Trending Now

All Articles

3453 Articles

Amicus Capital Group Announces Program to Acquire Litigation Loans

Amicus Capital Group (“Amicus”), a specialty finance company headquartered in Los Angeles County, California, has announced the extension and expansion of its program to purchase loans made to contingency-based law firms, with a special interest in portfolios of troubled or under-performing assets. According to the company's LinkedIn page, the program offers lenders who have experienced problems in collecting such loans a highly effective way to recover the maximum portion of monies advanced in a timely and highly efficient manner. Amicus is a longstanding provider of financial services to America’s trial lawyers, including direct loans, factoring of legal fees, portfolio acquisitions, financial restructuring, and management consulting services. Amicus Capital Services has been a major participant in the legal finance industry since its inception in 2005 and the company’s founder, William D. Tilley, has accumulated more than twenty years of experience in the field of legal finance. The company’s loan acquisition team is comprised of seasoned veterans of the legal finance industry who have more than 45 years of combined experience providing financing to trial lawyers who represent plaintiffs in a wide range of litigation, including everything from cases based upon injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents to complex injuries, such as medical malpractice claims, and even incorporating complicated mass torts and class action litigation. Amicus combines expertise in direct loans to law firms, including advances based upon individual claims, lines of credit secured by entire portfolios of active cases, and the purchase of legal fees awaiting disbursement of funds on cases that have been settled or have otherwise reached final disposition. These loans include credit facilities secured by reimbursable costs of litigation, projected future legal fees, and/or the factoring of fees yet to be disbursed. The company’s expertise extends across the entire United States and parts of Canada. Based upon the company’s extensive experience in this industry, Amicus possesses the unique ability to analyze even the most complex loans and/or other financial mechanisms that have been made to attorneys and/or law firms and can effectively identify what lenders can hope to recover from these investments. As such, Amicus can generate the best possible offers for everything from performing loans to deeply trouble portfolios. Based upon the skillsets of the management team at Amicus Capital Group, the company is particularly effective at working with law firms to enhance efficiency and streamline operations to improve operating performance and, thereby, improving the chances of recovering money previously advanced to trouble borrowers. These combined abilities, Amicus provides stressed lenders and troubled borrowers with the highest likelihood of a favorable, efficient outcome, even in situations that initially appear unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Amicus has an impressive track record in this industry, both in terms of generating initial loans and in purchasing troubled assets. For more information, contact William D. Tilley, President, by E-mail at Bill@AmicusCapitalGroup.com, or by phone at (888) 700-1088.

SPONSORED POST: ELEV8 ANNOUNCES LITIGATION FINANCE CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN NYC

ELEV8: Litigation Finance conference unveils the latest investment opportunities and trends in the exploding litigation market that has grown by over 400% in the last 5 years. For investors, litigation finance presents a vehicle to deploy capital uncorrelated to equity or debt markets, with the opportunity to realize significant returns. The conference connects investors, law firms, plaintiff, thought leaders and regulatory agencies in order to facilitate actionable dialogue and foster a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. In support of that mission, we sponsor an ongoing effort to share information and build confidence in deal making to accelerate the growth of litigation finance.

We’re announcing the program on February 15th, and in advance of that release we’re reaching out to key organizations that would benefit from participating in the program and supporting the growth of the industry.

Hear from authoritative speakers and experts on litigation finance. Close deals, network, and learn about this exploding industry and the current state of litigation financing opportunities over the next 12 months.

Participants include decision-makers with the following roles and titles: Private Equity Investors, Hedge Fund Investors. Corporate C-Suite Executives. General Counsel, Chief Litigation Counsel, Intellectual Property Executives, Strategic Advisors, Inventors, Analysts and Media, Technology Transfer Executives, Law Firm Litigators & Attorneys, Bankruptcy Attorneys, Arbitrators and Mediators, Insurance Executives, Litigation Finance Investors and organizations interested in understanding the rapidly growing litigation finance market.

To contact our team and learn more please click here.
Dene Coria
Executive Assistant at Elev8
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By Nick Pontt |
In this episode, we sit down with Nick Pontt, the newest addition to UK-based consumer and commercial funder, Affiniti Finance. Nick discusses the ins and outs of Affiniti's unique business model, the types of claims the funder looks to finance, what separates Affiniti from the competition, and what the future holds for the company and broader litigation funding industry. [podcast_episode episode="4946" content="title,player,details"]

DOJ Considers Requiring False Claims Act Whistleblowers to Disclose Litigation Funding

Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox of the Justice Department gave a speech on Monday to False Claims Act (FCA) attorneys, and Cox expressed concern that DOJ doesn't know the extent to which FCA attorneys are using litigation funding. Cox mentioned that Justice is considering mandating disclosure of litigation funding agreements for FCA whistleblowers. As reported in Reuters, DOJ is acting on the heels of a disclosure push in Congress (there is a Senate bill that seeks to disclose all funding in class actions and MDLs, which has been idling in committee for some time), as well as the pressure exerted by business entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Cox further noted that DOJ recently became increasingly concerned that funders are facilitating spurious litigation after Justice moved to dismiss 10 FCA claims which were backed by a litigation funding entity. Nine of the 10 claims were dismissed by the court. Disclosure of litigation funding in FCA claims could swing both ways. On the one hand, prosecutors may be more likely to seek dismissal of funded claims knowing that DOJ is critical of whistleblower/funder partnerships. On the other hand, if a litigation funder has vetted the claim and invested in it, that might give prosecutors some sense of certainty that the claim has merit. There's one more wrinkle here: in the case of  Ruckh v. Salus Rehabilitation, which is currently before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, there is a motion before the court to dismiss Ruckh’s appeal because she partnered with a litigation funder. Ruckh allegedly sold 4% of her stake in the claim to a newly-formed LLC called ARUS. Law firm Skadden is arguing that the the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. asserts that whistleblowers are not permitted to sell any stake in their claim to a third party. Rukh's attorneys have countered that nothing in the statute prohibits the sale of a minority stake in an FCA claim to a litigation funder. Should the 11th Circuit agree with Skadden's interpretation of the statute, however, that would essentially nullify all funding in FCA whistleblower claims.

GLS Capital Raises $345 Million for Litigation Finance Fund

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GLS Capital, LLC today announced the completion of fundraising of its inaugural litigation finance fund, GLS Capital Partners Fund I, LP. Together with its affiliates, the Fund has investor commitments totaling more than $345 million. The Fund’s diverse institutional investor base includes global financial institutions, endowments, foundations and family offices. GLS invests in complex situations involving commercial litigation and arbitration, as well as intellectual property disputes in both the technology and pharmaceutical industries. The firm will structure creative and flexible solutions for businesses and law firms that are looking to better manage litigation and balance-sheet risks. “We are excited to launch our first fund in a growing and dynamic asset class,” said David Spiegel, Managing Director of GLS. “Our fundraising significantly exceeded our initial target size, reflecting a high level of investor interest in our ability to be successful.” Spiegel and his co-founders, Adam Gill and Jamison Lynch, stand out as an experienced and tested team in litigation finance. They previously executed and managed more than $400 million in investments at two of the world’s largest litigation finance providers. Before entering litigation finance, they were litigators at elite international law firms. Lynch also served as the co-head of global patent litigation at a leading pharmaceutical company. The firm intends to harness the deep experience of its founders to efficiently evaluate investment opportunities and streamline the underwriting process. The founders form GLS’ investment committee and have full investment authority. About GLS Capital Formed in 2018, GLS Capital is one of the world’s largest private investment firms focused on legal and regulatory risk. We provide bespoke financial solutions to meet the unique needs of each investment opportunity. For more information, please visit: www.glscap.com

Maarten van Luyn joins Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham in Europe as Director of Collective Redress

AMSTERDAM, 23 January 2020: Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF) are delighted to announce the addition of veteran commercial lawyer, Mr Maarten van Luyn, to the company's expanding Europe team. Maarten joins as Director of Collective Redress, based in Amsterdam, where he will source, assess and manage high value strategic litigation finance solutions throughout Europe, with a focus on group claims and LegalTech solutions for group claims. Maarten's appointment follows the recent news in 2019 of IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway's merger, which created the largest dispute financing team in the world. Maarten was formerly a Partner in the Amsterdam office of leading international law firm, Baker & McKenzie, where he managed an international practice in corporate law & litigation, finance, banking & securities. He was also previously a Partner at boutique litigation firm BarentsKrans, based in The Hague. In private practice, Maarten specialised in strategic litigation involving regulated industries. He acted in commercial transactions and litigation spanning structured/corporate finance, capital markets, and financial services. His clients included local and international banks, custodians, fund managers, investment funds, insurance companies, stock exchanges, and large corporates. Maarten was also the former Director/General Counsel of Aegon Netherlands, an international financial services conglomerate. Maarten van Luyn said: "Having been a Partner in private practice as well as an in-house General Counsel of an international financial institution, it is an exciting progression for me to now join Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham, especially at this time. The combination of Omni Bridgeway and IMF Bentham creates one of the world's truly global financiers, leading the market for third-party dispute finance. This market is rapidly coming of age." Raymond van Hulst, Managing Director of Omni Bridgeway, said: "We are thrilled to welcome Maarten to our team. With more than 25 years of both international and local experience, Maarten brings with him a wealth of expertise, skills and a deep professional network. He also joins us at an exciting time of growth, alongside the merger of IMF Bentham with Omni Bridgeway, allowing us to provide a truly unparalleled depth of service and expertise to our global client-base." ABOUT IMF BENTHAM AND OMNI BRIDGEWAY Following the merger of the IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway operations in November 2019, the combined group 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. IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway offer end-to-end dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation financing solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of litigation and dispute financing assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced litigation financing team overseeing its investments, delivering, as at 30 June 2019, an 89% success rate across 192 completed cases (excluding withdrawals). Visit imf.com.au to learn more. Omni Bridgeway was founded in the Netherlands in 1986 and is known as a leading financier of high-value claims and a global specialist in cross-border (sovereign) enforcement disputes. The Omni Bridgeway group includes ROLAND ProzessFinanz, a leading German litigation funder which became part of Omni Bridgeway in 2017, and a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). The joint venture is aimed at assisting banks with the funding and managing the enforcement of non-performing loans and related disputes in the Middle East and Africa. Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

Manolete Partners Releases Investor Presentation

UK-based Manolete Partners has published its latest investor presentation - a 15-minute showcase of the UK insolvency litigation market, and explanation of how litigation funding will benefit lawyers and practitioners in the space. As reported in Directors Talk Interviews, Manolete is a pure insolvency funding company based in the UK. The company is also one of only a handful of funders that are publicly-traded, being listed on London's AIM exchange. CEO and founder Steven Cooklin leads the presentation, which explains how Manolete works alongside insolvency practitioners to maximize profits for clients and mitigate risk. The presentation addresses key concepts like the total addressable market -- 2,300 insolvency claims per year in the UK, leading to £500MM of cash recoveries. Cooklin also points out how insolvency is the only area of law where a third party can purchase a claim outright, leading the funder to purchase 90% of their claim investments. This provides Manolete control, and allows them to mitigate risk, thus enabling the company to invest in the smaller end of the market, which most funders eschew. The case values of their investments range from £20K to £70MM. The company currently has 150 active cases, which account for over half of funded UK insolvency claims. Funded insolvency claims make up 7% of total insolvency claims in the UK. Manolete's goal is to grow both of those numbers, and acquire a dominant share of the £500MM UK insolvency market.

Litigation Finance Firm BlueWhite Legal Capital Expands Team With Experienced Law And Finance Professionals

NEW YORKJan. 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- BlueWhite Legal Capital ("BlueWhite"), a privately-held litigation finance firm, today announced that Daniel Stone, most recently with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Joseph Magnus, most recently with Morgan Stanley, have joined the firm as Managing Directors. Both individuals bring deep expertise in their respective fields of law and finance.

Daniel Stone comes from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation at both the federal and state level. Prior to that, Daniel clerked for Judge Janet Hall of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. He holds a JD from NYU School of Law and a BA in History from Yale University.

Joseph Magnus is a senior risk management executive with decades of experience in managing complex transactions, portfolios, and products. He was most recently Managing Director at Morgan Stanley and Head of U.S. Mortgage Credit Risk, as well as Chief Credit Officer for Morgan Stanley Home Loans. Joseph holds a MBA in Finance from the State University of New York at Albany and a BS in Applied Mathematics and Economics from State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Both Stone and Magnus will be responsible for evaluating and monitoring funding opportunities and investments, as well as analyzing significant legal and business issues. Stone's focus will include underwriting and managing relationships with funded parties and counsel. Magnus will have the additional responsibility of supervising the financial aspects of investment performance and maintaining BlueWhite's compliance and risk management framework.

Stone and Magnus join Jules KrollAaron RubinsteinEarl Doppelt, and Jack Blackburn, who founded BlueWhite in order to provide strategic financing for complex commercial litigation matters, with a specific focus on breach of contract, securities, antitrust, fraud, breach of duty, bankruptcy, intellectual property and asset recovery.

The four BlueWhite founders said, "We are delighted to announce that Daniel and Joseph are joining our BlueWhite team. Both of these professionals bring significant expertise in their fields and a wealth of valuable experience. We look forward to their contributions as BlueWhite continues to grow as a leading strategic financing partner for companies and law firms."

For further information about BlueWhite Legal Capital, please visit BlueWhiteLegalCapital.com.

Value in Litigation & Implications for Litigation Finance

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 Summary
  • 3 Phases of Risk:
    • De-Risking
    • Optimum Resolution
    • Re-Risking
  • Optimum risk-adjusted zone is when information is maximized and trial has yet to begin
  • Once a trial begins, outcomes become binary in the absence of a settlement
  • Diversification is critical to investing in the litigation finance sector
Investor Insights
  • In assessing portfolio performance, it’s crucial to determine the extent of trial outcomes
  • Assess settlement performance in the context of industry settlement rates
  • Generally, a high percentage of cases are settled
  • Certain case types have lower settlement rates, so there is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach to analyzing portfolio performance
I was speaking recently with a local litigation finance manager about the value of a piece of litigation in the context of litigation finance.  As I thought more about the discussion and the implications for settlements and maximizing outcomes, I felt compelled to relay the thoughts in an article for other industry participants to consider and argue.  Keep in mind that this is a simplistic view of a piece of litigation, as most litigation has layers of complexity that influence valuation, not to mention precedents in other jurisdictions. Value The intrinsic value of a piece of litigation is made up of a number of components that lawyers, plaintiffs and litigation finance managers assess as they underwrite their investment decision, which typically consist of the following:
merits of the casedefense counsel effectiveness
collectability of damagesdefendant’s conduct re: previous litigation
quantum of damagesplaintiff counsel effectiveness
justice considerations (judiciary and jurisdiction)
For the purposes of this article, we will mainly reference early stage, pre-settlement cases. Editor’s note– the following contribution appears with illustrative graphs and charts here.   Value is not a static concept in litigation.  Nevertheless, litigation fund managers have to determine approximate value; or a value range at the very early stages of a case when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty, relatively few facts and little to nothing in terms of judicial proceedings.  In the context of litigation, value varies with time (while time may add value in the short term by virtue of contributing to the amount of information that can be gathered on the case, the longer a case drags on past the point where maximum information is available, the less valuable time becomes due to the time value of money). Value also varies proportionately – or perhaps disproportionately – with risk, which is in turn influenced by information. That is to say, unknown data may come to light that becomes beneficial or harmful to the merits of your case and may influence its outcome and/or quantum. As an example, the ‘certification’ process of a class action in certain jurisdictions has a meaningful impact on whether the class proceeds with the action, and ultimately is a strong determinant of success, typically through settlement. Of course, in all jurisdictions, another major contributing factor is access to capital so plaintiffs can finance the pursuit of their meritorious claims to the point of collection of damages – enter litigation finance. We will assume for the remainder of this article that all cases have the appropriate amount of financing. As discussed, the value of a case is determined by two factors: risk and time.  All cases start where risk is at a maximum, as there is relatively little information known about the case and hence a great degree of uncertainty about its outcome. As plaintiff and counsel build their case and proceed through discovery, the case generally becomes ‘de-risked’ as the plaintiff team grows more comfortable about the merits of their case and the quantum of damages. As we move through the case, we enter the zone of ‘optimum resolution’. However, ‘optimum resolution’ is not necessarily a value maximizing concept, but rather a concept of risk-adjusted value maximization.  The risk-adjusted aspect stems from the fact that both sides have about equal information concerning the dispute, and are now able to make a rational decision as to the possible outcomes and damage quantification. At the point where the process moves past the Optimum Resolution phase, the parties enter into a new phase of risk which is reflective of the binary risk nature of litigation, whereby the outcome is determined by a third party judiciary. As the plaintiff gathers more information regarding his or her case, the case generally increases in value as risk diminishes.  However, at the point where a judicial process commences (and assuming a settlement doesn’t occur between the start of the process and the decision), the investment bifurcates into two potential outcomes on the assumption that there is no resolution after the start of the trial - generally, either a win or a loss outcome.  In certain jurisdictions where they have “adverse costs” or “loser pays” rules, the plaintiff will have to pay the defense costs, and so there is a real financial cost in addition to the lost opportunity associated with a positive outcome.  Implications The purpose of this analysis is to focus the plaintiff on the fact that on a risk-adjusted basis, the zone of Optimum Resolution is the most advantageous point in the litigation process to resolve the case, as it reflects the point of most knowledge and least risk.  This is the point in time to cast aside all emotional elements of the case and the impact of damages incurred, and focus on a realistic outcome that can be achieved through negotiation and settlement, regardless of whether it makes the plaintiff “whole” or not.  Of course, as the old saying goes, “it takes two to tango”, and so, if the defense is not of the same opinion, or their analysis is skewed, they may have a very different perspective on the appropriate settlement amount.  In the case of insurance companies as defendants in cases, they may have other considerations such as statutory reserve requirements or corporate strategic reasons to delay as long as possible (time value of money and the impact on their insurance reserves and investment returns).  Nevertheless, the concept applies to both defense and plaintiff, which is the reason for high settlement rates in most litigation in all jurisdictions. From an investor’s perspective, there should be a recognition that as each case in their portfolio extends beyond the zone of Optimum Resolution, the risk to their portfolio increases.  Accordingly, if you are an institutional investor buying a secondary pool of litigation finance assets, you want to be sure you are not buying a series of old cases where the binary risk is high and you are not getting an appropriate discount to assume the risk.  Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule.  The reason a case has extended for a long period of time may be because the plaintiff has had successive wins at various levels of judiciary and the risk has started to shift away from binary litigation risk toward collection and enforcement risk (Burford’s investment in the ‘Petersen claim’ is a prime example of this phenomenon). Needless to say, litigation is not a formulaic science, and because of the large degree of human interaction and case complexity, it will be relegated into the “arts” category for the time being.  Perhaps artificial intelligence can add a scientific element to determining value and litigation outcomes, but until the vast knowledge of settlement data becomes publicly available, the industry will depend on ‘gut instinct’ and litigation experience in making its decisions.  From an investment perspective, the important point is that diversification is critical to capture the upside inherent in the asset class, while minimizing the downside inherent in the inevitable losses that will be experienced. Important Considerations  Other important factors to consider are the use of contingent fee arrangements and litigation finance, and the impact those characteristics have on the ultimate value of a piece of litigation.  Some in the litigation finance community will argue that they will only consider providing financing to cases where the lawyer is providing their services on a 100% contingent basis (there could be jurisdiction specific constraints to the use of contingent fee arrangements), as this fosters alignment between plaintiff and lawyer to maximize the value of the claim.  Certainly, the alignment argument makes intuitive sense.  However, not every funder is convinced of this fact, and unfortunately, there is not a broad set of data that is definitive in this regard.  Accordingly, until the data determines there is a strong correlation between contingent fee arrangements and outcomes, it remains to be seen.  On one of the panels at the September 2019 LF Dealmakers conference, a litigation funder stated that the company’s empirical data suggests there is no correlation, and hence contingency fee arrangements are not a significant feature to their underwriting process. Yet it’s worth pointing out that many funders feel strongly that the alignment argument is a good one, so they refuse to invest in a case without at least some level of legal counsel fee contingency. Then there is the existence and use of litigation funding itself.  One could argue that the very existence of a plaintiff’s use of a litigation funder to pursue its case will shift the balance of power and ‘level the playing field’ between the plaintiff and the defendant, especially in a David v. Goliath situation where the defendant is ‘deep pocketed’ and the plaintiff relatively impecunious.  As an investor in the industry, not only do I subscribe to the theory, I have seen the results.  While many would suggest it is difficult to parse the effect of litigation funding from the effect of good legal representation and a meritorious claim, I look at the results of relatively small financings and I can see a correlation between success and short duration, which I, in large part, ascribe to the existence of litigation finance. Investor Insights: As a consequence of the above, when I review track records for fund managers one of the metrics I look at is how often the realized outcomes are dependent on a judicial decision (bench, trial or arbitral) as compared to an outcome determined through settlement.  Overall, the data concerning litigation outcomes illustrates that a high percentage of cases (90%+) are settled prior to a judicial decision and so we need to view the results in the context of industry settlement rates. Generally speaking, and depending on the case type and jurisdiction, I have a strong preference for fund managers that have a disproportionate number of settlements in their realized portfolios as opposed to outcomes that were derived from a judicial decision, given the binary nature of those outcomes.  In certain jurisdictions, litigation funders are able to have some influence on the settlement discussions which may tend to favour higher settlement rates, so this issue and my approach to it is not identical in every jurisdiction.  Another influencing factor on settlement rates is case types and case sizes.  Generally speaking, I have noticed that outcomes dependent on judicial/arbitral decisions are correlated with larger cases and certain case types (as an example, International Arbitration cases would be one area where settlement is less likely and hence arbitral outcomes more prevalent). Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.