Trending Now

All Articles

3217 Articles
Commercial

BMW Takes Regency Funding to High Court Over Common Fund Order

In what could be the largest class action in Australian history, Regency Funding is bankrolling a claim against several car makers over faulty airbags which led to at least one fatality and multiple injuries. However one of the car makers, BMW, is challenging the common fund order that allows Regency to collect 25% of any payout, even from those who have not formally joined the class. As reported by ABC News, common fund orders emerged in the United States, and have now spread to Australia, the land where litigation funding first took hold. A common fund order lumps all claimants into a pool that then pays out the litigation funder a court-approved rate. The idea being that the funder bankrolls the case, which all claimants benefit from, and this ensures the funder receives fair compensation. BMW is taking Regency to the NSW High Court, in a bid to limit Regency's reimbursement level from any compensation offered to the former owners of the faulty Takata airbags. There are an estimated 2 million potential claimants in the action against six major car makers, 10% of whom could join the action against BMW.
Announcements Commercial

ROSEN, A TOP RANKED LAW FIRM: Updates Investigation of Securities Claims Against Burford Capital Limited

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 12, 2019 / Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, issues this update on its continuing investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Burford Capital Limited (OTC PINK:BRFRF)(OTC PINK:BRFRY) resulting from allegations that Burford Capital may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

Generally, the U.S. federal securities laws permit class actions for securities listed or traded over the counter in the U.S. Thus, only purchasers of BRFRF and BRFRY are eligible to participate in the proposed class action the firm is preparing. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Burford Capital investors. If you purchased shares of Burford Capital please visit the firm’s website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE: Rosen Law Firm PA

Read More
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Begins Funding Plaintiffs of 3M Earplug Lawsuits

PENSACOLA, Fla., Aug. 12, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they will be the first lawsuit funding company to begin offering cash advances for veterans who are involved in the 3M earplug litigation. 3M Corporation has come under fire recently for their Combat Arms brand earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2). The Minnesota-based company is being accused of allegedly falsifying testing documents and knowingly manufacturing and distributing substandard earplugs to the U.S. military. The earplugs didn't maintain a tight enough seal, thereby allowing dangerous levels of sound to invade the wearer's ears, causing discomfort, pain, and in some cases, loss of balance, ringing in the ears or tinnitus, and permanent hearing damage. 3M has settled with the Department of Justice for $9MM regarding the allegedly defective earplugs. The company did not admit any fault in the settlement. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Although this litigation is in its very early stages, our experience in the mass tort industry tells us that these claims against 3M are strong. 3M will continue to fight for a long time. Regardless, we are going to begin funding these cases to help any veterans who may need an emergency cash advance." An MDL was created in early 2019 in the Northern District of Florida, and is still in the very early stages. No bellwether trials have been scheduled yet, and additional cases are still being added to the docket. It's possible that thousands of military personnel may have been affected. If you're involved in a 3M earplugs lawsuit and are looking for presettlement cash now, you can apply at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com. In order to receive funding, you must have hearing damage and already have an attorney retained. If you do not have an attorney, Legal-Bay works with the top 3M law firms and lawyers in the country and can give you a referral. 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 pre-settlement loans. Please apply online: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.
Read More
Commercial

Burford Responds to Muddy Waters Claims; Labels Them ‘False and Misleading’

Burford Capital CEO Christopher Bogart and co-founder Jonathan Molot have shot back at US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters' claims that Burford misreports its earnings, and is 'arguably insolvent.' In a call to investors earlier today, Bogart characterized the allegations as 'false and misleading,' and sought to assure investors by stating that both he and Molot had personally invested $4MM into Burford's stock after the Muddy Waters announcement was made. As reported in CDR, Bogart and Molot added during their call that employees remain steadfastly confident in the company. Bogart insists that Burford's accounting practices are transparent and have consistently met industry standards for years. He points out that its fair value accounting practice is widely-used in the Finance sector, and also points to 'major inaccuracies' in Muddy Waters' report. Bogart reiterated that Ernst & Young has audited and confirmed Burford's accounting. Bogart also labelled the accusation that Burford is 'arguably insolvent' as patently wrong, claiming the word 'arguably' was inserted to avoid a lawsuit. Burford, however, is currently investigating whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Speaking of lawsuits, a pair of law firms - Rosen Law and Schall Law - are each conducting investigations into whether Burford's management is at fault for the precipitous stock drop, which has negatively impacted shareholders. Depending on how this plays out, it could have wide reverberations for the industry. Already, rivals LCM and Manolete Partners - both publicly-traded companies like Burford - saw their stocks drop the day of the Muddy Waters announcement, only to watch them seesaw back up today. Of perhaps larger concern is how this will impact the industry's ability to raise capital going forward, and whether private funders will eschew going public, as some - including Vannin Capital and Litigation Lending - have both publicly considered. Doubtless this will continue to play out in both the media and the financial markets. We'll keep a close eye and continue to update accordingly.
Announcements Commercial

IMF Bentham responds to share price movement of rival Burford Capital Limited

PERTH, AUSTRALIA, 8 AUGUST 2019: In response to a (short) report issued by a US investment firm on 7 August 2019 on Burford Capital Limited (Burford), leading global dispute resolution financier and industry founder, IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), notes the following in relation to IMF’s accounting policies and disclosures. “There are fundamental differences between IMF Bentham and other funders. Our investors understand and value this and our investor base now includes some of the largest, most sophisticated institutional investors in the world,” says CEO and MD, Andrew Saker. Accounting treatment of Litigation Finance Assets
  • The accounting treatments adopted by IMF and some of its competitors vary materially.
  • IMF’s litigation funding assets, and those of investment vehicles managed or advised by IMF, are classified as intangible assets and therefore, in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are recognised at cost throughout the life of the investment and are subject to impairment testing. IMF does not record any unrealised gains attributable to market value adjustments of its litigation assets during the life of the investment.
  • IMF recognises any gain on assets at the time of completion of an investment. Losses on investments are recognised at the earlier of either negative developments which impact potential recoveries via an asset impairment, or from a loss at trial.
  • IMF’s conservative and transparent approach removes potentially-artificial estimations of asset values and offers investors comfort in the integrity and stability of the reported results.
  • IMF prepares its accounts in accordance with the Corporations Act and complies with the Australian Accounting Standards and the IFRS.
IMF’s key metrics
  • As stated in prior ASX announcements, IMF calculates its aggregate Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on concluded investments only (excluding any partial conclusions), withdrawals and overheads. These metrics include losses on concluded cases.
Funding for Future Investments and strategic capital management
  • A substantial capital position is essential in the dispute finance industry to underwrite investments.
  • During FY19, IMF significantly increased its capital reserves with the launch of two new Funds (Fund 4, Fund 5) with aggregate capital commitments of US$1 billion (including commitments from IMF of US$200 million). This external capital secures IMF’s medium-term funding requirements for its current and future litigation funding investments.
  • In FY19, IMF also completed an equity placement raising approximately $75 million, refreshed the terms of its listed bonds pushing maturity out to FY23 and raising a further $41 million from the issue of new bonds. IMF also currently expects to receive income of approximately $70 million in FY20 from conditional and in-principle settlements which have occurred since 1 July 2019 (of which $23.5 million relates to on-balance sheet investments and $45.7 million reflects fund investments).
About IMF Bentham Ltd IMF Bentham is one of the leading global dispute resolution financiers, headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US and Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK. IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative funding solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of dispute resolution funding assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced dispute resolution funding team overseeing its investments. We have an exceptional success rate over 187 completed investments and have recovered over A$1.4 billion for clients since 2001. IMF now has close to A$2 billion in combined funds under management globally, making us a strong ally for our funded clients. For further information regarding IMF Bentham and its activities, please visit www.imf.com.au.
Read More
Commercial

Litigation Funding and Expenses: Are We Bound for a Conflict of Interest?

There's been much talk about litigation funding and legal fees, and whether the existence of funding generates an inherent conflict of interest. While there are some legitimate concerns here, the anxiety is mostly overblown. In an increasingly-commoditized industry, litigation funders aren't likely to risk repetitional harm by directing or even influencing case management and strategy. All of that said, legal fees are only one side of the coin. Funders also cover case expenses, and here is an area where conflict of interest may actually arise. In Above the Law, Gaston Kroub, founding partner of IP litigation boutique Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov, points out that when claimants accrue expenses, they utilize the services of numerous vendors (experts, eDiscovery platforms, transcripts, etc.). These vendors are naturally expensive, and the litigation funder is the one footing the bill. It's therefore natural to assume that funders might try to steer clients toward preferred vendors - either those with lower costs, or vendors with whom they form preferential relationships. Some have already expressed concern that funders may be nudging (for lack of a better term) claimants towards certain vendors, or in not utilizing support services out of a costs concern. While funders may counter that this in fact keeps the legal team honest (it's not unheard of for lawyers to suggest the use of superfluous experts/vendors in a bid to run up expenses), the potential for a conflict still exists. And at the very least, the optics aren't great. Kroub argues that in the long-term, the more forward-thinking funders may even build out their own in-house discovery teams and support services. Claimants may then be contractually obligated to utilize the funding company's vendor platforms.
Consumer

Court Orders Tom Girardi to Reveal Financials in Law Finance Claim

Tom Girardi, of the eponymous law firm Girardi Keese, has been ordered to deliver to his financials to the court after he failed to pay $6MM of a $16MM settlement with Law Finance Group. Law Finance sued Girardi for failure to repay a $15MM loan, and eventually settled on the $16MM figure, only to claim that Girardi skipped out on the final $6MM payment. As reported in The Blast, the court's order comes just days after Girardi's wife and Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne was slapped with a $3MM lawsuit by Arizona-based law firm funder Stillwell Madison. Stillwell is also suing Girardi for alleged failure to repay an over $5MM loan the funder made. Stillwell is suing for the full $5MM, plus interest and damages. The embattled Girardi has been accused by both funders of spending their money on his and his wife's 'lavish lifestyle.' In addition to her role on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Jayne sings a song titled "It’s Expensive to Be Me."
Commercial

Hedge Fund Muddy Waters Alleges Burford’s Largest Shareholder Invesco Bailed Out One of its Clients

US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters has caused some serious ripples with its allegations against Burford Capital. In a recently released video, Muddy Waters CEO contends that Burford's largest shareholder - Invesco - essentially bailed out Napo Pharmaceuticals, a company whose legal claim Burford was financing. In 2013, Burford categorized Napo as a 'concluded investment,' with an ROIC of 113%. Yet according to Block, "there was actually a jury verdict in that case the next year, in 2014." The verdict was a loss for Napo, yet Burford had already concluded the case as a positive ROIC. Block claims that Burford entered into an agreement with Napo - the circumstances of which are unknown - whereby Napo owed Burford money. Yet after the jury verdict, Napo had to enter into a debt forbearance agreement, since it had no money to repay Burford. According to Block, Napo was merged into another company - Jaguar Animal Health - also run by Napo head Lisa Conte.  Jaguar then raised $8MM, and subsequently issued $8MM of stock to Burford. Block alleges that $3MM of the $8MM raised by Jaguar came from a fund managed by Mark Barnett, who is the protege of well-known UK investor Neil Woodford. So according to Block, an Invesco subsidiary - run by Mark Barnett - essentially bailed out a Burford investment. Block also contends that Burford likely 'wouldn't exist' if not for Woodford's investment. Woodford was previously at Invesco, before founding his hedge fund Woodford Investment Management. Block alleges that Burford got to mark up a positive ROIC during several years subsequent to the Napo case - in 2013 and 2014. According to Block, Burford's 2013 annual report claims a 53% ROIC. "Without Napo... the ROIC would have been only 2.9%." Block claims the company has been misleading investors for years, "and that pattern continues today." No response yet from Burford's management about the allegations, which have sent the stock plummeting 50%.
Commercial

New Survey Shows 98% of Attorneys Who Use Litigation Finance Would Re-Use

A new survey by Validity Finance and ALM has yielded some impressive results for litigation funders to harp onto. A full 98% of attorneys surveyed who had used litigation finance at least once in the past said they would do so again, and 93% found their experience to be positive. According to the report, the two companies surveyed 285 private attorneys and 45 in-house counsel, for a total of 330 attorneys. In addition to the aforementioned results, the survey also found that 70% of respondents believe litigation funding to be a key disruptor in the legal space. And only 27% of those who had used funding in the past have lingering ethical concerns (primarily around privilege and confidentiality). While just 15% of respondents said they had used litigation funding in the past (which helps yield that awfully-high 98% figure), a full 50% claimed they are open to using funding in the future. The main reason? The high cost of litigation (no surprise there). The report comes on the heels of a recent Burford Capital study which found similar results pertaining to CFOs and Financial Executives at major corporations. Apparently, market adoption of litigation funding remains slow, yet there are still plenty of growth prospects given the results of the dual surveys. Surveys such as these may help allay the concerns of those who decry market saturation and excessive competition from an influx of capital into the space. Clearly - at least as far as the respondents to these surveys go - there's plenty of opportunity for that capital to be put to work.