Trending Now

All Articles

3313 Articles
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Announces Increase in Commercial Litigation Requests Due to Covid-19

CALDWELL, N.J., May 11, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, the Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced that they have launched a new legal funding division for commercial litigation, lawsuit loans or advances, and attorney loans for law firms. Commercial litigation cases can be extremely complex and require expansive resources for both plaintiffs and law firms to fight properly. Legal-Bay sees this as an under-served market and has built a new division to accommodate the needs of this market. Commercial litigation loans were created to assist plaintiffs level the playing field against deeper-pocket defendants who can simply outspend them. Legal-Bay's experience gives hope to plaintiffs seeking lawsuit settlement loans and ease the process of obtaining legal funding. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We're seeing an immediate increase in large commercial litigation requests in our new division. Many of our new clients are individuals who normally wouldn't need capital from their suit. However, in this unprecedented time of work layoffs and business closures, funding is at an all-time high.  We have recently raised additional capital and hired new sales representatives to handle our influx." If you're looking for pre-settlement cash from your commercial litigation lawsuit, large lawsuit loan for general working capital, or to inquire about specific case costs, please apply now at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay has always been a leader in the commercial litigation arena, and have been expanding their traditional personal injury and mass tort litigation to the much larger commercial litigation market involving complex cases that need hefty funding amounts. Typically, these cases have minimum requests of anywhere from $100K to $20MM and take more time to evaluate. Their network of experienced underwriters and investment bankers have over twenty years' worth of experience to handle your commercial litigation funding needs. Legal-Bay offers case funding for all types of commercial lawsuits, including appellate funding and financing, judgement on appeal loans, verdict loans, verdict financing, whistleblower funding, Qui-tam loans, patent infringement funding, copyright infringement loans, law firm loans, case expenses, law firm lines of credit, and more. To learn more, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.   Contact: 60 Roseland Ave., Suite 101, Caldwell, NJ 07006
Email: Info@Legal-Bay.com
Phone: (973) 857-1000
https://goo.gl/maps/epBeCtMoevG1vreC9 SOURCE Legal-Bay
Announcements Commercial

Financial Poise™ Announces “Commercial Litigation Funding-101” a New Webinar Series Premiering May 12th at 1:00 PM CST through West LegalEdcenter™

The first episode in this series is titled "An Introduction to a New Yet Old Funding Alternative" and is co-produced by West LegalEdCenter™. It will feature Jeremy Waitzman (Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP); Dave Kerstein (Validity Finance LLC); Christopher Freeman (Burford Capital); Joel Cohen (Stout); and Jeffery Lula (GLS Capital, LLC).

About the Series: Once a fledgling industry predominantly used in the Commonwealth nations, litigation funding has over the past ten years becomes a well-accepted and prevalent practice in the United States. As the industry has evolved, so too have the menu of available products, strategic decisions made by funders and practitioners, and types of investors. This three-part series is geared towards educating attorneys and clients on legal/ethical, strategic, and business decisions when considering litigation funding, and investors seeking to learn about an increasingly mainstream asset class. Panelists include preeminent experts in the field of litigation funding, including academics who have written on the topic, investment managers at preeminent litigation funders, litigators who have used funding products, and independent litigation funding advisors.

About the Episode: Litigation funding is an increasingly-popular tool for attorneys and clients to share the risk and reward of litigation with third-party investors, and for investors to capitalize on the uncorrelated returns generated by legal-driven revenue. This webinar is intended to provide an overview of the topic generally, touching on the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” “why” and “how’s” behind litigation funding.

To learn more and register, click here.

The webinar will be available on-demand after its premiere. As with every Financial Poise Webinar, it will be an engaging and plain English conversation designed to entertain as it teaches.

About Financial Poise –

Financial Poise has one mission: to provide reliable plain English business, financial and legal education to investors, private business owners and executives, and their respective trusted advisors. Financial Poise content is created by seasoned, respected experts who are invited to join our Faculty only after being recommended by current Faculty Members. Our editorial staff then works to make sure all content is easily digestible. Financial Poise is a meritocracy; nobody can “buy” their way into the Financial Poise Faculty. Start learning today at https://www.financialpoise.com/

Commercial

Vocus Settlement Raises Questions On Future of Lit Fin in Australia

A recent settlement involving Sydney telecom giant Vocus is raising questions about third-party funding arrangements. The debate between common fund orders (CFOs) versus funding equalization orders (FEOs) reached its apex, when Justice Moshinsky’s ruling resulted in a lower payout to litigation funder Woodsford. Global Legal Post reports that Vocus had been accused of making intentionally misleading statements regarding its potential profits. The claim was settled for $23MM.   The problem? A common fund order was sought in the case, which would have extended the contractual funding agreement to all members of the class action—including those who did not sign on to the funding agreement. CFOs are popular, especially since a 2016 case involving Money Max v QBE. In this instance, however, an FEO was ordered instead. This ultimately means that the funder will receive a lower payout than they would have realized, had a CFO remained in place. Some assert that this ruling will make litigation funders more reticent to fund class action cases in Australia. Because Woodsford had a reasonable belief that the CFO would be granted, they relied on it when calculating its risks. If it remains unclear which type of funding arrangement will ultimately be imposed, this can impact who gets funding, as well as the specifics of future funding arrangements. Moving forward, it’s unclear whether Australian legal professionals will take steps to mitigate FEOs, in order to make CFOs standard practice in litigation funding cases. Surely, there’s a solution that enables funders to make informed decisions about risks and potential payouts, while not forcing potential claimants into agreements which they never signed up for.
Consumer

Litigation Funder Sues PI Lawyer Despite Boyhood Friendship

The story of boyhood friends who became business partners in adulthood should be a sweet one. But the business relationship between personal injury lawyer Sean Callagy and litigation funder Legal Capital Group—run by George Prussin—has definitely gone sour. Legal Newsline reports that LCG is suing Callagy for over $18MM for loans totaling less than $600,000, which were received in 2013. Some of the loans carried a compounded interest rate of nearly 90% per year. Another carried a lower interest rate in exchange for a percentage of payouts in the event of a win. Prussin lent funds to Callagy under multiple business entity names. The funds were intended to help Callagy pursue litigation, including a long and complicated case involving a 2006 plane crash in Russia. Callagy also represented Prussin in multiple cases involving litigation funding, including accusations of fraud. The Law Funder, one name Prussin used while making loans, is listed as the funder for Wilfredo Garcia. He’s perhaps best known for starting a law firm without a law degree. After the crash of Siberia Airlines Flight 778, Garcia amassed 50+ clients for a class action, which he then traded to other lawyers in exchange for a large cut of the contingency arrangement. By the time the case settled, the Prussin-funded suit’s payout was set upon by creditors, Garcia’s ex-wife, and the IRS. Callagy’s firm has offices in Texas, New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Promising to ‘change the way people feel about lawyers.’ Meanwhile, LCG was counting on large payouts in several of Callagy’s cases, which did not materialize. The case between Callagy and Prussin is scheduled for a jury trial later this year.
Commercial

Canadian Supreme Court Gives Okay to Litigation Finance

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada publicly released the reasoning behind its January decision in a case involving third-party litigation funding. The ruling provides clarity for an earlier act known as CCAA—the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. The unanimous ruling found that a gaming software company may use third-party funding to pursue a $200MM lawsuit against Callidus Capital Corporation. CBA National reports that in the case against Callidus Capital, they are accused of factual omissions and multiple “faulty actions” with regard to their financial arrangement with Bluberi. As Bluberi moved to secure funding, a judge ruled that Callidus should be shut out, citing that they had acted improperly. Interestingly, the case demonstrates a coming SCOTUS trend of ruling on cases orally and presenting official reasoning later on. Sylvain Rigaud, co-chair of insolvency and restructuring at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, explains that the ruling is a vital one. Extending the improper purpose statute to CCAA is a boon to the pursuit of justice. When an insolvent entity’s only assertion is a litigation claim, seeking justice and maximum recovery for clients are one and the same. Paul Rand, Canadian CIO of Omni Bridgeway, agrees, saying that companies now have an opportunity to partner with a funder to pursue meritorious litigation. This is especially vital in insolvency situations where litigation is one’s only recourse. Rand goes on to say that the normalization and expansion of third-party funding increases overall efficiency, and brings attention to lit fin as an option for clients who might not otherwise pursue litigation.
Commercial

Burford Client Runs Afoul of Champerty Claim in Russian Oligarch Divorce

The contentious divorce of Putin ally Farkhad Akhmedov and his wife, Tatiana, has produced escalating divorce proceedings for nearly two decades. Lawyers for each party have asserted multiple claims of previous divorces that can’t be corroborated, requests for personal emails between father and son, and now—an accusation of champerty regarding Burford Capital’s funding of Tatiana Akhmedova. Technically, the backing of claims by third-party funders in exchange for profit has been illegal in Russia since feudal times. The Guardian reports that Tatiana was awarded a whopping GBP 453MM in 2016, which is roughly 41% of her husband’s assets. Akhmedov disputes the ruling and claims that he and his ex-wife were already divorced 20 years ago. Documents were presented to this effect but were later determined to be forged. The former Mrs. Akhmedova is also pursuing action against her son for his part in Akhmedov’s refusal to pay the award. Attempts to reap the full award are being backed by Burford Capital. Burford's participation is considered questionable, as Russia has yet to enact laws regarding litigation funding. Lawyers for Akhmedov are demanding to see the details of Akhmedova’s agreement with Burford. They further assert that funding of this type is not permissible in family law cases. Assets include a super yacht, a writing desk once used by Napoleon, art by Hirst and Warhol, and other rare antiquities. Lawyers for the Akhmedovs will reference a recent case in Hong Kong that ruled this type of third-party funding illegal.
Commercial Covid-19

Class Actions Post Coronavirus—What Can We Expect?

The global financial crisis of 2008 brought with it a flood of class action litigation against big banks. A similar wave of litigation is expected in the post-COVID world. Indeed, it might be even more widespread. In recent years, the rules and procedures surrounding the formation of class action suits have become more sophisticated. Advances in the understanding and use of Litigation Finance make pursing class actions less complicated. City AM reports that class action suits are already popular in the US, and the UK is expected to follow suit as big banks are held accountable for malfeasance toward their customers. The thinking in legal circles is that increased litigation is a foregone conclusion post-Coronavirus. Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, has stated that the reality of the Coronavirus is that it will bring about a huge number of legal disputes. Questions surrounding insurance coverage or contract specifics will be plentiful. Expansive access to litigation funding means many of these cases will go the distance in court. Businesses are already forming groups to take on insurers and others who have already refused to meet their contractual obligations during shutdowns and work stoppages. One such group, Hiscox Action Group, is pursuing claims against Hiscox insurance, with funding from Harbour Litigation Funding.  The use of social media makes finding claimants for class action suits easier than ever. Combined with the wealth of funding provided by third-party funders, it’s easy to understand why class action suits will be a popular means of seeking recompense after the pandemic is behind us.
Commercial Covid-19

‘Pandemic Management’ is Leading to Surge in Interest in Litigation Funding

The pandemic is far from over, but the steps that legal firms are taking to mitigate it have only just begun. Third-party funders are already seeing shifts in the way firms are approaching them. It’s not surprising that law firms will be creative and proactive in heading off financial woes before they occur—but it is startling how quickly things are changing. Eric Blinderman, CEO (U.S.) of Therium Capital Management, writes on Therium's blog that his firm is already seeing a major upswing in funding requests for single cases. This seems to indicate that some firms are already strapped for liquidity, or that savvy managers are trying to get ahead of the coming money crunch by reducing risks and freeing up funds for other activities. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this, is the fast formation of special practice groups specifically for COVID-19-related cases. These are likely to include securities litigation, breach of contract, insurance recovery, and more. Such groups are already overwhelmed with claims relating to business closures, supply chain issues, and a deluge of other losses. One could argue that COVID-19 has given us a new legal specialty—pandemic management. This unique situation we all find ourselves in is leading to a flurry of change in legal circles that’s bound to permanently impact law in general and litigation funding in particular. It’s fortuitous that lit fin has become so accessible in times when low-income litigants would otherwise have no affordable legal recourse.
Commercial

Class Action Against Facebook, Google, & Twitter Passes $1B in Claims

An Australian class-action suit against prominent online entities has taken major strides forward in recent weeks. Targeting Facebook, Google, and Twitter over their refusal to accept cryptocurrency advertising, the case has amassed over one billion Australian dollars. This staggering number makes it one of the largest class action cases in the country. Peakd reports that a detailed analysis of the damages brought about by the ad ban on various types of cryptocurrency services include $110 billion in crystalized loses, and a further $250 billion in un-crystalized losses. The lower volumes and prices caused by the lack of ads ultimately led to a stark devaluation of various cryptocurrencies, multiple failed IPOs, as well as a sharp decline in profits from currency mining equipment. Companies such as Steem experienced a steep lag in growth and engagement on their platforms. In Australia, lawyers are not permitted a share of recovery from cases. In this case, that translates to lawyers working for free. Over the last three quarters, a team of legal experts has worked off-the-clock to collect evidence and conduct research, believing the case to be meritorious. More is needed, though, to take this class action to completion. The case requires a “bookbuild,” which refers to a large number of signups, which are already secured. Also, a Senior Counsel advocate must state that the case has merit and should move forward. Given the numbers here, it seems an attractive option for large litigation funders. It’s estimated that $3-5 million will be needed to take the class action all the way through the system.