offer financial advisory services for in-house lawyers, many of whom need real guidance when it comes to assessing the growing array of funding options available. Many corporate legal teams have significant levels of capital sunk into work-in-progress disputes, but simply don’t know where to start when it comes to funding these cases or how the transactions should be structured. Exton’s special situations advisory service is geared towards turning those disputes into assets, flowing working capital back into the business. John Astill, founder and director comments: “Litigation finance is poised to enter a golden era, but the reality is that the asset class remains opaque and complex. We’ve seen a number of recent judgements highlighting the danger companies and their private practitioners face should transactions not be structured correctly, including adverse costs protection in relevant common law jurisdictions. We’re designed to simplify that complexity and help clients make informed choices.” Whilst corporate legal teams are taking tentative steps to engage with specific funds, they currently have no means to compare options or understand the relative merits and risks locked up in the funding agreement. They also rely heavily on their roster of law firms for advice, many of whom have limited relationships with the funding community. Exton’s team provides them with an independent view on the whole market, which is increasingly seeing new and unfamiliar entrants with significant capital to deploy. Astill continues: “Working directly with one or two funders can result in cookie-cutter solutions. As a result, in-house counsel have historically deferred to their private practitioners to help them arrange funding for their business critical disputes, but that doesn’t always make sense – litigators are appointed for their ability to come out on the right side of a dispute, not their financial advice, and in some circumstances there is a risk they can have divergent interests.” The firm is now working with a number of UK corporates and private practices on new mandates, including many that are springing up as a result of group claims, post-Covid-19. Whilst the independence and insight that the firm provides is important, building trust is the key. Tom Steindler, director, concludes: “Now, more than ever, the organisations we work with require a trusted partner to help them ease balance sheet pressure and realise the asset value locked up in their portfolios of claims and awards. In many ways litigation finance is still a nascent force and we want to provide a true corporate finance advisory service to help companies expertly navigate the asset class and make the most of the opportunities it provides; for us it’s all about simplifying and improving the experience for everyone.” About Exton Advisors Exton Advisors is a specialist litigation finance and insurance advisory business. Its advisory services concentrate on the assessment of the availability of specialist litigation finance across a broad network of capital sources, advice on the preparation of proposals, price and structure comparisons, negotiation of the terms on which finance will be provided, and advice on the structure of finance agreements. This applies to single case or portfolio funding, right through to the monetisation of a claim, award or judgment. Exton provides a variety of pure advisory services too, such as second opinions on deal pricing, support on costs budgeting, pricing and even asset tracing. It also acts as a specialist litigation insurance broker, providing advisory and placement services to meet the complex and challenging needs of businesses, their private practitioners and funding partners. When it comes to disputes finance, businesses need true expertise, deep relationships and often require bespoke, game changing solutions. Exton has a unique perspective and a track record of delivering.
The LFJ Podcast
" />On this episode, we speak with Louise Trayhurn, Executive Director of Legis Finance. Louise discusses Legis' bespoke approach to managing client relationships, the various funding and insurance products the company offers, the growing trend of GCs and CFOs extracting more value out of their legal assets, and what trends she predicts for the future of the industry. [podcast_episode episode="7446" content="title,player,details"]
Consequences vs Motivation in Litigation Funding for IP Cases
Despite Quibi’s failure to corner the short-form Netflix market, its IP dispute with Eko is still very much alive. Eko is being funded by Elliott Management—which has fought Quibi’s every attempt to get through the discovery process. In fact, Elliott tried to quash an SDNY subpoena investigating how much Elliott knows as the legal funder of the case.
Above the Law explains that this situation and its outcome should be of interest to litigation funders, as well as IP litigators and their clients. After all, the questions raised by Quibi’s opposition to Eko’s attempt to quash the subpoena could set precedent for future IP cases that are backed by third-party funding.
Some have speculated that Elliott’s decision to fund Eko was predicated on a romantic relationship involving a founder at Elliott. Others are focusing on Elliott’s unusual decision to allow Eko to run the case as if money were not an issue.
Quibi seems to suggest that Eko’s inability to demonstrate its assertions is reason enough to allow discovery into the funding agreement. The company also suggest that Eko’s claim for damages is ‘unusually aggressive’ to the point of suspicion. Earlier in the case, Quibi sought to deny that it was the giant in a David v Goliath situation. Now that Quibi had folded, the likelihood of Eko using that argument is slim.
Quibi has further suggested that Eko may be controlling litigation and settlement decisions, contrary to what ethical standards allow. Combined with accusations of Elliott’s disclosure of funding being intentionally belated, it’s a compelling argument for increased discovery.
Ultimately, Quibi asserts that Elliott’s relationship with Eko is business related, not legal in nature. How the court rules in this motion will no doubt impact discovery relating to litigation funders for some time to come.
Freedom Foods Faces Second Class Action
Cereal and snack company Freedom Foods is still in voluntary suspension from ASX until its recapitalization is completed in April. Since then, the company sold to Arnott for $20 million. Dairy News Australia details that after a shareholder class action was filed in December, a second class action has now been served. This one, backed by legal funder Omni Bridgeway, alleges mishandling of expenses and inventory. This mishandling allegedly led to a mismanaged audit that negatively impacted investors.
ASIC Changes Sunset Date to August 2025
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) has confirmed that it has changed the sunset date of the ASIC Corporations Instrument from October 2020 to August 2025. Lawyers Weekly details that the primary instrument offered exemptions from specific provisions of the Corporations Act of 2001. This was intended to give participants time to adjust to the implementation of the new regulatory rules for litigation funding schemes. This was done for several reasons. Primarily, to address overlap between the primary instrument and the conclusions of the parliamentary joint committee. As yet, the Australian government has not responded to those recommendations. The Senate standing committee also expressed concerns about the primary instrument.
Arbitral Awards and Limitation Periods
Arbitral awards are widely enforceable, which is a bonus for the parties involved. However, this enforcement is finite. There are limitation periods which, once surpassed, can render an arbitral award unenforceable. Omni Bridgeway explains that award creditors disregard or underestimate the risk involved in failing to observe limitation periods. If a debtor is not inclined to make payment, local limitations can actually work to their advantage. Once the limit for the arbitral award passes, the award might become unenforceable in jurisdictions where available assets are located. To add even more complexity, there is no uniform regulation on time periods of arbitration awards. The time period varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and may differ based on other factors. In a 2010 case, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the laws on limitation periods for enforcement of an award from outside the country apply as “rules of procedure.” Differences in limitation periods between countries is substantial. In Canada, various provinces have time limitations of between 2-10 years. In the US, 3 years is standard. Russia is also 3 years, while China allows only 2. Common law jurisdictions like England and Wales state that awards cannot be enforced after 6 years from the time of the cause of action. Given these facts, a timely enforcement strategy is vital. This should include a thorough discovery process, detailing the attachable assets and a clear delineation of which limitation periods may apply. Blind enforcement is also an option, though the time consuming, complex, and comparatively expensive nature makes this an unattractive option in most situations. Surely, a creditor is free to wait for a debtor to negotiate a settlement or simply pay what they owe. But a savvy creditor will devise a strategy for enforcement and recovery in the event that a debtor does not pay up.
Burford Capital Roundtable: Industry Research
A recent roundtable of law firm leaders featured Jason Peltz of Bartlit Beck, Frank Ryan of DLA Piper, and Jason Leckerman of Ballard Spahr. They discussed industry trends, the ongoing impact of COVID, and how to best educate the public about legal funding. Burford Capital Director Christine Azar led the discussion, beginning with the high number of law firm mergers. The panel did not agree with the notion that ‘bigger is better’ when it comes to firm size. Leckerman states that it can be more advantageous to focus on core areas that clients already want and need. It’s likely that firms will focus on attracting those clients who need their specialized expertise, rather than trying to be all things to all people. Certainly, firms will want to focus on factors other than size. The ESG initiatives being adopted are likely to attract new clients who share those values. This includes more than just donating time and money; it involves joining forces with groups that get things done. That said, attracting talent can be challenging regardless of firm size—and finding strong lawyers is vital to client growth and retention. More than 65% of lawyers assert that their firms are considering risk-based practices. Peltz notes that institutional constraints may impede the shift from billable hours to risk-based models. For the panel, it seemed unlikely that big firms are willing or able to develop risk-based practices, even though alternative fee arrangements are becoming increasingly common. Ultimately, the growth of third-party litigation funding depends on clients understanding its value. Helping clients consider this option realistically and accurately is of vital importance—especially when funding is an ideal way to meet the goals of clients.
