CALDWELL, N.J., April 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay, the nation's leading lawsuit settlement funding company, announced today that they have committed to providing coronavirus relief with their new "feed or fund" program. Plaintiffs who may be seeking legal funding are now being given even more incentive to apply for a settlement loan with this latest unprecedented offer.

Families affected by the coronavirus may be unemployed right now, and Legal-Bay is determined to help them obtain their lawsuit settlement loans as soon as possible. The company is running a promotion for plaintiffs who have a pending lawsuit, but need cash now. The promotion will run from today until April 30, 2020, and works like this: Any clients that apply for a lawsuit loan or cash advance and are denied will be eligible to receive a $60 gift card to feed their family in this time of need. If your case is approved for funding, then Legal-Bay will proceed to fund you and you will not be eligible for the gift card.

To apply right now, please go to: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call 877.571.0405 where live agents are available 24 hours a day to assist you.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay commented, "Unfortunately, people with pending lawsuits are already at a low point in their life, and having to deal with unemployment or illness due to Covid-19 is unimaginably difficult. Our 'feed or fund' promotion is geared toward letting plaintiffs know that we are open for business and able to fund them in this dire time.  And more importantly, if your case is denied you will not be left out in the cold, as we will be donating a $60 food card to any applicants who are denied legal funding over this period as well."

Legal-Bay has chosen Grubhub and Uber Eats along with other national vendors to assist them during this promotion because they can offer bulk gift cards quickly via email delivery to families in need. Legal-Bay expects to have all gift cards delivered electronically between May 1 and May 15.

The program is designed to add extra incentive to people who are at a particularly difficult time in life, or have been denied funding in the past because they have a prior contract. Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit funding companies because they accept applications on almost all lawsuits.  They are also the best legal funding company when it comes to large buyouts of prior lawsuit loans, whereas the original funding company has stopped funding.  Legal-Bay has a Best Price Guarantee for all their clients, so most times buyout cases can be refinanced at cheaper rates than the existing loan.  What this means is that it's possible to get an additional cash payment and yet still maintain the same payback terms. It costs nothing to inquire about refinancing options; the evaluation is free.

Here are just some of the cases that Legal-Bay will consider: Car and truck accidents, discrimination or wrongful termination, medical malpractice, sexual harassment and abuse, nursing home abuse, wrongful imprisonment, police brutality, labor law or construction accidents, Jones Act or maritime law, Fela or train accidents, personal injury, verdict on appeal cases, commercial litigation funding, civil cases involving general negligence, wrongful death, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Round Up, Essure, attorney case cost funding, breach of contract, slip, trip, and falls, premise liability and more.

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMARY

• Covid-19 will likely lead to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
• The crisis has affected the solvency and viability of corporations and sovereigns
• Litigation managers need to re-assess collectability risk, immediately and regularly, of each defendant in their portfolio

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

• Diligencing litigation managers should involve a deep understanding of how they assess defendant collectability risk
• Defendant collectability risk is an ongoing risk that changes over time, therefore managers need a continuous risk assessment methodology
• Investors looking to invest in litigation finance secondaries to take advantage of the current dislocation should avoid single case risk and look to portfolio acquisitions, but must assess collectability risk across the portfolio being acquired

As Covid-19 has taken the planet and the legal community by surprise, I think there are some lessons learned from private equity that can be applied to litigation finance.  In short, focus on cash – its collection, generation, distribution and availability. So, how does this relate to Litigation Finance? This novel Coronavirus-driven healthcare crisis which has spiralled into a broad-based economic crisis, the likes of which the modern global economy hasn’t seen since the Great Depression, has had the effect of taking otherwise viable, profitable and cashflow positive businesses and stopping them in their tracks.  Overnight, certain businesses and industries have performed a complete one-eighty, whereby they went from solvent to being on the precipice of insolvency.  For many litigation finance firms, their immediate reaction has and should be to undertake an immediate and urgent review of the defendants involved in each and every case in which their portfolios have an investment, in order to re-assess collectability risk, one of the key areas of litigation finance underwriting. When an economy, especially a consumer driven economy like the US, effectively shuts down overnight, there are few industries and companies that will be spared from a diminution in their value and blockage from access to capital.  Former “recession-resistant” and “necessity” businesses have just experienced a new reality, which is that necessity is determined by context.  The current context states that the only necessity is feeding, hand washing, shelter and healthcare, and this has had a massive impact on the economy. While this too shall pass, the economic impacts will likely linger for a number of months and years.  The hope for a “V” shaped recovery has been dashed, as the crisis has extended beyond initial duration estimates.  My personal opinion is that it will at best look like a “U” shaped recovery with the possibility of a double “W”, meaning there will likely be some ups and downs along the way, should the dreaded “C-19” rear its ugly head again going into the next flu season, or should it fail to be contained due to premature ‘return to daily activity’ policy.  My hope is that the massive amounts of stimulus that are being pumped into the global economy actually make their way to the most hard-hit regions of the economy, namely ‘Mainstreet’, and thereby mitigate the damage that would otherwise be experienced for many small and medium-sized businesses on which most economies rely. While we tend to focus on home first, litigation funders should also be mindful that the economy is global.  As bad as developed countries think they may have it, fund managers who participate in the international arbitration market, which by definition, involve developing countries and corporations therein, need to be mindful that those defendants in developing countries will likely be even more greatly affected. Yes, even sovereigns. Those managers that are focused on patent litigation involving start-up technology companies should also ensure the plaintiff is solvent through the end of the litigation, not to mention the collectability risk of the defendant, which may have been negatively impacted. All of this is to say, that it is in the best interests of litigation finance managers to undertake a re-assessment of collectability risk of each and every defendant in their portfolio, and to do so on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.  Managers will need to assess (i) the degree to which the defendant’s industry has been impacted, (ii) the strength of each defendant’s business and balance sheet, (iii) the ability for the defendant (business or sovereign) to access sufficient capital to maintain solvency, (iv) the degree to which the value of such business has declined, (v) a study of the defendants’ behaviour during the last economic crisis, as it relates to litigation ongoing at that time, if any, (vi) determine the extent to which other parties have security and seniority ahead of the plaintiff’s claims and (vii) assess the defendants’ ability to raise capital outside of financing (i.e. asset sales, equity raises, etc.). Once a determination has been made as to the relative collectability risk, managers will then need to determine next steps with respect to protecting themselves from those cases where the defendant collectability risk has materially changed.  This may involve the withdrawal of any further financing provisions (to the extent the financing was milestone-based), partnering with other parties to share the increased risk of the case, or selling all or a portion of a case or a portfolio (although the manager would be selling into a weak secondary market with relatively few participants, which will be reflected in the valuation, if they can secure bids).  While the options may not be great, they may be better than investing ‘good money after bad’. Investor Insights For investors that are invested in the sector or considering making an investment in the litigation finance market, now is a good time to diligence how and the extent to which managers were on top of their portfolio in assessing collectability risk.  For those investors interested in secondary market opportunities, caveat emptor.  The risk profile for a single case secondary is much higher given the high level of uncertainty in today’s market so a portfolio of secondaries may be a better risk-adjusted avenue to pursue but the portfolio’s diversification benefits would not negate the need to reassess the collectability risk of each defendant in the portfolio.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

SYDNEY, 14 April 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX:OBL) is delighted to announce the appointment of Raymond van Hulst to the Board of Directors, effective 9 April 2020. Mr van Hulst’s appointment follows the November 2019 merger of IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway and the adoption of the Omni Bridgeway name across the unified, global business. Mr van Hulst is a Managing Director of the Omni Bridgeway business that was acquired by OBL (then IMF Bentham Limited) in November 2019. Mr van Hulst has close to two decades of experience in structuring innovative solutions for complex and high value litigation funding and legal enforcement matters. He has a successful track record of managing the asset identification processes, enforcement strategies and settlement negotiations for multiple prominent (sovereign) awards and judgments. In addition, Mr van Hulst has established two institutionally backed funds (Fund 6 and Fund 7) aimed at funding legal disputes and enforcement matters, including with the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Mr van Hulst was with ABN AMRO Bank Structured Finance, based out of India and Europe and he holds an MBA from INSEAD. Mr van Hulst has been appointed as an additional director and will stand for election at the 2020 annual general meeting. Omni Bridgeway Chairman, Mr Michael Kay said: “I warmly welcome Raymond van Hulst to the Board as an executive director.  His leadership of Omni Bridgeway’s business in Europe and the Middle East and extensive global experience make him a valuable addition to our team.” ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY Omni Bridgeway is a global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Since 1986 it has established a proud record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:OBL) and includes the leading dispute funders formerly known as IMF Bentham Limited, Bentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

This publication will be hosting a special digital conference on April 16th, discussing the topic of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on the litigation funding and broader legal services industry. Guest speakers for the conference will include:

Eric Blinderman CEO (U.S.) Therium

Ralph Sutton Founder Validity Finance

Paul Haskel  Partner RK&O

Additional speakers to follow.

The panel discussion will be moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, and there will be a Q&A session with audience questions following the panel.

Here is the link to attend: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/how-is-covid-19-impacting-the-litigation-funding-industry-tickets-101938809724 Additionally, Eric Blinderman contributed a recent article discussing how the Coronavirus outbreak has forced businesses to adapt to help prevent further economic slowdown. We look forward to having you attend the conference! - The LFJ Team

The following piece was contributed by Joshua Libling, Portfolio Counsel at Validity Finance, LLC. Litigation finance has always billed itself as a way of helping meritorious claims regardless of the economic strength of the litigant. The coronavirus pandemic is now exerting enormous and growing stress on law firms and clients. If ever there was a moment for litigation finance to live up to its own hype, this is it. We think it can. Keeping Plaintiff Cases Running at Reduced Cost.  Paying hourly fees to a law firm may be low on the priority list when weighed against retaining key employees or preserving cash for an economic re-start. But having the right priorities doesn’t change the fact that clients with pending claims deserve to see an appropriate return.  Funders can assist in at least two ways. First, by converting hourly rate cases into hybrid contingency fee cases, clients can continue litigating claims without outlaying funds. Funders will pay law firms 50% or more of their hourly fees and potentially all costs, as needed, in return for about 20% of any recovery.  The law firm would also be entitled to a similar contingency, leaving clients with the bulk of the case proceeds. This can be good for both the client and the law firm. The client gets to reduce its expenditures. The law firm takes or continues a case that may have become a de facto contingency case anyway because of the client’s resources constraints, or may have disappeared altogether, and gets 50% of its billables paid now with participation in the upside later. Second, economic pressures unrelated to the merits of the litigation can cause clients to accept unreasonably low settlement offers.  Sometimes settling is the right thing to do.  But settling for too little is no different than any other asset fire-sale. A funder can help by ensuring that the resources exist to continue the litigation, if that is the best course. Again, this should help all parties. The client doesn’t sell an asset on the cheap, and the law firm protects a meritorious ongoing case. Monetizing New Plaintiff Cases.  This is a time when many clients need to be taking a hard look at their balance sheets and maximizing their assets. A meritorious claim is an asset, but it is an unproductive asset unless you litigate it. Funding can help monetize a company’s litigation assets. Even in the pre-litigation, investigation stage, funders can assist in identifying claims, independently confirming case merits, connecting clients without lawyers to a small group of suitable and efficient counsel to choose from, and making the necessary investments to effectively pursue the case. In fair funding transactions, clients will still retain the lion’s share of the upside. Because a funder’s capital is non-recourse to any other collateral, this kind of arrangement offers  upside opportunity without downside risk to a client, and a contingency recovery to the law firm. Clients can take a litigation asset they would otherwise get nothing from, turn it into something productive, and minimize risk while doing so. Helping Defendants With Trouble Paying.  The lack of capital and decreased ability to tolerate outflows is not limited to the plaintiff side of the v. Law firms are seeing clients unable or unwilling to properly fund their defense, and clients are being faced with difficult trade offs between continuing to defend their legal rights and directing that capital to their core business needs. Funding can help these clients and law firms also. Defense-side cases can be turned into partial contingency matters through the negotiation of success fees or similar arrangements that define and monetize what victory means on the defense side. Funding can draw its return from that success fee and pay a portion of defense costs to the law firm in the interim, reducing the burden on the client (perhaps to nothing during the pendency of litigation) and providing the law firm with a reliable stream of paid work. Bundling Plaintiff and Defense Cases to Reduce Fee Exposure.  Law firms and clients look forward to inflows of proceeds from strong plaintiff cases.  Clients must defend claims against them.  By bundling plaintiff and defense-side litigation together, funding provides capital for both affirmative claims and defensive needs. In effect, the client uses the value of the plaintiff-side litigations to reduce their costs on the defense side, thereby reducing outlays and smoothing their risk profile.  Most obviously, the risk of continuing fee exposure can be greatly mitigated. This can work at the law firm level as well as the client level. Enhancing Law Firm Growth. Law firms will need to pitch to companies facing just the kind of liquidity or capital issues that funders can help solve. Law firms with pre-existing relationships and in-place portfolios with funders will have a competitive edge because they can offer contingency fee arrangements at the outset of the competitive process. Funding can thus speed up client matter acquisition. Funding is not limited to plaintiff-side litigations. A firm that has a stable of plaintiff-side contingency cases can use those litigations, and funding, to create bundled portfolios of mixed defense-plaintiff matters. Moreover, funding can provide a mechanism for investing in firm growth, allowing firms to share the risk of large portfolios of cases, or even to hire new partners to bring business to the firm. Difficult times call for creative solutions and new ways of doing business. But being creative doesn’t have to mean doing something untested. In the United States, litigation funding has been providing increased liquidity and decreased risk to companies and firms for over a decade. In Australia and the United Kingdom, funding has been used effectively for even longer. Litigation assets should not be squandered, nor sold for bargain basement prices, nor made to sit idle for months or years when clients urgently need capital. The time for funding to make a significant contribution to clients and firms is now.  If you have litigation assets and need to extract value from them, or need to reduce your litigation costs or risks, this is the moment to be creative.  Funding can help.