Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles
Commercial

Collective Redress Regime and its Impact on Litigation Funding

The German legislature is in the midst of groundbreaking decisions surrounding legal tech. They recently validated the business model of LexFox, a legal tech company. By ruling that LexFox did not violate the German Legal Services Act, the court validated similar companies like myRight and Flightright. JD Supra explains that in the coming year, traditional law firms and more modernized legal tech companies will find themselves at odds. The shakeup caused by the growing acceptance of litigation funding and contingency fees is somewhat calmed by the revised Legal Services Act. The new revisions are expected to add clarity and guidance to the practice of legal funding. Meanwhile, the final months of 2020 brought about new directives on collective redress. The new rules, which expand collective actions, won’t go into effect until 2023. This new directive is expected to strike a balance between giving citizens a process to ensure consumer access to justice and preventing an influx of frivolous or abusive litigation. Of note, the new directives do not contain specifics regarding international litigation. This could lead to increased forum shopping—the practice of finding a friendly jurisdiction for one’s case. Directives also maintain that litigation funding can be used—but that there cannot be a conflict of interest. This is, of course, in keeping with Litigation Finance best practices all over the world. It’s expected that the availability of legal funding will impact where and how cases are managed. The German Bar is vocally against many of these changes, and strong public debate is expected. Ultimately though, wronged consumers should expect more opportunities to see their day in court.
Commercial Covid-19

Business Interruption Insurers Play Hardball with Policyholders

What happens when you take every precaution only to be let down by your insurer? That’s what Josephine Woodberry is asking. She purchased a business interruption insurance policy for her dance studio in Preston, near Melbourne, only to discover she wasn't actually covered. Sydney Morning Herald details that after 20 years in business, Woodberry filed a claim with her insurer after COVID caused a seven-month shutdown of the school. That’s when she was informed that her policy would not cover a global pandemic. Woodberry is not alone. She’s one of the thousands of small businesses gasping for air during COVID, now being denied the coverage they’ve been paying for. Brokers appear to be firmly on the side of insurers over clients. Unlike Britain, where regulators used a test case to evaluate industry-standard policies—Australian courts let the industry self-regulate. Regulators coordinated with the insurance industry to test whether the Quarantine Act includes infectious diseases as declared under 2015’s Biosecurity Act. After a surprising appeals loss, the insurance industry stands to lose $2 billion. Still, the test cases keep coming. Next up, QBE and IAG policies will be under the legal microscope. Clearly, there won’t be a consensus on policy coverage any time soon. This is terrible news for the thousands of businesses that are barely staying afloat. One Berril Watson attorney explains that even if the courts rule that insurers have to cover COVID losses, claimants will still need to show actual covered losses. He goes on to state that insurers shouldn’t be delaying when policyholders need them most—they should be paying claims. Some insurers claim that business interruption policies were never intended or priced to cover a global event like COVID. They warn that the cost and availability of insurance for small businesses will dramatically change should the current legal judgments prevail. Meanwhile, Woodberry and thousands more like her are adamant. Woodberry refuses to let insurers win when she’s completely convinced that her policy covers her studio.
Commercial

Combustible Cladding Class Action Nears Compensation Phase

A class action against PE core cladding suppliers has finally reached the High Court of New Zealand. Participants are seeking compensation for those financially impacted by the cladding. Omni Bridgeway, which funded the action, along with law firm Russell McVeagh, has raised awareness about the combustible cladding. In addition to the NZ case, Omni Bridgeway is funding two similar class actions in Australia. Remuneration is being sought to cover the removal and replacement of the cladding in question. Many owners and renters claim that their losses include rising insurance premiums as well as costs associated with investigation and testing. Participants are still being accepted in the New Zealand class action. Omni Bridgeway’s Gavin Beardsell states that he’s pleased that the case is progressing. He looks forward to helping and supporting the claimants in their case against manufacturers.
Commercial

How CFOs and Corporations Can Prepare for the Coming Year

Last year, the world was thrown into upheaval thanks to COVID, and most industries are still reeling. Hospitality, entertainment, travel—so many once-thriving businesses are either closed down or hanging on by a thread. What can be done to ensure that your business isn’t one of those lost to the pandemic? Burford Capital is clear in stating that the economic impact of COVID is far from over. Taking a long look at expenses and incoming cash can help businesses understand what needs to happen in the coming year. Infrastructure changes are probably underway in your business already. Remote working, security challenges, and staffing changes are just the beginning. A legal operations department, when implemented, can maintain focus on prioritizing tasks, resource allocation, efficiency, and help remote workers stay abreast on company goings-on, which can all be a huge benefit. Optimizing legal assets is a modern way to free up cash that can be used for operating expenses or upgrades. Gaining instant liquidity from pending claims is an opportunity savvy legal teams will surely jump on. Outstanding litigation is sometimes seen as a liability. If cash is tied up in a case that seems to be dragging on without resolution, it may make sense to transform meritorious litigation into revenue by entering a risk-sharing contract with a legal funder. Now is an opportune time to make use of litigation finance as a way to manage assets and free up liquid capital. Retaining talent is another vital aspect of staying on top during the pandemic. Maintaining top performers can come down to revenue. If you aren’t prioritizing talent retention with high payouts, you risk losing your best team members to other firms. Ultimately, innovation—financial and otherwise—is the key to adapting and thriving in a post COVID world. Building a flexible pandemic plan is essential, and litigation funding can help.
Announcements Consumer

Multi Funding USA is Named Exclusive Litigation Finance Provider for TrialSchool.org

Multi Funding USA, a leading provider of pre-settlement funding serving law firms and attorneys, has been named the exclusive litigation funding partner for TrialSchool.org (Trial School), a not-for-profit trial advocacy training for lawyers who represent individuals and families. Multi Funding USA is a Platinum Sponsor for Trial School and will offer cloud-based litigation finance services to Trial School’s extensive client base of law firms and attorneys across the United States. Trial School provides a vast array of resources to attorneys across the United States. Its content is created and taught by some of the most respected trial lawyers in America. Trial School teaches 'Mixed-Method Advocacy,' which seeks to curate and combine today’s best approaches to trying cases, and is delivered through a sophisticated online repository of tutorials, resources, and case studies. The organization offers a comprehensive Boot Camp suitable for both plaintiff and defense attorneys. Among the topics covered are discovery strategies, witness testimony, cross-examination, managing documents and evidence, and creating closing arguments. Trial School provides hours of video tutorials to assist attorneys, as well as live focus groups and online documentation. Trial School resources and services are available at no charge for qualified attorneys. “Trial School is recognized as the leading resource for trial attorneys who are looking to improve their skillsets and learn new strategies which will help them win more cases,” said Kevin Flood, Multi Funding’s chief operating officer. “We are delighted to work with this trusted organization as its exclusive litigation finance provider and look forward to serving the many attorneys who rely on Trial School to keep up with the many new concepts and tactics that are redefining litigation.” Multi Funding offers the legal community proven, fast, and reliable pre-settlement and other litigation financing solutions. Established in 2007, Multi Funding is recognized by its clients for maintaining a high standard of excellence, and is one of the few providers in the industry to earn coveted NMLS (Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System) certification, which is given to select providers who undergo a rigorous examination of management, financial resources, and data security processes. Through Multi-Funding’s advanced technology, attorneys can easily apply for litigation financing on its secure website. Within minutes, attorneys can leverage the company’s full capabilities, such as automated workflows, instant notifications, document management, attorney and firm metrics, and funding updates. Multi Funding eliminates the manual tasks associated with funding, and provides litigants with much-needed financial resources. About Multi Funding USA Headquartered in Woodstock, New York, Multi Funding USA is a major provider of specialized legal funding, attorney funding, and law firm funding services. With decades of lawsuit funding, business, and legal experience, the company’s founders have made it their focus to provide simple and fast services while maintaining a high standard of excellence. Multi Funding USA has provided millions of dollars of legal funding to plaintiffs and attorneys across the United States. www.multifundingusa.com
Consumer

Girardi Legal Woes Mount as Records Show $10MM in Debt to Lit Fin Firm

It’s been asserted that lawyer and reality-show-husband Tom Girardi is currently incapable of active participation in his current legal situation. Documents recently filed assert that the firm Girardi Keese owes Virage SPV more than $10 million. Yet Girardi’s brother maintains that the founder of the firm is suffering from memory loss and requires a guardian ad litem for himself and his firm. Law.com details that Girardi Keese and Girardi are personally facing a contempt judgment of over $2 million. This comes after allegations that Girardi failed to remit settlement monies to clients relating to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610. Girardi is in the midst of both personal and business-related bankruptcies, though his brother insists that Tom Girardi is unable to have a reasoned conversation about his situation. Interim trustees have been appointed to oversee both bankruptcies, including active and recently settled cases that could add funds to the bankruptcy estate. These cases include a 2015 gas leak near Los Angeles. Meanwhile, Virage has produced promissory notes to the 2017 and 2018 loans. One loan, for use in the Porter Ranch gas leak action, was cosigned by lawyers Herman Russomanno (real estate lawyer to President Donald Trump and former president of the Florida Bar), and Bruce Mattock–both of whom have chosen not to comment. Their firms were co-counsel in litigation surrounding concussions in the NFL. Girardi has not responded to either bankruptcy petition. As such, Robert Girardi has asked that the deadline be moved to February 12th. Girardi’s attorney, Evan Jenness, has requested a mental evaluation of Girardi, telling the court that he was incapable of answering questions from the judge regarding the whereabouts of money owed to clients. Girardi’s lawyer and brother both maintain that his inability to respond to the accusations against him would be personally and financially detrimental.
Commercial

Parker Law Firm Forced into Arbitration with Litigation Funder by 8th Circuit Court

A recently filed case in the US Court of Appeals 8th Circuit regarding Timothy Parker and Parker Law Firm has been forced into arbitration. Seeking leave to litigate, the appeals court determined that the dispute in question was addressed by the arbitration clause in the formal agreement between parties.

Leagle details that the case in question is one part of a battle over whether Parker Law Firm was obligated to remit payments to litigation funder PS Finance LLC. The disagreement stemmed from Parker Law Firm’s representation of Eureka Woodworks. Eureka sought funding from PS Finance in exchange for proceeds from a claim against BP relating to the Deepwater Horizon spill. As is common in funding contracts, the agreement affirmed that PS Finance would be paid from monies received via settlement, verdict, or ordered judgment. The contract further detailed that any disputes relating to the contract would be subject to binding arbitration. Hence, the court ruling to disallow litigation.

Appellants recovered two payments in 2012 on behalf of Eureka. According to the contract, PS Finance should have received a portion of the payment after legal fees and costs. However, no portion of the payment was given to PS Finance. Parker and the law firm maintain that the money did not come from a settlement, verdict, or judgment and therefore they are not required to transfer any funds over.

In 2019, Parker and Parker Law sought a declaratory judgment affirming that they owed nothing to PS Finance. Parker made allegations that PS Finance breached its contractual obligations when it brought a lawsuit against Parker. The district court dismissed claims against PS Finance.

Arkansas law regarding policy interpretation is firmly on the side of policyholders. It states that when language is ambiguous, courts will construe the policy dictates in favor of the policyholder and against the insurer.

Commercial Consumer

The New Normal: Legal Services Predictions for 2021

For nearly a year, COVID has kept the world in a state of uncertainty. Temporary changes stretch out for months, and no one is sure when things will ‘get back to normal,’ or indeed, what ‘normal’ will look like when that happens. JD Supra has some predictions for the coming year. First, nobody should expect anything like a new normal until at least next fall. While that news may be disheartening, it may not be all bad. Stay-at-home orders led to sweeping upgrades in digital security, video conferencing, document sharing, and other tech advances that are no doubt here to stay. The legal world is likely to make use of these advancements even after in-person meetings resume and courts reopen. It seems that virtual working is here to stay. Review work in particular is moving to virtual spaces. This allows teams to be more nimble and flexible. It also allows teams to form over great distances, giving firms a much wider pool of talent to utilize. Flexible legal talent is expected to remain a viable career path for young legal professionals. Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSP) refers to a range of services offered at lower price points than traditional legal services. This is an up-and-coming facet of law that is increasingly innovative, as it evolves to better meet the need of a wider array of clients.
Commercial

Antitrust Enforcement—Who Really Wins?

Since the 90s, competition authorities like the European Commission have been getting tougher on Big Tech. Fines have been coming down on tech giants like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft. Some of these cases have resulted in fines in the billions. But who is really benefitting from the success of these? Harbour Litigation Funding explains that authorities are employing creative theories under which to charge Big Tech companies with harm. Antitrust claims or accusations of misused data have led to policy positions intent on limiting the power of tech companies. But how does that help consumers seek justice? What’s important to remember about the fines levied against tech companies is that those who were purportedly damaged aren’t seeing compensation. When consumers sue a company and an award is levied, plaintiffs receive a share as compensation for their losses. When government agencies pursue big tech, consumers generally see nothing. What happens to the billions being levied against these companies? Theoretically, those who were impacted deserve remuneration. In practice, governments generally keep these monies, arguing that payouts eventually reach citizens through social programs and other government spending. Class actions are still the best way for wronged consumers to gain compensation. Without an opt-out class action regime, however, this isn’t always feasible. Increasingly though, UK courts are seeking out more creative approaches that allow consumers proper redress. Litigation funding could be an essential part of this. Ultimately, what’s needed is a combination of a reasonable framework for collective redress, as well as aggressive enforcement of existing laws governing tech companies. Without that, competition authority enforcement is little more than an attempt at soapboxing. It’s essential that there be a reasonable path for wronged consumers to get the compensation they deserve. Some say such changes are coming. But how much longer will consumers have to wait?