Last week, it was determined that Bill 161 would be signed into law. This bill includes several amendments to the Class Proceedings Act of 2002, which details specific guidelines for class action lawsuits.Mondaq explains that the changes were proposed to make the courts move more swiftly while ensuring that justice is served. The most prominent changes include a centralized database of class action cases in Ontario—which had never been required before. Other new rules include prohibiting overlapping cases, limiting time periods for indemnity claims, and new requirements regarding appeals, certifications, notifications of class action members, and dismissal of dormant actions. The amendments also stipulate that when a party seeks settlement, the court must be given detailed information before approving.Litigation Finance did not escape notice in the amendments. Ontario now requires that funding agreements be subjected to court approval. Courts will require that agreements be reasonable and fair and that agreements with funders will not supersede the rights of plaintiffs to make decisions regarding their case. Funders must also be willing and able to cover adverse costs—which is to say that if a case loses and the winner’s court costs must be paid—the funder will be liable to cover it.After a funding arrangement is approved by the courts, defendants can obtain their costs from funders in accordance with the indemnity clause in the funding agreement. Defendants may also get security from the funder for costs in some circumstances. These include defendants who live and work outside of Ontario, those who may not have the ability to pay, or instances when a funder owes money to a defendant or plaintiff that remains outstanding.Courts will also require reports from those who distribute funds. These reports must be filed within 60 days of funds being disbursed. This is to ensure that plaintiffs, attorneys, and funders are all appropriately compensated.
The financial stressors caused by the global pandemic have touched nearly every industry. Legal firms are finding it difficult to cope with remote working conditions, court stoppages, and declines in billable hours—all while trying to address a huge influx in proposed litigation. One expert is confident that Litigation Funding is the ideal way to address shortfalls and keep budgets in balance.Digi Herald spoke to funding expert Rene Perras about how non-recourse third-party funding can help. Perras points out that litigation funding has become increasingly popular, and that COVID-19 is going to propel the practice into the mainstream. When a firm is low on operating capital, Litigation Finance can come to its rescue. Funding can allow firms to take on new cases, or help individual plaintiffs pursue legal action when needed. Funding can also improve how cases are managed, as it can cover costs for research, expert witnesses, document analysis, and more. Class action cases in particular are dramatically supported by funders, since they allow lawyers and plaintiffs to put the issue of costs aside as they focus on pursuing the case. This is also true when portfolios of cases are funded. Risks are reduced without impacting potential awards and recovery. Ultimately, Litigation Finance is a way to ensure that justice is available to everyone, regardless of income level.
On this episode, we sat down with Michael Kelley, partner at Parker Poe, a regional law firm representing many of the Southeast's largest companies and local governments. As a former GC himself, Michael discusses litigation funding from an in-house perspective. Why might GCs be reluctant to adopt funding, and are those tendencies changing post-Covid? Plus, what can funders do to differentiate themselves as they approach the GC market? Michael provides invaluable insights into the minds of General Counsel as relates to matters regarding litigation funding. [podcast_episode episode="5859" content="title,player,details"]
CHICAGO – July 13, 2020 - Longford Capital today announced that Marc A. Cavan has joined the firm asDirector. Mr. Cavan will assist with investment sourcing, due diligence, and monitoring of portfolio investments, supporting Longford’s Chicago and Dallas offices. Mr. Cavan is an experienced patent litigator. He has served as lead counsel for clients in the life sciences, healthcare, and technology industries and has successfully handled patent cases in federal courts throughout the United States. Mr. Cavan’s experience includes jury trials, ANDA Hatch-Waxman litigation, arbitrations, and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He is registered as a patent attorney with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and his clients have ranged from start-ups to leading multinationals. Mr. Cavan is also experienced with trade secrets, commercial litigation, and licensing, and he has advised on intellectual property issues for significant mergers and private equity investments. Mr. Cavan’s litigation and counseling expertise has included a range of technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, health care technology, electronic health records, nanotechnology, software, wireless and internet technology, automotive components, energy, and consumer products. Prior to joining Longford Capital, Mr. Cavan was a partner in some of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Mr. Cavan started his career at Sidley Austin LLP (associate 1998-2006; partner 2006-2011) and was also a partner in the Chicago offices of Ropes & Gray LLP (2011-2015) and Baker McKenzie LLP (2015-2018). Most recently, Mr. Cavan served as the chair of the intellectual property practice at Harrison Law LLC, a Chicago litigation boutique. During his career in private practice, Mr. Cavan earned recognition as a leading lawyer in Chambers USA, International Asset Management, and SuperLawyers. For several years, Mr. Cavan served as a co-chair the Patent Law Institute’s Patent Boot Camp, presenting on strategic patenting issues. Mr. Cavan graduated with honors from Harvard Law School, where he taught legal writing as a member of the Board of Student Advisers and served on the editorial board of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Mr. Cavan graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from DukeUniversity with a B.S. in Biology. After graduating from Duke, Mr. Cavan taught as an Annenberg Fellow and master at Eton College in Windsor, England. Mr. Cavan has been admitted to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Cavan has also been a member of the Trial Bar for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. “The current economic climate of uncertainty and volatility has resulted in a jump in demand for our capital and we are expanding our team in response. Before joining Longford, Marc assisted us in the investment selection process evaluating the strength of patent claims; we know his talent as a patent litigator, and we are fortunate to have Marc join our team,” stated Michael A. Nicolas, Managing Director of Longford Capital. About Longford Capital Longford Capital is a leading private investment company with more than $1 billion in assets under management that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes. The firm manages a diversified portfolio, and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, and a variety of others. For additional information about Longford Capital, please visit www.longfordcapital.com.
The UK's Legal industry generated revenues of £2.35bn in May 2020, 12% down on May last year. May 2020 was the lowest-earning month in four years, according to Office of National Statistics data released on 14th July.
May is traditionally the weakest month of the year for the Legal profession, with April being one of the most lucrative. Industry revenues fell 29% between April 2020 and May 2020, with April having remained relatively robust as the impact of lockdown had likely not yet fully washed through.
In comparison, the overall Services sector (including Legal) which had been harder hit and was at its lowest level in a decade, grew by 2% in May, similarly to the UK’s overall economy which increased by 1.8% month on month.
Louis Young, MD at Augusta said: “May’s revenue data demonstrates the significant negative impact the pandemic has had on the UK’s Legal industry. But as such data reflects work that would have commenced before the crisis, which is in line with how law firms operate, the true final impact is likely to be greater. As the wider economy begins to show signs of recovery, many law firms continue to look for options to control costs and strengthen their balance sheets with the expectation that they are not yet out of the woods”.
---
About the ONS Data
ONS Monthly Business Survey data shows Legal Activities revenue as £2.35bn in May 2020 compared to £3.32bn in April 2020 and £2.67bn in May 2019.
The legal industry had been on course for a strong year before the crisis with March 2020 being the third highest month in history for the UK legal industry and April 2020 showing only a 5% decline on March 2020.
The legal field has not escaped the financial uncertainty plaguing the rest of the world. Even before COVID-19 changed nearly everything, firms were already lamenting the ‘death of the billable hour.’ Some might say that billable hours, while low risk to firms, are not a good model for clients—especially those of average or modest means.Bloomberg Law details how the current financial conditions have encouraged firms to return to the billable hour. But is that tenable? Big business clients will probably expect better as the global spike in litigation continues to increase. Alternative fee agreements can be more attractive to clients, but carry higher risks for firms—leaving them to weigh the risks of sticking to billable hours versus losing big clients.Surely there’s a way to mitigate risk while keeping clients happy? Joining forces with a litigation funder can propel firms into better litigation outcomes while improving relationships with clients large and small. It’s a proactive move that reduces financial risk while allowing practices to grow despite the current economy.Unlike traditional lit fin where plaintiffs are provided capital to pursue a case, law firm funding works a bit differently. These funds can offer non-recourse capital to attorneys and firms, collateralized against a portfolio of cases. This is generally more affordable and timely for law firms that need money in a hurry.According to one survey, more than 60% of law firms broadened their use of alternative funding arrangements. Over 90% of these firms reveal that they are changing their billing structure in order to gain new clients or to better accommodate existing ones.Of course, Litigation Finance is typically reserved for those whose cases can survive careful vetting. Funders, lawyers, and plaintiffs all have a stake in the ruling—and thus a strong incentive to work together to seek a fair outcome.
Some continue to debate the need for Litigation Finance. Yet every day we see more examples of the practice working as it should, increasing access to justice for those who might not otherwise have it. One such case involves Nanoco, a business associated with Manchester University. The small business recently filed a patent infringement case against tech giant Samsung.The Business Desk reports that the case against Samsung was filed against multiple entities within the company. Nanoco designs and manufactures TV screens and computer monitors. They signed an agreement with a prominent US litigation finance firm. While the firm has not been named, reps from Nanoco have said that the funders have extensive experience in IP matters as related to tech. .The legal firm handling the case is Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, & Popeo, a Boston-based law firm. Local counsel includes a Longview, Texas firm.While the exact terms of the funding agreement are not known, it is presumed that Nanoco will retain the bulk of any award judgment or settlement amount.
Across the board, Litigation Finance has become a powerhouse industry—one that has shown remarkable growth since its inception just over a decade ago. Since 2017, the industry has seen at least a 10% annualized increase in requests for funding. This year, a 30% increase accompanies a greater acceptance of the practice in the legal world.Lake Whillans reports that in the last year at least 10% of lawyers surveyed had first-hand experience with lit fin. Of those who have worked with third-party funders, over 99% of them said they would do so again. That’s a stunning endorsement. How often do 99% of lawyers agree on anything? The efficacy of Litigation Funding is hardly news—last year more than 80% of respondents who had used litigation funding in a case said they would do so again.The survey, co-authored with Above the Law, featured 418 respondents in 53 cities. About ¾ of those surveyed said that Litigation Finance is now more relevant to their work than it was at this time last year. About 2/3 of respondents had first-hand experience working with a lit fin firm—way up from 41% last year. Survey results show that larger firms tend to have fewer staffers working directly with funders. Firms with between 50-100 staffers appeared to use funding with the greatest frequency.The industries that use third-party funding the most include telecommunications, technology, the automotive industry, energy, defense, healthcare, and entertainment.When asked, more than 88% of in-house counsel without lit fin experience claimed that budgetary shortfalls are a key reason they would seek funding. Meanwhile, nearly 75% of respondents say that litigation funding has become a bigger part of their practice since this time last year.Ultimately, the future of Litigation Finance looks bright. It’s a respected, well-funded industry that remains attractive to the legal community.
PHILADELPHIA, July 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre-Settlement Funding Company, announced their renewed commitment to assisting the many victims who've filed Essure Birth Control lawsuits, and are hoping for presettlement payouts despite court delays. The Essure brand birth control device is put out by Bayer, who is accused of knowingly distributing a faulty product. More than 32,000 plaintiffs have claimed serious pain and suffering from broken devices including device migration and perforated organs. In some instances, clients have resorted to surgical removal. After numerous delays, the first Bellwether jury trial was set to see the inside of an Alameda County, California courtroom earlier this month, but due to COVID-19, has been postponed yet again. Bayer continues to deny liability on their part for the popular birth control product, and intends to fight the cases in front of juries in California and Pennsylvania where most cases are filed. Bayer has consistently denied any wrongdoing and stands by their safety standards in respect to Essure, even though they pulled their product from the shelves over two years ago. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Legal-Bay is discouraged to see further delays with Essure litigation, which is sure to drag out any resolution hopes. While there are no imminent settlement amounts or potential Essure settlement values on the near horizon, we nevertheless remain committed to assisting plaintiffs with their cash advance needs." If you are involved in an Essure birth control lawsuit and are looking for a pre-settlement cash advance now, fill out an application HEREor call 877.571.0405 for more information. Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all types of product liability lawsuits, including medical malpractice, wrongful death, 3M, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Roundup weed killer, personal injury, premise liability, car and truck accidents, and more. All of Legal-Bay funding programs are risk-free as you only repay the advance if your case is successful. The non-recourse advance is not a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre settlement loan, or presettlement loans. You can be approved for a cash advance in as little as 24-48 hours.
Sign Up for LFJ’s Weekly Newsletter & Daily Alerts
Thank you for signing up for the LFJ Newsletter!
Stay informed on the latest news and events taking place in the global legal funding space.
You'll now receive the latest global legal funding news, insights, and analysis straight to your inbox.
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
By completing this form, you agree to allow LFJ to communicate with you per the terms of our Privacy Policy. Your personal information will never be shared or sold to 3rd parties.
Access Premium Content
LFJ members, please log in below to access premium content.
" />
