Trending Now

All Articles

3308 Articles
Commercial

New Jersey Court Reaffirms Litigation Funding in Woodsford IP Claims

In the case of WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media LLC, Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-02340, a New Jersey court has reaffirmed that the pursuit of litigation funding by a plaintiff - in this case a partnership with Woodsford Litigation Funding - does not harm standing. As reported in Nat Law Review, WAG Acquisition owns a pair of patents related to streaming media buffering systems, which it sought to enforce in a series of 10 disputes against various adult website operators. Several defendants sought to remove WAG's standing given the litigation funding agreement with Woodsford. The funding agreement gave Woodsford right of first refusal on any potential claim, but allowed WAG to pursue any claim which Woodsford refused fund. Only WAG could initiate a claim, yet Woodsford maintained the right to reject any settlement offer. Should WAG and Woodsford disagree on whether or not to settle, a third party expert would be entrusted to make a binding decision. Woodsford is entitled to less than 50% of any damages claim, though it maintains first payout. And should WAG default, the patents themselves are transferred to Woodsford. Based on these terms, the defendants argued that the funding agreement transferred significant rights to Woodsford - so much so, that WAG lacked standing to enforce its patents. They argued that Woodsford essentially controlled the litigation, and that Woodsford's involvement necessitated negotiation with a non-party entity - one that had ownership rights in the patents no less, given that they'd be transferred to Woodsford should WAG default. However the court rejected those claims, on the basis that Woodsford cannot compel WAG to settle (Woodsford can only reject a settlement offer, and prompt a third party's binding decision). Additionally, Woodford's interest in WAG's patents do not amount to ownership, only a security on its investment. The court's decision reaffirms a plaintiff's standing with respect to seeking a funding agreement - even one with some (arguably) onerous terms.
Announcements Commercial

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Burford Capital Limited

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Burford Capital Limited (OTC: BRFRF, BRFRY) from March 18, 2015 through August 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Burford investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Burford class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Burford has been manipulating its metrics, including ROIC and IRR, to create a misleading picture of investment returns to investors; (2) these manipulations hid the fact that the Company is at high risk for a liquidity crunch and is already arguably insolvent; and (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants’ statements about Burford’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 21, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail 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.

Contacts

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
Commercial

How GCs Can Benefit from Litigation Finance in the Current Economic Environment

Study after study shows that General Counsel are growing more and more interested in the product of litigation finance, yet the adoption rates remain low. There are numerous hurdles, not the least of which is cultural: many GCs simply retract from the idea that their role and responsibility should transform from cost container to revenue producer. That said, given the shifting economic climate, it's worth taking another look at how litigation funding can benefit GCs and the balance sheets they are entrusted to safeguard. As reported in Crypto Coin Discovery, litigation finance helps move risk off the corporate balance sheet - not just litigation risk, but interest rate risk as well. Rates have whipsawed over the last year, and it's getting more and more difficult to predict Fed moves and future outcomes. So if corporates want to hedge their bets here, freeing up capital by engaging with litigation funders is a terrific option, and one that provides increased flexibility as the interest rate environment continues to fluctuate. Additionally, litigation finance is growing more sophisticated. Defense-side funding is slowly-but-surely evolving, and this is likely to spur more corporate interest. As corporates begin to bundle portfolios of plaintiff-side claims with defense-cases, expect the GC community to take notice. It's one thing to try to sell GCs on the idea of turning a cost center into a profit center, it's quite another to sell them on expanding their cost center, which defense-side funding is capable of achieving. All of this comes in addition to the accounting and operational benefits that corporations accrue when engaging with funders. When times are good, perhaps these benefits are less substantial. But with the global economy on shaky ground, GCs should certainly take a closer look at all of their options.
Announcements Commercial

Second Annual Litigation Finance Dealmakers Forum to Be Held on September 18-19 in New York City

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Premier Event in Litigation Finance to Feature Innovative Program, One-to-One Meetings, Industry Leaders, and Keynote Speaker Stephen Susman

Amid continued growth and developments in the litigation finance market, the leading companies and executives in the industry will convene at the Second Annual LF Dealmakers Forum to be held in New York on September 18-19. The keynote speaker will be Stephen Susman, one of the nation’s top trial lawyers and founder of Susman Godfrey, a nationally recognized firm specializing in high stakes litigation.

Two hundred executives are scheduled to attend the highly anticipated LF Dealmakers Forum, which has quickly become the signature gathering in the litigation finance space and builds on the success of the inaugural event last year. The exclusive event will be attended by a hand-selected group that includes leading executives from law firms, litigation finance firms, corporations, institutional investors, and advisors.

The forum will feature a mix of interactive sessions, roundtable discussions, and case studies designed to provide attendees with insights into deals, data, and regulatory trends.

LF Dealmakers Forum will also provide attendees with exclusive opportunities to expand referral networks and discuss new business through thirty-minute one-to-one meetings. More than 150 meetings were scheduled at the inaugural LF Dealmakers Forum last year.

“This was the “go-to” conference for litigation funding. The speakers were prepared, the content was strong, and the participants wanted to connect with each other,” said Collin Cox, Partner, Yetter Coleman LLP, following the conclusion of the inaugural event.

A-list attendees include top executives from sponsoring companies such as Longford Capital, Mintz, ME Group, Bentham IMF, Brown Rudnick, Burford, Curiam, Validity, Westfleet Advisors, the D. E. Shaw Group, Houlihan Lokey, HTS, Parabellum, and Therium.

“The LF Dealmakers Forum really delivered on all fronts from the opening keynote to the closing remarks,” said Brian Haan, Partner, Lee Sheikh Megley & Haan about last year’s event. “Candid panel discussions with leading financiers, executives, academics, and attorneys provided invaluable insight through topical debate.”

For more information about the Litigation Finance Dealmakers Forum and to apply for attendance at the limited seating event, please visit https://lfdealmakersforum.com/.

Media and other partnership inquiries may be directed to Wendy Chou at 718-812-6707 or wendy@dealmakersforums.com.

About Dealmakers Forums

Dealmakers Forums specializes in high interaction conferences that bring together select groups of forward-thinking, global executives for meaningful dialogue, debate and dealmaking. Developed in collaboration with industry leading practitioners, our events present timely issues that matter, real case studies, A-list speakers, and our signature one-to-one meetings. For more information about Dealmakers Forums and the 2019 schedule, please visit our website.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190821005329/en/

Announcements Commercial

Legal-Bay Opens Nationwide Commercial Litigation Funding Division

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, the Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced that they have launched a new lawsuit finance 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. Legal-Bay feels this is an under-served market and plans to build a new division to accommodate the needs in the market. Commercial litigation loans were created to assist plaintiffs level the playing field against deeper pocket defendants, who can simply outspend them and make winning a case more difficult. Legal-Bay's experience involving complex litigation will give hope to plaintiffs and middle market law firms that resources are available to prosecute a successful claim. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We are exciting to be expanding from our traditional personal injury and mass tort litigation to much larger commercial litigation involving complex cases that need large funding amounts. Typically, these cases have minimum requests of anywhere from $100K to $20MM and take more time to evaluate, and our network of experienced underwriters and investment bankers are eager to begin funding. We believe this is a service that will aid many plaintiffs and law firms in their quest for justice." Legal-Bay has outlined a nationwide network of outside consultants and strategic partners to properly service their clients. Their network involves organizations from New York NY, New Jersey NJ, Texas TX, Florida FL, Arizona AZ, Nevada NV, California CA, Illinois IL, Minnesota MN, Pennsylvania PA, and Connecticut CT. Legal-Bay currently funds car accidents, personal injury cases, wrongful termination, medical malpractice, clergy sex abuse, discrimination, trips and slip and fall cases, mass tort litigations and many commercial litigation cases. However, the commercial litigation funding division will focus on larger commercial litigation cases or products such as: Whistleblower or Qui Tam Cases, Breach of Contract, Executive Wrongful Termination Cases, Judgment or Verdict on Appeal Cases, Attorney or Law Firm Loans or Financing of Case Costs up to $20MM, Intellectual Property Cases, Estate or Partnership Unwinds, Franchise Protection, Franchise Protection, Security Fraud or Finra Arbitration Cases, Real Estate Cases, Partnership Fraud, Insurance Bad Faith Claims, Patent or Copyright Infringement Cases, Hospital or Surgery Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death, and any large civil lawsuits where the plaintiffs have already filed complaints.    If you are 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 at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay has now secured additional funding capital for these and other types of commercial litigation cases, and encourages plaintiffs or law firms that have been denied funding in the past not to be discouraged about applying with Legal-Bay. Most of Legal-Bay's commercial litigation funding programs are non-recourse lawsuit cash advances, also known as case funding. None of the programs should be considered to be a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre-settlement loans or a pre settlement loan; however each funding amount is different and traditional lawsuit loan terms may apply depending on the type of funding and jurisdiction. To learn more, or to apply for a commercial litigation cash advance, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.  
Commercial

There is Now a Litigation Funder Solely Focusing on IRS Whistleblower Claims

The average IRS whistleblower claim takes more than eight years to pay out, if they pay out at all. That's a huge gamble, but one that isn't stopping one new litigation funder, whose brand new fund is solely devoted to funding IRS whistleblower claims. According to Bloomberg, Charles Middleton is a former senior tax executive who has blown the whistle on a pair of prominent ex-employers: Walmart and Oxbow Carbon (owned by Bill Koch). Middleton is still waiting for a payout in each claim, but his experience as a whistleblower has prompted him to form his own litigation fund dedicated to the niche legal sector. Middleton says his experience as a tax expert differentiates him from other litigation funders who are all ex-lawyers or finance professionals. That said, it's not like Middleton will have a ton of competition in the space, since many funders wouldn't touch an IRS whistleblower claim given the exorbitantly lengthy time-to-settlement. However, the claims themselves can provide enormous paydays. In 2018, the IRS paid out nearly $300 million on just 217 claims. The largest payout was over $100 million to a former UBS banker who blew the whistle on his employer's tax shenanigans. One challenge in funding such claims is that the IRS tends not to disclose case information to whistleblowers, which makes it nearly impossible to judge whether a payout is likely. However, The Taxpayer First Act was recently signed into law, and seeks to compel the IRS to be more forthcoming with a claimant's case progress. Another challenges is the structure of the funding agreement. Funders can't purchase a portion of the claim itself, or risk regulatory backlash. So they either provide working capital to the whistleblower or the attorney. Middleton's fund - Tax Truth Capital - will fund the whistleblowers, not their attorneys. And he will target claims that are very mature, since those more than eight years in progress are likely to be meritorious. According to Middleton, there are nearly 5,000 such claims across the U.S.
Commercial

Questions Arise Over Burford Executives’ Pay

New questions have arisen over payouts to top Burford executives, including CEO Christopher Bogart and co-foudner Jonathan Molot. Despite founding the company, the pair were not actually employees of Burford Capital until 2012. Prior to that, they formed an advisory firm - Burford Group Limited - and charged Burford Capital fees for their advisory work. In the wake of the Muddy Waters allegations, the pair are facing questions about the complex financial structure, as well as their current salaries which remain undisclosed, given the fact that neither is on the company's board. As reported in This is Money, Bogart and Molot both cashed out to the tune of £120 million after selling shares of Burford Capital last year. Their share compensation was offered when they became official Burford employees in 2012, and at today's stock price are worth over £200 million. The Mail on Sunday also revealed that Bogart and Molot made £15 million in fees from 2009-2012, when they were technically advising the company they founded. Carson Block, founder of Muddy Waters, the hedge fund that has accused Burford of misreporting its financials among other things, claims that Burford's financial statements convey that the executives are pulling plenty of cash out of the business, given how high the expenses are on the balance sheet. With 120 employees, Burford's staff costs last year added up to $50 million. Burford has stated that its complex financial structure is common among financial entities, and that it is considering revealing Bogart and Molot's salaries in the interest of transparency, even though it is not compelled to do so. All of this comes as US regulators are now taking a look at the market manipulation which Burford has accused various short-sellers of. Burford claims short-sellers 'spoofed' the stock, or issued short sales then quickly recalled them, in order to drive the share price down.
Announcements Commercial

Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear an appeal in a case funded by Bentham IMF involving lawsuit against Callidus Capital Corporation

Bentham IMF Capital Limited (Bentham) is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has agreed to hear an appeal in a matter that Bentham is funding. As a result, Canada’s highest court will hear arguments for the first time relating to the important role of modern litigation funding in providing access to justice for parties, including those who are insolvent or bankrupt. The SCC will consider certain important questions, including if and how an insolvency court can approved a litigation funding arrangement (a case summary provided by the SCC is available here). This appeal does not directly relate to the merits of the underlying litigation that Bentham is funding, which is a claim for approximately $228 million by two insolvent entities (f.k.a. Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. and Bluberi Group Inc.) at al. against Callidus Capital Corporation, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Newton Glassman et al. In a typical year, about 500 applications are made for permission to bring an appeal before the SCC, with the Court granting about 10% of such applications. In order for a matter to be granted permission, the SCC must be satisfied that it raises questions of public importance. A hearing before the SCC in this matter will likely take place in early 2020. For more information about this decision, including copies of court filings, please contact Bentham IMF at the coordinates below. Bentham background Bentham is the Canadian arm of publicly-traded IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), which has 14 offices in Australia, Canada, the US, Asia and Europe. IMF has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation funding solutions and has established a diverse portfolio of litigation funding assets, assisting clients with meritorious claims across a range of industries and jurisdictions. As a pioneer of litigation funding in Australia since 2001, IMF has played a significant role in the development of a global industry. IMF has a highly experienced litigation funding team overseeing its investments. As of 31 December 2018, it has achieved a 90% success rate across 184 completed cases, thereby generating AUD$2.3 billion in recoveries.
Announcements Commercial

ParkerVision Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results; Touts Litigation Financing of its IP Claims for Reduction in Operating Costs

JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESSWIRE / August 14, 2019 / ParkerVision, Inc. (PRKR), a developer and marketer of technologies and products for wireless applications, today announced results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019.

Second Quarter 2019 Summary and Recent Developments

  • Louis Freeh and Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan LLP joined the ParkerVision litigation team in June 2019.
    • Freeh, former federal judge and FBI Director, has been admitted as the Company’s counsel alongside Mintz Levin and Mckool Smith in the Company’s two district court patent infringement cases in Florida.
  • The District Court in the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville division) issued an order denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment in the pending patent litigation against Qualcomm and Apple and also issued its claim construction (Markman) order, in which the Court adopted the Company’s proposed construction for two terms and the “plain and ordinary meaning” on the remaining terms.
    • A case management schedule has been submitted to the court with a proposed trial date in August 2020.
  • The District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando division) granted the Company’s proposed selection of patent claims from four asserted patents and denied Qualcomm’s request to limit the claims and patents, including claims that survived Qualcomm’s validity challenges through Inter Partes Review (“IPR”).
    • The court also agreed that the Company may elect to pursue accused products that were at issue at the time the case was stayed, as well as new products that were released by Qualcomm during the pendency of the stay.
    • A case management schedule has been submitted to the court with a proposed trial date in December 2020.
  • The Company has withdrawn its pursuit of appellate actions in Germany.
    • The Company declined to appeal the April 2019 decision by the District Court of Munich Germany that Apple does not infringe the Company’s German ‘853 patent.
    • The Company recently withdrew its appeal of the October 2018 decision by the Federal Patent Court in Munich that ruled the Company’s German ‘831 patent is invalid.

Second Quarter and First Half Financial Results

  • Net loss for the second quarter of 2019 was $1.6 million, or $0.05 per common share, compared to a $4.5 million net loss, or $0.18 per common share, for the second quarter of 2018.
  • Net loss for the first half of 2019 was $3.7 million, or $0.12 per common share, compared to an $8.8 million net loss, or $0.39 per common share, for the first half of 2018.
  • Cash used for operations decreased approximately 68% in the second quarter of 2019 compared to the same period in 2018 as a result of the Company’s cost reduction measures.
  • The Company sold $1.64 million in five-year, 8% convertible notes during the first half of 2019. Of this amount, $1.3 million have a fixed conversion price of $0.25 per share and $0.34 million have a fixed conversion price of $0.10 per share. The majority of the proceeds were used to finance operations, with $0.15 million used for retention payments to legal counsel engaged to assist in a wide range of litigation related activities.

Jeffrey Parker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “We are pleased with the recent decisions from the two district courts in Florida and are looking forward to having trial dates set in both of those cases. Our decisions to abandon our appellate actions in Germany were made based on the lengthy timeframe that this process requires, and our belief that the best return for our shareholders and the fairest compensation for the unauthorized use of our technologies can be achieved by focusing our resources on the two U.S. district court actions.”

Mr. Parker continued, “We have significantly reduced operating costs over the past year, and we believe those reductions, paired with additional litigation financing for the completion of our cases in Florida, will enable us to see these cases through to conclusion. Our longer-term goal is to rebuild ParkerVision’s innovative culture and to continue to bring new solutions to the challenges of a wireless world.”

About ParkerVision

ParkerVision, Inc. has designed and developed proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies which enable advanced wireless solutions for current and next generation wireless communication products. ParkerVision is engaged in a number of patent enforcement actions to protect patented rights that it believes are broadly infringed by others. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com. (PRKR-I)

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, each of which speaks only as of the date made. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties which are disclosed in the Company’s SEC reports, including the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 and the Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2019. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated or projected.

Contact: Cindy Poehlman Chief Financial Officer ParkerVision, Inc. 904-732-6100 cpoehlman@parkervision.com

ParkerVision, Inc. Balance Sheet Highlights

(in thousands)
(unaudited)
June 30, 2019
December 31, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents$63$1,527
Prepaid expenses637538
Accounts receivable and other current assets51122
Finished goods inventories5898
Property and equipment, net96129
Operating lease right-of-use assets364-
Intangible assets & other3,3573,917
Total assets4,6266,331
Accounts payable and other accrued expenses2,8101,833
Operating lease liabilities, current portion26486
Notes payable, current portion1,9332,437
Long-term liabilities28,30527,285
Shareholders' deficit(28,686)(25,310)
Total liabilities and shareholders' deficit$4,626$6,331

ParkerVision, Inc. Summary of Results of Operations (unaudited)

Three Months EndedSix Months Ended
(in thousands, except per share amounts)June 30,June 30,
2019201820192018
Product revenue$25$38$35$115
Cost of sales(25)(31)(35)(84)
Write down of obsolete inventory-(42)-(42)
Gross margin-(35)-(11)
Research and development expenses-1,0013341,875
Selling, general and administrative expenses1,8512,9024,0075,879
Total operating expenses1,8513,9034,3417,754
Interest and other income (expense)(76)(18)(138)(32)
Change in fair value of contingent payment obligation365(538)823(987)
Total interest and other289(556)685(1,019)
Net loss$(1,562)$(4,494)$(3,656)$(8,784)
Basic and diluted net loss per common share$(0.05)$(0.18)$(0.12)$(0.39)
Weighted average shares outstanding30,88824,56430,04222,672

ParkerVision, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (unaudited)

Three Months EndedSix Months Ended
(in thousands)June 30,June 30,
2019201820192018
Net cash used in operating activities$(877)$(2,775)$(2,550)$(6,126)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities-2617
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities5652,6021,0804,854
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(312)(171)(1,464)(1,255)
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning of period3752701,5271,354
Cash and cash equivalents - end of period$63$99$63$99

SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.